Canada's University System

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

When a company is recruiting for a position, how can they screen the dozens of applicants for tenacity and hard work? Make the application process so onerous that most of the candidates give up out of frustration?

It used to be a combination of the resume, the cover letter, and the interview, but the system has broken down because of Human Resources meddling in the process. As soon as you get someone who is not an SME in the filtering process the ability to see deep into the data provided through the resume and cover is lost. I don't know how many times I've asked for the whole pool of candidates after the HR filter to find out quite a few good candidates were left on the cutting room floor. There is always the fear of fluffing taking place in both docs, but the interview was supposed to help filter those people out of the mix. Unfortunately, you're not allowed to ask delving questions during an interview any more, because of HR rules and their fear of potential lawsuits. It sucks trying to hire anyone these days.

[81MC]

My partner is a high level recruiter for a multi billion dollar firm. I’m obviously biased, but I think she does a hell of a job delving into areas while staying well out of the ‘opening up to legal troubles’ realm. I imagine she’s a rarity.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

When a company is recruiting for a position, how can they screen the dozens of applicants for tenacity and hard work? Make the application process so onerous that most of the candidates give up out of frustration?

At some point of the culture of your company has to be one where hard work and tenacity allows people to progress up the chain and be successful.

That won't happen if you look at a candidate and what degree they hold to decide whether or not you hire them, versus giving them a fair chance regardless of what degree they hold, provided they are competent enough to do the work properly.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

It used to be a combination of the resume, the cover letter, and the interview…

I don’t think any of those things effectively assess how hard-working or tenacious a candidate is. Resumes and cover letters can be fluffed. Interviews assess how quick-thinking, articulate, and personable candidates are, not how hard-working. Tests and assignments assess knowledge rather than productivity.

In my experience, it takes months on the job to get a sense of how hard working colleagues are. Pretty difficult for employers to hire on that basis, as cycling multiple new hires through probationary trials gets very expensive.

You used to be able to get a good sense of how hard working someone is by checking with their references. But with laws today narrowly restricting what former colleagues and managers can say about candidates, that route is no longer available.

[Hack&Lube]

We have a 3 month probation period in their employment agreement in which someone can be terminated without cause.

3 months is usually enough to suss out non performers or non team players.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

We have a 3 month probation period in their employment agreement in which someone can be terminated without cause.

3 months is usually enough to suss out non performers or non team players.

That’s basically only good for junior people though. Your not taking high quality people from another company and putting them on probabation.

[GirlySports]

What? Can't put the CFO on probabtion?

[timun]

Double secret probation.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 81MC

My partner is a high level recruiter for a multi billion dollar firm. I’m obviously biased, but I think she does a hell of a job delving into areas while staying well out of the ‘opening up to legal troubles’ realm. I imagine she’s a rarity.

What does she see as useful differentiators?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by 81MC

My partner is a high level recruiter for a multi billion dollar firm. I’m obviously biased, but I think she does a hell of a job delving into areas while staying well out of the ‘opening up to legal troubles’ realm. I imagine she’s a rarity.

Is she a recruiter, or an HR analyst? Very different jobs. One proactive and the other reactive in nature. A recruiter usually gets to work outside the process and has much more freedom in approaching and working a candidate. So there is a little apples to oranges comparison there.

Originally Posted by GirlySports

What? Can't put the CFO on probabtion?

C-suite employees are normally at will. They have no probation because they can be relieved of their duties at any point.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

C-suite employees are normally at will. They have no probation because they can be relieved of their duties at any point.

I assume they were joking. No experienced person is going on probabation. At least in my industry.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I assume they were joking. No experienced person is going on probabation. At least in my industry.

Labour laws don't apply to most of the very highest end of executives. We're not talking about higher level people, but the highest level officers. It's the same with lawyers (at least in BC). We have no protection via employment laws, so our employers can fire us at any moment and without notice.

Unless there are terms of a contract that deal with compensation, then you're pretty much SOL.

[Torture]

It used to be a combination of the resume, the cover letter, and the interview, but the system has broken down because of Human Resources meddling in the process. As soon as you get someone who is not an SME in the filtering process the ability to see deep into the data provided through the resume and cover is lost. I don't know how many times I've asked for the whole pool of candidates after the HR filter to find out quite a few good candidates were left on the cutting room floor. There is always the fear of fluffing taking place in both docs, but the interview was supposed to help filter those people out of the mix. Unfortunately, you're not allowed to ask delving questions during an interview any more, because of HR rules and their fear of potential lawsuits. It sucks trying to hire anyone these days.

