Reflections on Unit 1

Admittedly, when I first took this course, I didn't know all that human resources management would entail. Most of my experience with HR has been limited to discussing benefits once I was hired, and although I have spoken with representatives at job fairs, I didn't realize how much HR is involved in the hiring process.

So perhaps the newest part for me (or at least the part that is still taking some getting used) is the idea that someday I may also participate in deciding whether or not to hire a job candidate, as I have become accustomed to being on the other side. However, it seems that as with management, it is possible that all employees will become involved in some aspect of recruiting, interviewing, assessment or hiring at some point, no matter how far removed they may seem from the process. (Case in point, when my department was looking for a new department head, with the possible exception of recruiting, the hiring process involved all members of the department, no matter what position they held, in particular the interviewing and assessment steps.)

I was surprised to learn that traditional interviewing is much less accurate and effective in assessing candidates than what is commonly thought when we studied the section on assessment. As a job applicant, I have had the importance of the interview impressed upon me many times as the only way for the hiring organization to assess a candidate. However, nothing that I had heard or read ever seemed to question how effective or accurate interviewing was at doing so. Despite some of my previously mentioned misgivings about personality testing, it's good to see that employers have recognized that the limitations of interviewing, and have implemented additional means of assessing applicants. If I am ever in a position to do so, I hope that I will be able to use a personality or cognitive test in my hiring, so that I can see how for myself how effective it is.

I was also somewhat surprised at how easy it is for employers to ask illegal questions during the interview process, and at how frequently many of my classmates have been asked such questions. I've personally never been asked any illegal questions, but I definitely made a mental note about them, as I can see myself accidentally answering such questions as a potential interviewee, or slipping up or possibly asking such a question as an interviewer, if I'm not careful.

Although we didn't have to read this part, I was rather bothered by something that Rosner wrote on page 184 in the textbook. He writes:

There's no point in twisting yourself in contortions to find goals for employees, especially non-exempt employees whose jobs are focused and routine. However, professional employees who have career paths need incremental goals to keep them challenged and growing.

As a non-exempt employee myself, I really disagree with this. To argue that those whose jobs are "focused and routine" do not need goals seems very short-sighted, and to imply that they do not have a career path is very insulting. Without incentives to grow, many non-exempt employees will become bored and may not be as motivated to excel, which can lead to high turnover and poor work. Like so-called "Swatch employees," many non-exempt staff also want to be coached and trained. The attitude that Rosner espouses on page 184 seems contrary to what he says at the beginning of the book about people being precious resources and not being cavalier about them (page 10).

I believe that a dead-end job is only that way if the employer makes it so, and to their credit, the library administration at UT (in particular, the director) appear to recognize this fact. When the current director of the UT Libraries, Dr. Fred Heath, was hired, one of the changes he made was to allow supervisors to nominate non-exempt staff for the Library Excellence Award, which was previously restricted to administrative and professional employees, in order to recognize the achievements of exceptional employees. In addition, the university-wide Examplary Service Award is open to all staff, regardless of classification. It would be to the benefit of the entire organization if *all* employees were given something to work towards, no matter how "routine" their jobs may be, in order to inspire employees to work to their full potential and to possibly even build a sense of loyalty to the organization. After all, why would you go through all the trouble of recruiting, interviewing, assessing and then hiring someone only to let them stagnate (and ultimately leave)?