I have had lots of difficulty attaining a HR position through agencies- they never provide feedback, target focused, time consuming etc... However I have had two interviews in the last seven days and on both occasions the HR Managers had changed their requirements when I arrived and clearly didn’t understand the current labour market.

On the first occasion they were looking for a 17K HR Manager - to look after ALL operational HR issues - Having seen my CV they wanted to interview me - after a 2 hour interview they decided I didn’t have the operational experience required- this should have been clear from my CV unless they were hoping I would have completely different skills in person! The fact is if I did have all the operational experience they were seeking I would have 5 years HR behind me and want more than 17K.

The second occasion -  I read a spec for a HR admin support role and attained an interview.  Upon arrival I was informed they weren’t looking for an administrator, instead they now wanted an officer, again with operational experience.   They are now looking for a 25K + HR officer.

HR Managers need to understand the market place and skill sets they can attain at certain levels.  The recruitment process should be the first stage in a long and successful career within that particular organisation.  On these occasions I lost a days holiday, the cost of travelling to interviews, all the preparation time and the stress of sitting in an interview. - HR Managers take note- if you want good suitable candidates research the market place, ensure there first impressions are good, and don’t waste peoples time.

I have worked in HR for over 30 years now and it causes me distress when I read things like this regarding my profession.  Although I have to say that I have also found that this is a continuing problem.  I have recently applied for a position with a large retail company and because I have been doing interims contract over the past 2 years, the company informed the agency that I applied through that they wouldn't interview me because they wanted someone who was reliable.  I was furious as I have worked interim because I have been unable to secure a permanent role, therefore i my opinion this shows me to be hard working, flexible and willing to undertake any role to ensure that I am working.  I would just like to say to all employers that I consider all people should be treated with respect and given opportunities to develop and grow both personally and professionally.  I have also been put through attending interviews kept waiting for months sometimes only to be told that the organisaiton has decided to rethink what they are looking for or worse that they have appointed an internal applicant, I have also been given positions on an interim contract and told that they could be made permanent and then informed that the company will be down grading the position and that they will not be keeping me.  I find alot of companies have no moral fibre and no conscious, all they see is pound signs.  I would just like to add that you get what you pay for, so remember that when looking for an HR professional that they are just thta professional and as such expect to be treated as such and this should be reflected in theri T&C's and salary.

Kim

You could learn to write in paragraphs Kim, that might help.

Seriously though, there are these discrepancies all over the place - I went to an interview with a company who wanted me to set up and manage a customer management database and associate procedures that included different approaches and systems for all levels of customers from one-off small purchases to million pound orders and then implement a training programme for all the staff who would use it (only around 200 but with different types of need). 

They said it would be 'good experience'.  They wanted to pay me £15,000 for it.  I said 'Not at that price'. They said I had no ambition and they would look for someone who did. 

That was no loss to me of course, but I have no idea why they thought that was such a junior job.

Having search for positions over a period of 18 months I would say the general rule was infact as stated in my first posting - ineffective managers and recruiters.  This can be recognised by measuring length of time to recruit, feedback time after interviews and the amount of time the recruitment process has to go back to the advertising stage.

  Since posting my comments I have now attained a graduate position working as a full generalist.  Other than graduate schemes however the opportunities on offer for people entering HR are depressingly poor.  All this will do is drive people into other departments - I came very close to leaving HR earlier in the year despite sudying the subject for my 3 year degree.

  All the while HR is trying to justify its role and effectiveness within business - see pretty much every issue of Personnel Today and ppl mngt.  When will the proffession stop trying to justify itself among fellow proffessionals and start delivering within the business

By the way, one of the reasons for 'opportunities in HR being depressingly poor' is because of the fact that HR is an overwhelmingly female area of business.

The attraction of HR for women who want to get into business, but prefer to be away from the sharp end and in a more 'caring' area means that the numbers of people applying for entry level positions consist of a disproporionate amount of women and a proportionate amount of men.  i.e. the number of people who can do entry level jobs in HR and who want to is massive - hence either low pay or reduced availability of opportunities.

One also needs to consider that many of the entry-level roles can equally be done by someone trained in HR as someone with no training (entry level jobs are overwhelmingly clerical) which means that again the supply is incredibly high (how many employment agencies recruit any-old-temp into HR admin work!). 