You can ask all the delving questions you want, and I would encourage you to do so as long as they don't relate to a protected ground..

Originally Posted by 81MC

My partner is a high level recruiter for a multi billion dollar firm. I’m obviously biased, but I think she does a hell of a job delving into areas while staying well out of the ‘opening up to legal troubles’ realm. I imagine she’s a rarity.

I'm not really sure what Lanny is getting at, I know lots of recruiters that do an excellent job of asking probing questions and digging into candidates' experience without getting into legal trouble. And yes you can talk to candidates and look for examples of hard work. Recruiters screen and talk to people day in and day out and are typically very good at this.

If anything it's often the hiring manager that hires one person every 3 years that says "I need the perfect candidate with a university degree and 5 years of experience for an entry level job and btw I can only pay them 40k" and good recruiters push back on that.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

C-suite employees are normally at will. They have no probation because they can be relieved of their duties at any point.

Interesting that you would say that Lanny, because the entire concept of "At will employment" doesn't exist in Canada, so...no, that's no true.

There is no such thing as ‘at will employment’ in Canada. The concept of ‘at will’ employment simply doesn’t exist here. In Canada, under the common law, absent just cause for dismissal, employees are per se hired for an indefinite term and they are thus entitled to reasonable notice of termination or pay in lieu.

https://duttonlaw.ca/at-will-employment-canada/

They can be relieved at their duties at any point but you have to pay them and saying that they get nothing is pretty much entirely wrong. C-suite executives often will get a very healthy severance package if they're terminated.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by blankall

Labour laws don't apply to most of the very highest end of executives. We're not talking about higher level people, but the highest level officers. It's the same with lawyers (at least in BC). We have no protection via employment laws, so our employers can fire us at any moment and without notice.

Unless there are terms of a contract that deal with compensation, then you're pretty much SOL.

Yes, if the Board of Directors votes that you are out you are out. They probably still get a decent golden parachute though.

Not sure where this discussion veered into talking about seasoned executives though, I thought the discussed was on new grads and how to value their degrees and gauge their ability to work and manage time.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Yes, if the Board of Directors votes that you are out you are out. They probably still get a decent golden parachute though.

Not sure where this discussion veered into talking about seasoned executives though, I thought the discussed was on new grads and how to value their degrees and gauge their ability to work and manage time.

and i thought it was about the concept of a university education and how it should be updated for the times we live in, as it's not working for the students and the schools themselves are going broke.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Torture

Interesting that you would say that Lanny, because the entire concept of "At will employment" doesn't exist in Canada, so...no, that's no true.


https://duttonlaw.ca/at-will-employment-canada/

They can be relieved at their duties at any point but you have to pay them and saying that they get nothing is pretty much entirely wrong. C-suite executives often will get a very healthy severance package if they're terminated.

Sorry, spoke in American terms. I don't recall saying they get nothing. In the US, all executive staff are essentially at will. Most are protected by contract, like in Canada, and have provisions for compensation should they be asked to leave. The bottom line is that executives are not on probation and can be terminated at the drop of a hat.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

and i thought it was about the concept of a university education and how it should be updated for the times we live in, as it's not working for the students and the schools themselves are going broke.

Well that raises multiple questions that may get the topic back on track.

What is the/your concept of a university education?

Why is it not working for students? What are their expectations? Is this more of an expectations management issue, or requiring a massive retooling to meet their expectations?

What is it that is causing schools to go broke?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

and i thought it was about the concept of a university education and how it should be updated for the times we live in, as it's not working for the students and the schools themselves are going broke.

Yes, and a product of that is the value-less piece of paper degrees that kids go broke paying for just because it's a bare minimum an employer looks for these days. Often times, just having the university degree means nothing at all since a communications or liberal arts degree doesn't translate to skills an employer looks for.

In the past and when university degrees were uncommon and prestigious, a bachelors degree signified someone had demonstrated the ability to study, commit, and work hard for 4 years to achieve something and that would be reflected in their ability to work for an employer.

Now universities are paper mills, taking in tens of thousands in tuition but having a logical disconnect with industry which makes young students feel disconnected and rudderless when going into the job market.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

What are their expectations? Is this more of an expectations management issue, or requiring a massive retooling to meet their expectations?

Students in general expect a degree to open up a comfortable middle class white collar career.

I agree that is an expectations management issue, but I'd comment that if society gets the message that isn't true any more you'll probably have a lot less demand for university from students.