Human resources??????

[deathcruzer]

What is it about this industry?. Remember the old days when you wanted a job with an airline .... you were invited to talk to the chief pilot .He would decide whether you were going to fit into his team and would offer you the job.
Now it seems we have a gathering of human resources people with little idea of what you are going to do, who will submit you to a barrage of psychometric tests which have nothing to do with the job…....but will give them something to mark (keeping them in a job). If airlines really want to save money I would suggest they dump this most parasitical of departments and give the job back to the people who know….
:*

[RAPA Pilot]

Here Here, well said.

[Maxiumus]

Agreed. In any company I've worked for, in or out of aviation, they are the lowest of the low, the absolute bottom feeders, people of little or no ability. They never have the faintest idea about what jobs every else does (the value adding jobs in most cases). Quite how they have wormed their way to positions of power is beyond me.

[df1]

Can't say i've ever come accross anything quite as dreadful as what you guys have experienced. I happen to disagree that all HR depts are out to get you - for me i've only experienced quite the opposite.

What you must understand is that very few companies (sizeable ones) can exist without an effective HR department. HR are responsible for many things including employee welfare and ensuring that legislation is complied with. In a previous job, which was non-aviation, I worked with (not in) our HR department when it came to recruitment. I must say they really had a lot to offer in terms of do's and dont's. Ultimately any decision to offer employment was down to those that would be directly responsible for the employee - i.e that particular manager. The presence of HR was mandatory in most interviews for various reasons but in effect they were inobtrusive when it came to job-specific questions and very useful when it came to company policy matters. They usually administered the psychometric tests and analysed the results - I never recall them making a sole decision! You've got to respect that the big companies have got lots of resources at their disposal and to expect them to use everything they can to make a good company decision on recruitment!

It's a sign of the times that there may well be many different reps present at your interview. Best thing to do is to get as much advance preparation as you can and appeal to everyone. I certainly think that if you give them the impression you dislike them they will dislike you!

The irony is Maxiumus states that "they have no idea about what jobs every [one] else does". Maybe Maxiumus, you have little or no idea of what HR do!

[Maxiumus]

Maybe Maxiumus, you have little or no idea of what HR do!

This is true, but I don't have a veto over who gets recruited for HR in this company, as opposed to HR who can, and do, have a veto over FD recruitment.

[Craggenmore]

Maxiumus,

I have to say that is a superb parallel...In my experience, HR do more harm than good in the majority of cases...

Craggs

[df1]

Maxiumus,

Quite, but if you want to get into recruitment and have a say in who gets employed then get into HR or become a chief pilot,where you'll likely be working closely with HR in any case. Somebody somewhere has got to have the duty and responsibility that a fair and thorough selection/interview is carried out. HR, as i've stated before, have a key role in this. They will know the appropriate employment laws and company policies; they are actually experts at recruitment - and you DON'T have to be a pilot to assist in this process. HR will likely be the people you would turn to if you had an issue with your employer and as some already know here, false promises at interviews are not exactly unheard of! Was your interview conducted solely by HR? If so I don't agree with that at all - a specialist (whatever your profession) should be present. But I don't believe that HR should be excluded from the process.

You should expect that, as flying is a particularly responsible field, you will face a panel of interviewers whos brief it will be to make sure the most suitable candidate gets the job. If you come accross as showing a disrespect or loathe of other company departments then I'd wager that you might not be considered ideal! Whatever you previous experiences, good or bad, you'd do a lot worse than accepting these people are here to stay and that you'll have to impress them someday!

[ccatfanclub]

This is a fantastic thread and something that I have thought for a long time but never put into words.

df1 you are full of it. I can think of one HR manager, for a world famous cargo company that doesn't have a clue what being a pilot is all about but knows for a fact that if you don't score an average of 90% on her tests then you're not the kind of pilot they're looking for.

The chief pilot is the one who knows how difficult it is to become a pilot and what kind of person it takes.

[df1]

ccatfanclub,

No I'm not HR. Like I said before I've been involved with recruitment, albeit in another industry, and I've seen the operation of HR! I thought i'd offer my perspective on it that's all. Sorry if this offends!

df1

[BigGrecian]

When flying with Her Majesty's Airlines just think of all the HR people supporting us? Prob quite a few but we don't have the same view of them.

[Maxiumus]

ccatfanclub, I quite agree. HR expect people to give the answers the HR books say they should. Other answers, which could be just as correct, and showing initiative, just dont fit the "correct model" and are anathema to HR people.

