SUBSCRIBE:

HR's role in recruitment called into question by shock survey

This article first appeared in Personnel Today magazine. Subscribe online and save 20%.

HR practitioners view every current recruitment method for senior roles as virtually worthless, exclusive research reveals.

HR practitioners view every current recruitment method for senior roles as virtually worthless, exclusive research reveals.

Cranfield School of Management's latest Recruitment Confidence Index (RCI), produced in association with Personnel Today, calls into question the contribution that HR can make to the recruitment process.

The survey of nearly 850 HR professionals shows that while 50% still use one-to-one interviews, 68% believe they are "not useful" as the main method of selection.

The RCI index shows that just 3% of HR professionals rate competency-based and one-to-one interviews as "very useful".

Panel interviews and psychometric testing also fared badly in the RCI index. Three-quarters (78%) of the HR professionals said panel interviews were ineffective, while less than 10% believed they were useful predictors of job success.

But Keith Dugdale, head of recruitment at professional services firm KPMG, said interviews had merit if they were carried out properly and in conjunction with a formal recruitment process.

Only 2% of respondents said psychometric tests were very useful as a selection method, and only 10% of HR professionals said they always used psychometric testing when recruiting for senior-level positions.

Richard Smelt, group HR director at Carphone Warehouse, said: "A structured interview is invaluable to the recruitment process. But there's not one Holy Grail."

And there could be huge cost implications for getting the selection process wrong, Smelt added.

Rebecca Clake, resourcing adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, admitted that many employers found interviews ineffective. But she insisted that they provided a "valued interaction".

Other highlights

  • 86% said written references were "not useful" when predicting the job success of senior-level staff
  • 25% rated qualifications as very important, compared with 70% who said experience was most relevant
  • 15% said appearance was very important when assessing suitability for a managerial role

Source: RCI



 

COMMENTS

 
I have experienced with an HR value-added contribution

When recruiting for technology based roles I feel I have benefitted from the dual and second interviews being conducted by an HR specialist with a different viewpoint.
I recall two major campaigns for FTSE 100 companies where the HR specialist helped make a rounded decision, based jointly on the various technical competence of the candidates as well as their "soft skills" and what was described as potential to grow and evolve.

As far as I know the candidates who eventually accepted the offers were with the respective companies long-term, successful in their roles and happy to progress with the company.

Brian Butterly
24 May 2006
HR Role in Recruitment

If all traditional methods of interviewing and assessing candidate suitability are regarded as ineffective, I would like to know what methods experts are using to find the 'right fit'

John O Donoghue
24 May 2006

ALERTS

Alert me when new articles are added which relate to these specialism areas
Recruitment and staffing

 
© Reed Business Information 2008