I am female, work in HR and have far more 'sharp end' influence than many (if not all) of my male operations counterparts.  With out me doing my job, they wouldn't have one.

Please consider your overtly sexist tone in the future.

So glad that it's not only me that feels that Jeremy should engage brain before putting fingers to the keyboard.  I consider my self an inteegral part of the Senior Strategic Management Team, but I also have Operational Hnads on duties.  So like Female HR Professional, I feel my role is paramount to alot of my other colleagues not only having a job but being able to carry out their role.

So glad that it's not only me that feels that Jeremy should engage brain before putting fingers to the keyboard.  I consider my self an integral part of the Senior Strategic Management Team, but I also have Operational Hands on duties.  So like Female HR Professional, I feel my role is paramount to alot of my other colleagues not only having a job but being able to carry out their duties.

I wholeheartedly agree with the comments above. I too am a female HR professional, specialising in ER. On an everyday basis I make decisions which can directly affect the business - be it cost, reputation etc - and I stuggle to see how this is the "caring area" and not "the sharp end".

Furthermore, I disagree that the entry level positions within HR can be done equally as well by an employee with no training. These "overwhelmingly clerical" tasks often have legal restrictions and are time sensitive, and a basic understanding of this is, in my view, essential. Yes the tasks themselves may be of an administrative nature, however their impact is potentially greater than "standard" (for want of a better word) admin tasks.

Aside from Jeremy's obvious sexism, I feel that these comments are a result of complete ignorance of the HR profession itself. It appears to me that this is not HR Managers failing to understand the recruitment market, but applicants not understanding their own skillset and its value within a function.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Jeremy's comments are completely out of order and inappropriate for a forum like this. 

I've already reported this individual to the moderator in respect of another posting where he made disparaging comments about a posting not written in paragraphs which had no bearing on the point being made! 

The words 'get over yourself - and preferably out of HR if you are actually in HR'- spring to mind.

I think people are staring to miss the point;

1) The original posting refered to attending interviews, being aware of ones skill set but being informed the job was now more senior / junior than originally stated.  I was fully aware of my skill set when I applied for said job, as was the interviewer.  It was the managers decision to change the spec and want to recruit someone with a larger skill base for the same amount of money - hence a failure to understand the market place as I was already earning the same salary.

2) Jeremy's comments refered back to my comment that entry level HR positions are poor - his reference to women is partly true and not strickly sexist - it is a fact that many admin roles in HR/Finance/Marketing are dominated by women who are not proffessionally qualified and nor do they wish to be for various reasons- this is not offensive.   The roles don't need proffessioanal qualifications either - to be an administrative resourcer you don't need employment law qualifications for example.  Both male and females wanting to progress into a more senior HR Officer or advisor roles are forced to take these jobs to get admin experience before they are allowed to progress to generalist hands on work - this is now just a fact of life for entrants into HR.

Soft end of HR - I have also come across many people who want to stick to the 'soft' nicey nicey aspect of HR - training, recruitment and development as they don't like to get involved in disciplinaries and dealing with difficult managers - another personal choice but one which means you have less generalist experience and therefore less experience to bring to the table when talking about general strategic direction for the future. Most senior HR managers have a strong generalist background working as advisors first.

Some interesting comments above. A couple of points if I may:

1. I agree that commenting objectively on the female/male ratios is not in itself sexist, just a reflection on our environment. As with everything though - the crux of the issue is in the way it is put across and perhaps that failed to achieve the aim. It is an interesting issue though and one that we should be debating as they are in other sectors, where forward demographic planning is already highlighting major issues in 5-10 years time.

2. I enjoyed and chuckled at the observation that training, recruitment and development were not at the sharp end of HR and that senior HR positions are filled by generalists. Having been a resouring and talent specialist throughout my HR career I would tend to disagree! To be honest I have stopped looking at things from a sharp or soft perspective - I tend to look at whether one is affecting the bottom line, to have a commercial mindset that looks at what the ROI is against a given intervention. One could also argue that in an HRBP model, most of the softer issue are actually handled by the line rather than the HRBP (or Specialists) in any case. I am also going to have to point out to a few colleagues that they should not be in their HRD slot as they have been Head of Coms and Bens previously and never touched generalist work!