I personally know people who would have been superb pilots rejected by HR after interview, despite the Chief Pilot WANTING to offer them the job. But HR came up with some cockamamey psychoanalytical rubbish to reject them. Thankfully they have gone on to be very successful pilots elsewhere.

I also recall an interview in the past of my own with a HR psychologist. I knew what she wanted to hear, so I told her same. She admitted afterwards that all the right boxes were ticked as I had indeed given her the "right" answers. Just went to show what HR really stand for: ticking the boxes. She wasnt the faintest bit interested in what I really thought, as long as what I said fitted what I was supposed to say.

df1: funny how airlines survived so long without HR departments and without all sorts of nutters getting FD jobs. Why the sudden need?? Creating jobs is all it is.

[The Southend King]

Deathcruzer et al,

The Old Days? Which "Old Days" are you referring to, because I have been in the industry since the mid 70's and I have a different recollection to you. My first interview in the 1972 was with the personnel department of a large airline, and a line pilot to ask technical questions. I only got to that stage having completed a day of psychometric and maths tests.

Maybe you're thinking of the small, Air Taxi outfit, where the Chief pilot could find the time to interview 5 or 6 candidates to make sure they were nice guys.

But when an airline gets 2000 applicants for 10 positions, thats not practical is it? You will find that the Chief Pilot, or his nominated deputy gets the FINAL SAY, but somewhere along the way there has to be a filter, and a reasonability check.

No airline can just afford to recruit " nice guys" who can impress the chief pilot at interview. The airline needs to be sure that the individual will have the ability to cope with training, has a good understanding of the industry, has a good understanding of the role, and most of all has the commitment to the job ( rather than just the money to buy his or her way into the job).

Also.



funny how airlines survived so long without HR departments and without all sorts of nutters getting FD jobs

The fact is, they didn't. There is sufficient evidence of accidents caused by people unsuitable for the job ( The Trident in Staines is a good example) Modern airlines, just like most companies MUST have process that are open and visible in term of recruitment, because there is a possibility that, following an accident or incident, the pilot's files, right back to recruitment will be heavily scrutinised to ensure that some process was followed.

HR departments, whether we like them or not, are there to cover the company's back with regard to Employment legislation, and that includes recruitment, grievience and dismissal. The legislation has changed so much over the years that it needs PROFESSIONAL monitoring.

The problem is that you guys still sound as if the industry owes you a job. It doesn't. If you want to join an airline, accept the fact that you have to go through their process. There isn't a Chief Pilot in the UK who would bypass them in this litigous age.

[haughtney1]

Southend, you make some valid, and very coherent points...however, lets be pragmatic about all this, HR departments exist for their own ends.
An entire industry has grown up out of the requirement (mistakenly in my opinion) to offload..filter..analyse...and select candidates for private companies.(not just airlines) In todays cost vs benefit environment..it is often short term cost that is viewed rather than long-term benefit, Im afraid that many of the HR personnel that I have had the misfortune to have to deal with, view the entire exercise of assessing an individuals characteristics as either a cost or benefit. In this sense it is often the least suitable personality who also has the lowest total training requirement that wins the day..once again due to an HR deptartment setting policy based on flawed management models.
You need go no further than look at the SSTR schemes out there for desperate wannabes...even line training at a cost to the individual!
Put another way, yes HR depts have a role to play, but they should not be setting policy in areas where they have little or no expertise, this relates specifically to assessing flying aptitude, ability, and crew co-ordination and effectiveness.
As a final example of this, let me relate another HR story.
I attended pre-screening of a european carrier which involved the usual battery of tests.....as I was successful..but later turned down the job offer, I trust you will see I have no axe to grind.
Attending this pre-screening was also a very experienced pilot, who has to date logged around 7000 command hrs on the particular A/C type this airline operates..(he was pre-screened as this was company HR policy).....staggeringly the individual concerned was considered unsuitable, his test scores indicated he was incapable of operating the A/C successfully. Furthermore the individual also has an IQ of at least 160...and is responsible for some of the greatest advances in CRM...in the last 20 years. Yet due to his inability to tick the correct "HR" boxes, he was excluded from the initial selection.

Just something to ponder....


Cheers H:ok:

[Re-Heat]

Haughtney - you appear to think that HR is only involved in recruitment rather than a number of other tasks upon which every company relies, no because they justify their own existence, but because the need arises when the company grows any larger than one small office and a few people who all know each other. Their existence is only partially related to recruitment.

