See who is already coming to #socialrecruiting summit in November!

Blog Network

Todd Raphael's World of Talent

Who's hiring, who's not, and what else is hot

MIT Dean follow this blog post

posted by on April 26, 2007

MIT dean resigns.

| 3 comments | flag

3 comments

Log in or register to post a reply.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Is it experience, the degree or one's natural talent to perform the job? Let me break my reasoning down.

    Let's look at 3 different people who sing and they are in competition. We have the first person who has 25 years of experience under thier belt- their voice is okay and they manage to succeed. The second person has been professionally trained, they have been to the best schools and have a degree which qualifies them. Again they manage to succeed. Finally we have an individual who has does not have the years of experience or the degee but out performs the other individuals. What is the defining point? Natural talent. Training and experience refines the skill.

    Just my humble opinion.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Much like companies are supposed to have gains every year. There is only so much out there, you can't have gains forever.

    Same applies to candidates. I have seen employers jack up the requirements just to "raise the bar" on their talent. "We want the best" they say. Instead of looking for someone who could do the job...they want someone better (for no particular reason).

    Many of the older managers do not have a degree, but they require it of all the people they hire. I have heard many excuses why - but it is not right to require more creditials and/or experience than the manager doing the hiring has.

    I know that these days the requirements are too high. I've spent most of my time on the agency side...I've seen companies reject 50+ candidats over six months and never find someone that is "right". I've seen the same thing happen on the corporate side - so it was not about the fee. They want it all and are not willing to flex.

    Rarely is anyone willing to develop and ramp up a new employee. It might take a month to get up to speed - forget it...that is the mentality. Often they only want people who has done the job before and can hit the ground running. Often the position needing replacement is such that only someone who grew into the role would have that experience - anyone outside the company would not have it all.

    Rarely is anyone willing to train talent. Instead of hiring the person who seems to fit the environment but is missing one piece (that could be solved by sending them to some training) - they will reject and look for someone that has it all.

    I still hear "find the right fit for the company" - but that rarely is the case anymore. It is find the perfect mirror-image of the person who left the position.

    I have not been in a situation yet where HR has any power to influence this...the hiring department's management gets their way regardless of the protests.

    (sorry for the rant)

    ~ Eric

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    While I agree, companies should really take a look at what they really need (a true requirement) versus what they want (preference), you can not excuse misrepresentation.

    "she had a 28-year successful track record at MIT"

    Success is beside the point.

    There are already problems in HR around the country with candidates being truthful and respresenting themselves truthfully.

    If you say, well she was successful for 28 years and so it is OK, then you are saying every candidate who can lie and get hired from the lie is justified in their lying - and approving that it is OK.

    "Hey, if they are successful in the job - then it was OK." - you can not retroactively judge acceptability or rightness. So if they are unsuccessful, then they are still justified in the lie - if a successful employed lied and that is deemed OK.

    Of course, then there will be much higher unsuccessful hires because of people who lied but were unsuccessful in their jobs...but you couldn't hold it against the lie because those others were justified.

    In the case of representing your creditals, education, experience, etc...an employee who is found to have lied should be fired on the spot.

    I advocate background checks...I have seen people lie about degrees, working for employers, kind of experience, criminal records, etc, etc.

    If people think it is justified or acceptable...then it will only happen more often. And you are hiring who can lie best and not the truthful (ethical) people you would want for your company.

    It is best, in my opinion, to have a zero tolence for misrepresentation (also known as fraud in other areas of business).

    ~ Eric Putkonen