3. My view on senior HRBP or HRD roles is perhaps different to the norm - here I see the skill more in having a commercial mindset, being able to 'vision' out 2-3 years and then marshal the team or function towards that vision. Whether you have a particular background is secondary - at the end of the day you will have specialists in your team who have deep technical competencies on which you can draw.

I am sure there are other interesting views out there!

Mark - some well made comments. I would be interested in hearing the views of other HR proffessionals on the topic of female/male ration in HR. I am sure this is also affected by industry and like demography needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later. Nobody is calling businesses agest when dealing with demography - something I am looking at in my current role.

2) Maybe I was a little unclear with my comments - I work in a large organisation at the moment and this means they have the ability to employ people to specialise in recruitment / Management development etc.. Consequently the leaders in these fields are senior managers - however, they operate under the director.  My comments refered to the fact that the director needs to have a generalist background to deal with the various issues that arise.  In smaller organisations which dont have the good fortune of being able to recruit specialists tend to have a HR manager dealing with everything from the generalist advisory IR issues right through to training and development - In such an organisation the HR manager must therefore have a generalist background. 

I have no doubt people can progress to senior roles in areas of expertise but HR directors typically have knowledge/experience across the HR spectrum.

Two different strands here I think.....

Firstly the point that people are missing is that HR as a profession is only relatively young and it's remit is still evolving.  It's background as a Personnel function was essentially in records administration and welfare work.  Form filling, then tea and sympathy when all else fails!  All of which were traditionally seen as female roles and required neither qualifications nor technical knowledge.  

Modern HR practice requires not only a specialist body of HR knowledge, but also a generalist approach that takes in an understanding of economics, politics, social and cultural trends, technological innovations, changing work values, skill shortages, government mandates, employment laws, health care management, privacy concerns, international trends and influences, and myriad other issues.  HR professionals in today's business environment have to understand and manage interactions between technology, work, flow, organizational strategies and, most importantly, people.  

Undoubtedly this can be accomplished by either gender, however, entry into the profession is still mainly by working from the bottom up, and for the vast majority of companies that still means processing basic paperwork and record keeping.  Unfortunately in society these are still seen as stereotypically female tasks, hence the lack of male HR Adminstrators out there.

From purely personal experience I've found that men tend to go down the qualification route, get a degree or a Masters, apply for HR Officer/Advisor roles, then bitch about it being female oriented when they don't get them. 

I also got my degree, and a Masters, then started work in a £12k HR admin role to get practical experience dealing with real people, not just textbooks and classroom role plays. 

As part of that experience I cleaned interview rooms so we gave a good impression to candidates; I organised childrens' entertainers for the staff family Christmas party; I picked up the office bacon butty order on my way in to work; I sorted and filed papers for days at a time and I did hour after hour of incredibly boring psychometric test administration.  I did the soft and fluffy stuff cooing over new babies, and holding hands through employee's domestic problems.  I provided a shoulder to cry on when they were ill and I helped them develop their skills so they could progress.  But along the way I also dealt with increasingly complex HR and ER issues.  

By putting in the work at the coal face, so to speak, I know I developed sound generalist skills, but more importantly I also gained credibility with the workforce and learned how to establish rapport and trust.  That skill more than anything has supported me through to Board level.

Secondly, in response to J's rant .....

I have noticed an alarming trend when recruiting graduates for them to expect to walk into high level HR positions purely because they have a qualification.  The fact that they are arrogant, have poor interpersonal skills, no tact or diplomacy, no work experience at all never mind "relevant" experience, a terrible work ethic and, to be honest in many cases, poor literacy and numeracy skills doesn't seem to factor in.  We all know that candidates can sound a lot better on paper than they actually are in person.  "Extensive media, retail and logistics experience" sounds great, then you find out they're referring to a paper round they had for 2 weeks as a kid!         

There are no excuses for HR Managers not providing feedback, or for messing candidates around, but bear in mind that thanks to the UK Government's interference in our failing education system, our job is increasingly to separate a few grains of wheat from the vast quantity of chaff out there.

J - you need to stop bitching and moaning about it, take a step back and make sure you can prove you can do what you seem to think you can do!  If you have the knowledge, show commitment, enthusiasm, drive, willingness to learn, and the flexibility to do things that aren't "graduate" tasks then it doesn't matter what gender you are!  

And, again from personal experience, traditionally HR Directors are nearly always male and mainly not from an HR background!  Finance seems to be the preferred route into the most senior HR roles.