Could you care to name the flawed management policies that you refer to in your post?

If HR do not understand the industry in which they operate, those persons should not be there, since that is sheer incompetence. The function of HR relies upon their understanding of the industry, and the posts above tar all with a brush based upon isolated bad experiences.

Not every personality fits every company culture, whatever their experience.

[haughtney1]

re-heat youve missed my point...entirely. Notice I used the word pragmatic..and I emphasize this as it is important in the sense that I see BOTH sides of the arguement.
My point is this....Yes HR have a part to play..however their invlovement in recruitment should be limited to the areas where they are emminently qualified.
This is not the case (except in very isolated cases with individuals who have an aircrew background..experience..and qualifications) for a vast majority of HR personnel working at the front end of the majority of UK airlines. It is only once an individual achieves an arbitrary standard..based around conceptual reasoning...and mathematical expertise (which is fine for ab initio candidates...but wholly invalid for experienced aircrew) that the opportunity to impress is created.
I am not saying all HR are not valuable contributors to the work place....I would just prefer that qualified people..(look at my last post for my definition of qualified) make the recruitment decisions.

As for flawed management policy..........umm divide and rule...Ryanair..recruit low houred pilots..who pay for everything..then wonder why the rest of the workforce is embittered. (oh and yes that particular gem originated in HR..from someone with an accounts qualification)
Basing your recruitment requirements on test scores.....not personailty...nor a combination of both (and no this is not the nice guy arguement).
There are others.....but typing is not my strong suit.

And as for company culture.......to go back to your comment.....how the hell can anyone know if an individual fits into company culture if they havent sat down and talked to them?
I dont accept a psychometric test can establish that!

Im interested in your responses..cheers H:ok:

Ohh and most of my HR experiences have been poor...until I got past the monkeys and then met the organ grinder.

[Vortex Thing]

Sorry have to agree with the HR are a waste of time brigade.

HR are very useful for the myriad of internal company matters which result from employment law, WTD, benefits, pensions, et al.

I think that they should do exactly those things i.e. personnel but have nothing to do with the recruitment process as in most industries that I have experienced they are absolutely the last people to have any clue as to what is really required to do the job.

Most decent companies appear to have people who do the job and manger of those people doing the interviews thank god with HR doing nothing more than provide a filter for requirements and providing information at interview.

Wish this was the aircrew norm myself...

[deathcruzer]

Southend king,

Been in this business some time myself…had a few interviews in that time, all successful I’m happy to say ( a couple with Major airlines one of whom I currently work for…) Not a sniff of HR at any of them.


Your quote

The fact is, they didn't. There is sufficient evidence of accidents caused by people unsuitable for the job ( The Trident in Staines is a good example)



I would suggest that Staines is not the best example….

BEA had a personnel department involved at the time, Didn’t seemed to have made any difference in 1972….or in 1958 at Munich…..

[Maxiumus]

I think you're missing the point alright, Southend King. As someone in my third airline company, I can safely say all the HR persons so far have been complete tossers, particularly in relation to recruitment. True, they may have a role in areas such as employment law, employee rights (although as in most companies HR are management toadies, they have hardly an unbiased view when it comes to rights of employees) etc etc. However, I think the point being made is that, once you get down to the nitty gritty of interviews, they have no qualifications for rejection of suitable pilots (and of plenty of other types of job) as they frequently do.

This is leaving aside the lunacy of using psychoanalytical tests as initial selection devices. These proving nothing as fooling them is so easy.

[yyzdub]

As said previously, when you have a few thousand applicants for only a handful of jobs, there needs to be a department that will/can sort through the mess of applications to get their ideal candidates... be it by means of useless psychometric testing, etc.

I really don't think an airline is concerned with the knowledge their HR staff have with regards to flying duties or the ideal pilot behavioural background - what they are interested in is getting qualified pilots, who fit the company mould, in the shortest amount of time.

On the flip side however, there are a number of qualified pilots who work HR for carriers across the world so I wouldn't be so quick to judge. The best thing is to get them on your side if you hope to make any headway in securing yourself a job.

So... to say HR departments are useless, they haven't a notion as to what a pilots job entails, etc, etc is ridiculous - imagine a company with 1000's of employees and no one to implement
processes would equal disaster.

Anyway, that's my two cents.