How Does HR Miss the Right Candidate?

Research reveals that Human Resources (HR) problems in Turkey mostly start with recruitment. So we make mistakes from the very beginning. And although these mistakes are very simple, unfortunately they are very difficult to compensate. Many HR professionals I interviewed believe that if the recruitment process is run effectively, HR problems in a company will be reduced by at least 50 percent. On the other hand, opinions on the source of the problem differ considerably. There is no common agreement. For this reason, in this month’s article, I will try to summarize the problems experienced in the recruitment process in Turkey under headings.

1. It is an important shortcoming that the recruitment processes in Turkey are designed for mediocre employees. For example, many companies try to fill even critical positions with advertisements they place in newspapers and career websites. The content of the advertisements is extremely ordinary and far from attracting the attention of qualified candidates. However, there is a serious difference between the job search methods of unemployed candidates and passive candidates still working in good positions. In summary, companies are wasting time in the wrong candidate pool with the wrong methods.

2. High-performing candidates may not have all the skills, experience and education criteria in the job posting. For example, requiring at least five years of experience for a job results in disqualification of all candidates who do not meet this requirement, regardless of their level of competence.

3. In addition, traditional job postings and recruitment methods do not include the features that the business world needs most, such as learning potential, willingness, hard work, dedication and foresight. In short, when companies buy only on the basis of skills, they can screen out candidates who can make the most contribution to them from the outset.

4. Job descriptions and competency models in companies are copied from foreign companies. Profiles prepared with the stereotypical cut-paste logic are not compatible with the “Business Plan”. As a result, candidates who meet the written requirements may fail when faced with company realities.

5. Recruiters and managers come to recruitment interviews unprepared, without learning the details of the job. This prevents them from making a sound assessment and often “no” becomes the safer option.

6. Evaluations are largely based on information on paper. No particular effort is made to describe the candidate’s performance in previous jobs. This makes the companies we work with more important than the performance shown in these companies. In other words, a candidate who is dismissed from a prestigious holding for poor performance may be more advantageous than a candidate who leaves a medium-sized company for career opportunities.

7. It is possible to say that the evaluation process is worse than the interview process. Many interviewees make judgments about candidates very quickly, and then they begin to ask questions to support their judgment.

8. Personality tests are used as a basic criterion in many companies. This is how managers and recruiters try to shed responsibility. However, there are so many resources on the subject and most of the tests on the market can be guided by candidates.

9. Few managers know how to negotiate and offer wages. In fact, as soon as the candidate makes a good impression, some managers immediately go into “sales mode”. Listening and evaluation are pushed aside in the rush to explain the benefits of the job and the strengths of the company. However, this attitude discredits the company, leading to the alienation of qualified candidates, while the rest demand higher wages than usual.

10. Qualified candidates take longer to evaluate the offer made to them than other candidates. These people see job change as a strategic step and gather information from many sources. While ordinary candidates are based on superficial criteria such as wages and working conditions, qualified candidates want to see the content of the job and the long-term gains. But the difference between the two is unfortunately overlooked. For example, job descriptions in many companies are similar. There is no effort to make jobs attractive to high-performing employees. Negotiations are usually conducted on a fee basis. As a result, companies do not design their recruitment processes for high-performing candidates, so they have to settle for ordinary candidates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

We use cookies to give you the best experience. Cookie Policy