Guess who's back? .....just me I should be given a name at this point since my topics always include workplace etiquette. Any hoot, I find over the years one thing a lot of corporations I have worked for have in common is the outsourcing of their Human Resources team. I recall back in perhaps the early 90s working for a company, (I will call the Y Corporation) and they decided to outsource all of their recruiting team and their human resources staff. I personally thought this was a step in the wrong direction mainly for the internal candidates. Over the years I find this is so true. What I've noticed is outsourcing of the Human Resource team puts 3rd parties in the forefront of the company they now represent the company and are responsible for building an effective team of workers. While most 3rd party recruiters know so little about the company's history or their company statement, and they use recruiting software that puts internal candidates and external candidates all in the same pool.
By placing all candidates in the same pool an internal employee is not recognized for their length of employment with that company, system knowledge for that company or that employee's dedication or loyalty. This recruiting method can create a very negative outcome for employer surveys and creates a questionable unstable work environment. Records will show that most employees end up leaving companies that practice this form of recruitment because it doesn't show much loyalty to the hard dedicated workers. The big question that I still have is what makes an employer hire a candidate outside of the company versus promoting their employees from within? Speaking of candidates with similar pay grades, educational background and work experience, how does a recruiter make the justification for hiring that external candidate?
Piggybacking off of the previous question how does the employer think that employee feels when they end up working with an ex co-worker from a previous company who has now landed a position, that same position you were denied for? Talk about a slap in the face. The 3rd party employers don't know or care about such matters because they don't work closely with the people they hire. They are only interested in the onboarding process. In the past prior to outsourcing of Human Resources jobs were given based on past experiences, and their merit and promoting from within was number one in the hiring process. Now I have seen so many jobs posted external and internally at the same timeframes, not giving the internal candidates much of a choice before being posted out there to the external candidates.
Keep in mind although we have been told there is a difference I beg to differ. How do we turn this situation into a positive outcome for internal employees? How do we change and go back to the way recruiting was meant to be FAIR! Ok not fair, fair is an unrealistic state of mind in the workforce, how do we place value on our internal employees and give them better self esteem for the company in which they represent?
Employers have the ability to make changes and do what's right. We are not here to make friends but we want the same respect. We want to be placed in positions for duties we can do well in not be set up to fail. Although, I have personally been promoted several times within the companies I have worked for I don't want limitations and restrictions placed on me and being denied when my value as an employee should speak for itself in passing the onboarding process. I was told wanting to advance your career was a good thing. Looking forward to working with managers who feel as I do. I have spoke with so many internal employees who have shown loyalty for over 10 years or more and have not been able to progress within the company. When given feedback for the rejection the templated response was: ; "not enough detail". Anyone reading this blog clearly recognizes details are not the issue. Standard templates pulled from the recruiters knowledgebase. Let's change this!