12 January 2015
Readers Response to December Bogan Rant
Human Resources - Empire Building & Hidden Agenda
Ninjas
As promised, I am publishing responses made to the last "Bogan
Rant".
The response was astronomical to say the least - it certainly
did raise debate. I was absolutely blown away with the emails (over
320 responses) and phone calls. To the anonymous caller who rang 9
times throughout the day, yelled expletives and hung up - have some
respect you clown.
Many phone calls from HR professionals wanting to discuss and
who agreed in principal, but interestingly, not many phone calls
from HR who disagreed - they all sent impersonal emails or
unsubscribed from the newsletter after reading the article - the
harsh reality and truth often hurts, so it's easiest to distance
themselves from the problem - easy, unsubscribe from the
newsletter!!!
Here are some of the responses:
Your recent Bogan Rant stuck a chord with us and certainly
caused a stir. You are right. We had existing concerns regarding
the size and dysfunctionality of our HR department. Your use of the
term "Empire building and hidden agendas" is accurate in our case.
Your article caused a heated debate, an impromptu meeting and
resulted in our HR department reducing by 40%.
General Manager / COO - Mid Tier
Your Bogan Rant initially deeply offended me, but I re-read the
article and absorbed the content and message you were aiming to
deliver. I realise I am not one you refer to, so reflected on my
+26 years within the mining industry. The last 10 years has seen a
monumental rise of internal HR departments. This was, in the main,
due to the significant company and subsequent manning level
expansions during the extended "boom" times and desire to reduce
agency costs by taking on the process internally.
In my last and current position, we assessed the technical
capability and general functionality of our internal recruiters and
the results in both cases were as expected. They were not as
technically capable or experienced to accurately screen, identify
and shortlist candidates as the relevant Line Manager, or someone
like yourself who has worked in the industry as a Geologist.
The result, as you know, is that we significantly reduced the
size of our HR and recruitment team and put out a tender to take on
3 preferred external agencies to assist with our recruitment
process. The result has been fantastic. We still keep agency costs
down, but manage to source a broader spectrum of candidates through
our agency partnerships.
From your blog rant: "so heavily slanted towards behavioral
based interrogation":
SO TRUE!! Had an interview with a consultancy last month. They
are small in size and have no real HR function but all the
management are ex large company/Gov't and the entire interview was
"what would you, how would you" etc. Over 1.5 hours, they didn't
test me technically at all and I didn't get the position…..
... Geologists are a different breed, and that's why I'm not
getting off this roller coaster ride and will wait for the next
one.
With about 18 years of experience in the bush, either in
forestry, mining, mountaineering, and geological exploration I've
given up on trying to get a job with a companies that use a
"generic" HR department or unskilled recruiters to find
candidates.
Why would I work with a company that can't even hire proper
recruiters that can recognize the connection between various types
of experiences potential candidates may have?
Too many companies focus on finding the ideal "expert" for a
role without wondering if they will adapt to the
country/culture/environment they'll be facing every day. You can
teach new rocks and mineral deposits to a good Geologist much
faster than you can teach them how to adapt in the Arctic or the
African jungle.
I could also rant about communication problems and people trying
to learn a new language... I say: get a guy or gal that speaks the
lingo and teach him/her the geology!!
Good on you Bogan for calling it as you see it (and experienced
it too by the sounds…)
Some organisations may still see mining employees as
"transitional" and therefore always looking for that golden pot at
the end of the rainbow; they may well allow HR to have the initial
and final say in the employment of a person (without the
appropriate experience and technical expertise). A good panel would
create a mix of questions which are relevant to the position and
include the interviewees' manager, maybe a peer, supplier (if
appropriate) and of course the obligatory HR rep.
I have also witnessed a senior manager making a call on the
"right person" for the job by not going with the panel's
recommendation….And that was an epic fail too!
Principal Mining Consultant
I have been a huge fan of your rants for some time. You aim to
educate the industry and predominantly say what we're all thinking.
Your HR rant was all true and I dare say not many will disagree
with you. How to fix this problem will be the interesting next
step! The downturn is causing us all to look at our efficiencies,
so the "problem" might well sort itself - we can only dream! Keep
up the good fight. You might say what we all think and I dare say
you offend people by doing so, but your intentions are pure and
passion cannot be questioned.
Director Operations
I could not agree more with your recent rant regarding HR. The last
3 companies I have worked for have been frustrating. HR have over
complicated the interview process and it got to the point in my
current position that no technical questions were asked in the
initial screening interview! Is that not when we need to determine
both technical AND cultural fit? Suffice to say after many tantrums
by management, we're now "allowed" to be involved in the initial
interviews by HR. This has reduced the interview process to 1 (not
2) to be followed by a site visit for the final shortlisted
applicants. We have also allowed you (Stealth) to add a few resumes
to our list of candidates to provide alternatives! I think we're
headed in the right direction now and a lot of this is due to your
rants. Thanks Bogan.
Manager Mining
Bogan, or should I say "Michael" and you hide behind that
ridiculous alter ego. I am one of those ex-agency recruiters who
was made redundant by several agencies and ended up securing an
internal recruitment role with a reputable mining company a few
years ago. I don't see myself as a failure and was greatly offended
by your article. I don't believe that you act in the best interest
of both parties as you do need to make a living. So hiding behind
your ethical and moral high grounds is absolute BS and I don't buy
it. As a result, I and the team here have and will continue to do
all I can to block any involvement from recruitment agencies, in
particular Stealth.
Recruitment Advisor
....Part of the response to Recruitment Advisor from
Stealth: "You were made redundant (let go) from the agencies due to
poor performance and attitude. To that, with respect, I rest my
case…… In regards to blocking the involvement of external agencies,
that's fine. I respect that and all companies are entitled to do as
they please. Business is business, but your reasoning is flawed.
However, I will not enter into further debate about that as we both
have our opinions. However, I do know, for a fact, that your
turnover of technical staff has been over 41% in the past 2 years
on average! Before you accuse me of making that up, look into it.
Why is this? I know why. You and your recruitment department have
been doing the screening and hiring predominantly Muppets! They've
been a mix of technical failures and predominantly cultural fit
failures…………I do appreciate your feedback and hope I can alter your
opinion of agency recruiters - we're not all the same. All the
best."
Bring back the days of letting Accountable Managers manage the
process of hiring with the assistance of HR/Recruiting
staff.
Manager Mine Geology
Your "HR Bogan Rant" touched a chord with me as I have had
dealings with all facets of the HR spectrum over my years in the
industry and been left feeling extremely underwhelmed by the
experience. I have been witness to the beginning of the HR
revolution and I, along with the vast majority of my peers, have
very little time for it.
I totally agree with everything you said and would go as far to
say that the HR Industry have created the perception that we need
them, they have insinuated themselves into every modern industry
and are nothing but a self-perpetuating and self-aggrandizing group
of individuals (in general). In my dealings with them I have had
one positive experience which I put down to the individual who was
professional in every sense of the word, unfortunately there are
not more like her.
As a newly appointed Mining Superintendent, I was responsible
for EVERYTHING that happened in my department. Then along came HR
to "help". At first I welcomed the 'help" until it became very
apparent that the only people they were helping was themselves. I
had more problems with my staff than ever as their solutions were
never more than average.
After my recent and very enjoyable sabbatical was over and I
decided to re-join the workforce. I went through the grinder that
is the "Recruitment" industry and was again filled with promises
and BS that has left me very sceptical as to the value these people
add to our industry. Again, there have been the odd standout as
they cannot be tarred with the same brush. They are however, few
and far between. I agree that we as frontline management need to
heavily vet the process in order to get the right person.
Production Manager
Empire building and hidden agendas as per your Rant wording,
have been very much the order of the day as a small collection of
Muppets in senior positions destroyed a company I was recently
involved with. I am a reasonably strong willed character and I told
the new management what they didn't want to hear in regards to the
way they were conducting their new business, stating it would
result in closure in 5 years. It was intimated in return that I did
not know what I was talking about and perhaps in retrospect they
were correct as it took them about 6 and a half years before they
closed the doors.
Project Manager
Funny thing on the rant; (Large organisation) are currently
undergoing a HR "Transformation" where they are carving the locus
of power and shifting anything transactional overseas, putting
training back to the operational teams and basically reducing
onsite services greatly. They still obviously tell us what to
do when it comes to disciplining people, what I can pay them (even
though it is in the budget), how I have to recruit (mandatory
interviews for any internal candidates) and whether I can
internally promote (e.g giving a bogger operator a jumbo role
because they have done the right thing by the company).
Don't get me wrong, I like some of the HR people and it is
helpful to have a good relationship, but it can be frustrating
internally too!
Mine Planning Superintendent
Thanks for the monthly read - you are the only one I have ever
read - and I will admit it's purely due to the picture with the
mullet.
What can anyone say about HR in general. My personal experience
is that technical know-how and sheer hard work are no match for
being "bestest" buddies with the higher up that is making the HR
decision.
Having the most knowledge on the entire site about the companies
CMMS, building the entire sites maintenance regime and generally
improving every aspect of work management done on site (and
consulted out to other sites) has no bearing when you
are interviewing against the guy the manager had over for a BBQ on
the weekend.
Nepotism and cronyism, rule in the HR world - regardless of best
fit for the company or its share-holders. I live in the hope that
someday this will not be the norm.
Senior Maintenance Planner
Accountability is the key word but not HR accountability,
personal and direct executive management accountability.
If selecting and skilfully utilising the best people is not the
executives core job, then organisations are doomed to mediocre
performance or worse. To me this is the very crux of the problem.
To most a HR department is a HR department but to executive
management it's primarily a career insurance department. If the
staff don't work out then it's not the executives responsibility,
HR got it wrong, and if HR got it wrong the actual people at HR
didn't get it wrong, the procedures/ systems they use were wrong
and need modification.
Ultimately, this is all just typical nervous human nature and
nervousness is rife during busts. I have never been able to play
the "game" but also have never been smart enough to beat it. So,
the battle between integrity and practicality rages away and I'm
jealous of those that don't fight this battle within themselves
.
I wholeheartedly congratulate you on wearing your irritation on
your sleeve. It's the sign of a genuine and passionate human, but
where to from here?
What are the solutions? Perhaps this is what the readership is
specifically asked to make a contribution about. Together maybe
"we" can be smart enough.
Exploration Manager
You are spot on about how the HR business within the
Mining/Resources industry is slanted. It seems not many within HR
in the mining companies have many clues about what the
technical requirements are for different roles. This is critical
when it comes to the initial stage of trying to create a short-list
of candidates. Unless you can pre-empt what these HR are looking
for, you have very little hope of getting a foot in the door in
this economic environment where there are a million candidates for
each role that is advertised.
What has made life harder for the likes of yourself is that
there have been so many recruiters with NFI when it comes to trying
to sort the wheat from the chaff. All they have done is gone off
the checklist that the equally clueless mining co. HR Muppet has
provided and shamelessly spruiked for "World class
opportunities" with an "Employer of choice" in trying to lure
whoever they think can fit the bill, and claim their commission in
the process. Where this process falls down is that all that is
rewarded is whether a potential candidate ticks all the boxes, and
not the crucial element of WHETHER THE PERSON CAN DO THE JOB OR
NOT.
The turnover aspect would have been accurate in less challenging
climates where opportunity abounds in the neighbouring green
paddock. I think an even scarier phenomenon is occurring right now,
where THE MUPPETS ARE STAYING PUT either because of a lack of
opportunity elsewhere, or because they fear being found out as
being incompetent/they are comfortable in their own little rut and
wish to ride out the bad times. And what does this do?? It creates
a culture of laziness and incompetence that becomes a anchor
on morale and productivity. Not to mention the expensive drag this
has on the business and the competent people surrounding these
MUPPETS who are engaged in damage control and team a*se covering as
much as they are trying to keep their own act under
control. The thing that you may counter this claim
is "Surely these people will get found out during any
downsizing or redundancy process". But who makes the decisions on
who stays and who goes??? THE SAME HR MUPPETS WHO CREATED THE
PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!! GO FIGURE…
There is definitely a bigger picture that needs addressing from
all the different stakeholders in this game, but I can't see how
mining companies can honestly look at themselves in the mirror and
think they are going a "good job" when there are so many
fundamental flaws in the way that they operate that have such a
major impact on the effectiveness of their business.
Senior Mine Surveyor
I just missed out on a contract job because the recruiter
thought I was too senior - despite the fact that I was happy to do
it for junior rates and probably a lot more attuned to standing
next to a drill rig in a remote part of the world with few creature
comforts.
Senior Exploration Geologist
Readers, if you have read them all and got this far,
congratulations. I said I'd post responses. I'm always keen on your
thoughts and feedback.
Michael@stealthrecruit.com.au