Get the H back in HR

We have almost removed the human from the human resources department, writes Allan Bonner, DBA.

We’ve certainly reduced the humane approach. In recent history, HR professionals used psychometric tests, several interviews, perhaps lunch, and walks around the office to determine the suitability of a candidate.

All approaches are flawed. Tests often test the ability of a candidate to do tests, not the job advertised. Tests are criticised for being culturally specific. “Would you rather stay home Friday night or go out with your friends?” is a tough question for those whose religion requires being home. As one datum, tests are a relevant part of the mix, but the mix needs many ingredients.

The job interview, lunch, and tour of the office obviously show the candidate in their best behaviour, not how s/he’d behave on the job. But those not in their best behaviour could logically be eliminated.

Then came the proliferation of university degrees. HR departments used these as a filter to exclude those without one and eliminate some of the human interaction. Not a bad idea in the olden days. If you could write a decent essay in English literature, the social sciences, or history, you could surely conduct some research and form proper sentences in a business report. Then came the downgrading of university studies and the explosion of college certificates in courses ending in the word “studies” – an academic way of stating the name of the course and adding “not really”. A course called “Legal Studies” was not law school.

I’m empathetic to the daunting task of dealing with résumés. Years ago, I was an executive assistant to one of the world’s longest-serving big city mayors. We advertised for a staffer and received 750 applicants. Most were qualified. We rejected résumés with typos and candidates with no degree. We held on to those who’d worked for well-known bosses and organisations. We whittled the list down to about 250 really qualified applications and gave up. We gave the résumés to the HR department.

Today, it’s computers that do the heavy lifting. Using word searches and now AI, the computer rejects résumés with typos or poor grammar. The computer welcomes résumés that contain certain keywords.

This seems like a mechanised version of what I did years ago. But here are the new problems:

1. The computer doesn’t respond to all applications, and that doesn’t enhance the organisation’s reputation.
2. American computers have a small trans-ischemic stroke when they see spelling (so-called British) used in most of the world (colour, centre, theatre, etc).
3. Ditto usage, such as treating the word “government” as singular or plural – both correct but normally singular in the US and plural in the UK – the stuff of computer strokes.
4. Computers seem fooled by stock phrases. Isn’t every applicant “thoroughly familiar with …” and led a division to “double-digit profits”? Those profits are often in a failing organisation.
5. And what happened to the need to write sentences? Most résumés have bullet-point fragments that don’t run parallel: worked on major launches, government relations, and strong interpersonal skills. Surely most employers want a candidate who can write a sentence.
6. Most candidates are of two minds about themselves. They’re team players and self-starters. Computers seem to like that kind of person.
7. Worst of all, candidates now have AI-generated résumés with stock phrases a computer can’t catch but are red flags to a real human reader.
8. In the end, we have computers and computer programs talking to each other. Will the HR department soon be obsolete?

It’s doubtful that the mechanisation of employee intake is identifying the best candidates. Computers may not be doing any worse than I did or than psychometrics did. But they do remove the human from most of the process.

My late father told me a story about a kind of mechanisation he used in the mid-1960s. He had secretaries with “memory typewriters”. They stored up to four pages of boilerplate. He’d dictate as follows: “Dear Mr Smith: Thank you for meeting with me today about leasing space at 1420 Sherbrooke Street. (standard paragraphs 2 and 4) Please let me know when you have made a decision. Yours truly … etc.”

Paragraphs 2 and 4 were inserted by the secretary.

In the mayor’s office, in the 1980s, we dictated responses to the many letters received. “Thank you for your letter regarding (topic X). I appreciate your input and concern, especially about (keywords from the letter). I’ve passed your letter on to our Commissioner of Parks (or Parks Committee) for a full response. Thank you again, and please keep in touch. Yours truly, etc.”

Computers could do much the same thing in partnership with a real human. All applicants could receive a personalised letter of thanks and perhaps some literature or a brochure about the organisation. There could be an apology for not being able to respond to every applicant about the outcome of the job search or about unsolicited résumés, which will be kept on file.

If the cost of stamps is an issue, email would do. Yes, it’s labour-intensive, but it is called the human resources department. The humans there should be actual resources for the company. More personalised contact would enhance the company’s reputation. Applicants are taxpayers, voters, and customers, so whether the HR department is in the public or private sector, there will be payoffs for a more human and humane approach.

Allan Bonner, DBA, is a Canada-based author, keynote speaker, and crisis management consultant.