Eventually, a name and phone number appears on the screen of a screener. At this juncture, a person talks to a person to arrange a telephone interview. From that point on the Human Resource function become human again. The idea of better
technological hole and peg fitting process pretends to reduce errors in judgment. But do better holes make better pegs or vice versa? The fallacy of the idea is that the human quotient of Human Resources can be outsourced, and that turn-over and training costs will necessarily be reduced.
To me this is a case of if you believe it is so; you will buy in to it being so. I remain pessimistic about the increasing automation of the Human Resource process of candidate selection. That pessimism is based on what the ultimate management function is: making decisions. If something helps a decision makers make better decisions, I can support its use. By the way, there is an app for Monster, an application for the so-called smart phone, which is actually not a phone but a radio devise. However, as you may have gathered, I am concerned that software does not solve everything; people do, like the human in Human Resources and you.
Article comments
1 - William Waite
This is a well-reasoned analysis of where the HR function is these days, Tommy. In the long run, I question whether software and job-posting platforms that effectively recast the candidate into someone he or she may not be can properly match people to positions. On another level, perhaps this is a contributing factor to why so many have simply stopped looking for traditional employment. If the (fully-employed) government number-crunchers still counted the unemployed the way they used to, the resulting statistic would more accurately reflect the misery that defines where so many are in this country today.
2 - Jane Clements
Agreed - it's kind of automating the process and therefore taking the individuality and personality out of CV's
thanks,
Jane