Tuesday, August 24, 2010

My Comments on the Hiring Process Today #6

Please allow me to offer a translation of what people here in the States and in other places understood you to have said.

"On the other hand...they might believe that somehow, they are doing what's politically correct."

There are many who believe the term "politically correct" (A term used derisively by the extreme conservatives) is coded language for hiring minorities who are unqualified. It is used here, by some, to disparage minorities.

Case in point: I put up a post here at Linkedin, Understanding Group Norms in the corporate world. It evolved due to the postings by others into the worthy topic of discussing different cultures. Whereas Linkedin is a global meeting place, this will help us to understand how different people around the world feel about different issues.

In another posting, I pointed out that here (US) HR has become a separate "industry within an industry". If HR would be content to limit its responsibilities to employee benefits, workman's comp, compliance with laws and regulations covering employees, ie: OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), discrimination complaints, harassment complaints, etc. while allowing "corporate" to fill leadership positions through a personnel dept. that processed the paperwork and allowed "corporate" to do the interviewing and hiring, the hiring process would be much improved. Corporate leaders would no longer be hiring the safest, but would be hiring those people who are conspicuously qualified to do the job.

The main difference: The Boss hires on the basis of qualifying while HR hires people on the basis of quantifying.

Great to hear from someone from Argentina. After the New York Times came back from its strike back in the late 70's. (Circa 1978), there was an article on the Argentine economy. The first third of the article avoided telling the readers what the article was about, the second third of the article began discussing the Argentine economy, and the last third of the article offered no conclusions. (25% of the article was taken up with a picture of an oil tanker sitting offshore. Not pertinent to the article, but to explain that oil tankers, like the one in the photo, sit idle off the coast of Argentina.)

It had been my understanding that among the many understandings of the Argentine economy, 40--35 years ago, was insufficient capital reinvestment during boom times that would have helped to streamline or upgrade the infrastructure, perhaps reduce debt, and "cover the costs during lean times."

What is the perspective of the corporate leaders in Argentina? (On the economy, not on the quality of the New York Times writers.)

No comments: