Personnel Selection

Psychologists, through HR Departments, have been measuring and evaluating prospective employees since the the 1940's. Why then haven't we yet achieved the 'perfect' organisation?

26 Jun 11

Excellent question!
I suppose we ought to define a perfect organisation! Anyone?
In the meantime, we might conclude that the problem does not lie with the employees per se but with the organisation. Or rather the owners who have other priorities (i.e. profit) which might be at odds with achieving perfection. We could accuse the managers of negligence but seeing as their jobs depend on satisfying the owners, I'd stick with them.
Now that hospitals are being run as businesses that need to make a profit, is patient care being put first? What about all the idealists who became professional health workers - will they be satisfied if patient care comes second to profit? And the customers - the patients themselves - will they be happy? I'd propose that the satisfaction of all these groups needs to be met and that goes beyond the remit of the average disenfranchised HR department.
OR: the HR department needs to be more subversive and bring in people who will mutiny, stage a coup and bring about a revolution!

27 Jun 11

I think your question, "perfect for whom?", is also a good one. It reminds me about the question of rationality under various circumstances. For instance, the building of 'the Dome' was, from the tax-payers viewpoint, a form of expensive madness. Unwanted by the local community and therefore seen as an irrational project. However, from the point-of-view of other stakeholders, such as the architects and building contractors, the decision to go ahead with constructing the thing made perfect sense, and a lot of money! (Paralells with the Olympics 2012?) As you imply, organisations as they exist now, must be 'perfect' for someone, otherwise these hierarchical powerhouses would not have survived for so long.

29 Jun 11

Absolutely. The age old question 'cui bono?' (who benefits?) springs to mind. If the events taking place make no sense or seem detrimental, one is not looking at the real initiator. If instead of asking 'who did it' we asked who stands to gain, we'll soon have a list of likely suspects!
But to return to the original topic, perhaps there needs to be a popular call for new assessment criteria - not just for employees but for owners, manager and clients. Each decision could have full 360 degree stakeholder impact evaluation before being implemented.
For example, too often businesses fire staff in times of economic crises when what they could do is develop new or better ways of using those staff to create wealth. To do otherwise probably increases likelihood of failure or at least losing ground to less panicky competitors.
On a personal note, I intend to be as far as possible from London during the Olympics! Summer rush-hour commuting already feels apocalyptic without the hordes that may descend... :-D

01 Jul 11

Human Resource Departments, in general, evaluate the internal human resource.

Marketing departments, on the whole, evaluate the external human resource.

And neither department normally find themselves successfully integrating their sources of information to create the 'perfect organisation'.

But then does the HR department want to create the 'perfect organisation' or is it the case of wanting to just fill the next employee vacancy?

So, perhaps that is why for many Organisational Personnel striving for that 'perfect organisation' starts to feel like the quest for the Holy Grail.

Don't get me wrong! Brand new organisations are cropping up, and are creating the 'perfect organisation' as deemed by their co-founders beliefs and values, but their success is not solely due to the HR function.

01 Jul 11

I suppose there must be a degree of pragmatism in the HR functions, the use of that human heuristic 'good enough'. However, if this is true, why do the selection instruments have to be so 'accurate' (psychometric robustness) in measuring personality for instance?

29 Jul 11

I think most HR departments in our larger corporations hould be rebranded 'Human Capital Departments'.

30 Jul 11

Or maybe 'human components'? Depending on the values of those doing the recruiting and managing, staff might be seen as an investment or an expendable resource!

Seeing these comments prompted me to submit a review of an excellent documentary on Behaviourism.

See the review AND the documentary here:

Media review: Human Resources

Personnel Selection

Nigel

Psyman

Nigel

Psyman

Lorna

Nigel

Jonas

Psyman