How does your company recruit for their leadership roles? If they are anything similar to the self-owned businesses I’ve worked for, it is often on a basis of loyalty and merit. On the other hand, if it is anything similar to the corporations that I’ve worked for, it is often on a basis of pre-determined, often irrelevant, minimum requirements that may or may not be job specific. It is clear from the findings of Stogdill (1974), and Kirkpatrick (1991), that the trait approach to leadership is determinable in most scenarios (Northouse, 2016). Not only do they both offer significant guidance in the identification of potential successful leaders, but also key identifiers for potentially hazardous and detrimental leaders as well. Over the course of the two-decade span of their research, the findings were very similar, which would lead one to believe them to be conclusive and strongly correlated.
Today’s recruitment and selection incentives to fill positions, gender equivalent as of late at that, are lacking to a noticeable extent. Numerous companies slap a “bachelor’s degree or higher” requirement on a job posting and call it a day. Sure, the applications flood in, interviews are conducted, and the most analytically intelligent candidate is hired (Northouse, 2016). My question is: under what circumstance does it become a priority to be more/most effective in these selection processes? It is understandable that calling applicant references and checking sources, especially given the technology advances that have significantly increased the number of applicants to any given position, are outdated approaches to selection. It is not understandable or justifiable, however, to show less consideration or approval for self-taught, emergent, motivated candidates based on a technicality that is also outdated. It is a poor representation of recruitment and simply fails to capture the true identification of talent and potential.
There are numerous eagerly motivated, confident, accountable, patient, persuasive, and self-motivated/starting people out there who would not only excel but truly succeed in positions that they are ineligible for due to technicalities. Personally, as motivated as I am to receive my B.S. from Penn State to further my chances at moving up in corporate America, it would be even more motivating for me to believe that I actually had a chance to pursue a career that I enjoy without it. Not on a basis of my gender or education, but simply (and literally) based on proven merit for a given position, loyalty, and determination.
References
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7thed.). Sage Publications.
maf5864 says
I agree that there is a difference between working in a corporation and self-employed. I have had the blessing of working in both. Self-employment you are in control and can make changes accordingly. In my situation the corporate structure selects the requirements for a job opening and the director can only interview the applicants that is recommended. This is beginning of the problems with the recruiting department.
Each employer’s recruiting department is different, but most have changed to submit a resume or application online. Then a computer will look for certain words in that resume or application. Finally, the applicant can be selected for the next stage or dismissed by the computer. Hejjas, Miller and Scarles (2018) mentioned that employees are being selected based on appearance, but do not share the same principles and thoughts as the employer. The structure being used in selecting employees are predicting employment based on what is seen and not work ethics. A person can have amazing workmanship but will be passed due key words missing off his or her resume or application. Ivan, Hassed, Darden, Aston and Guy (2017) stated application requirements are the highest in selection, but directors do not consider this as important for the job requirements. The corporation, recruiting department and the actual department can have different opinions of the importance of certain job qualifications. Most jobs have a job description, and this is what the recruiting department selects as the job requirements. Jobs continue to change, but the job description is not updated. For example, a supervisor position is hiring, and individuals applies for this position. This position is listed as a supervisor position and not a working supervisor position. A working supervisor position will work beside the employee and make sure the job is completed properly. A supervisor position will evaluate the employee work and make suggestions based on the evaluation. These are two separate job descriptions, but both listed as a supervisor position. This causes conflict in the departments and corporation.
Each director would like to have department with all the employees on the same level for training. I train new employees in my department. I had one employee that lied on her application. When I started to train her, I knew right away that something was not right. I continued to train her, but it became difficult based on her lack of knowledge. I updated my director, and this is how we became aware of the problem with her application. I do agree that this process needs to change, and I trained her for three weeks before we realized the problem. This employee knew what key words the computer was looking for in this job selection, but she was not the best employee for that position.
My plans are be self-employed and step away from the corporate structure. I prefer not to be caught up in all the politics that surrounds a corporate structure. Until that day arrives, I will continue to work hard and earn my four-year bachelor’s degree.
I wish you the best in your future job search with the recruiting departments among the corporation structure. I pray that you find the career that you have been desiring.
Referrals
Hejjas, K., Miller, G., & Scarles, C. (2018). “It’s like hating puppies!” employee disengagement and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-19.
doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1007/s10551-018-3791-8
Ivan, K. M., Hassed, S., Darden, A. G., Aston, C. E., & Guy, C. (2017). Influence of genetic counseling graduate program websites on student application decisions. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 26(6), 1213-1220.
doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1007/s10897-017-0097-4
rko4 says
Hi,
As far back as I can remember (and it goes back a ways) a degree has always been a measure for positions that: pay well at entry, potential leadership role and a measure of an individual’s self-drive.
While not perfect, I do tend to agree with the basic philosophy. The checklist of basic requirements shortens the candidates list. Beyond basic entry position is where talent is associated with potential based on past success and to a degree – failures. Did the person recover and move past a failure?
The word “potential” is vital. People do not get promoted because they are successful. Success is just a result of accomplishing of what you are paid to do. Speaking personally from experience, I view potential as the ability to perform at a higher, more intense level where the line between success and failure is very narrow. Experience, education (both formal and informal (life experiences), social activities, and critical thinking/reading skills I consider important. The interview process is committee normally and the person adept to “thinking on their feet” has a responsible expectation to be success. Side note: A good company. /business etc., etc. will cut their losses if they hired the wrong person. It is worse to keep a “hire” in a position of leadership with responsibility to others (followers and the people that hired you) in a position then to internally recognize the fit is wrong and rectify the situation. It is unjust to all involved to keep someone not qualified in a position. Your last sentence …proven merit for a given position, loyalty, and determination says a lot about you. I believe you will succeed no matter where you end up. And it may be somewhere you have not even considered or contemplated yet. \
Ken