Education vs. Experience...!

Can experience make up for the lack of a degree, or does a degree provide something that experience cannot? Is one more valuable than the other? Talk about a discussion that will have you chasing your tail! It's truly a trap debate because the right answer is "it depends".

Whether it's a completely strategic discussion about your organization's policies or a discussion involving a specific position and candidate, this issue continually resurfaces at organizations. And depending on what side of the fence you sit, this issue can be very personal and emotional. Do a quick Internet search, and you'll find a common theme. Your search results will be dominated by links to chat/message boards where someone who has many years of applicable work experience but no degree poses a question about how to further his or her career without getting a degree. Of course, the question is followed by endless responses debating the issue.

Obviously, there are specific cases where the question is moot. If you need a registered professional engineer to approve plans, the degree requirement is a given. If you're a hospital looking for a surgeon, you're probably seeking someone with a PhD in medicine. However, the scope of positions that may or may not require a degree gets gray pretty fast, and the span is pretty wide. And, no industry is immune to this issue.
I've helped draft more job descriptions than I care to admit, and each time I ask the question of whether or not a degree is required, the response is usually based on cultural or personal preferences. Ironically, the hiring manager often justifies the decision to require a degree on "experience".

Regardless of your personal preference, I believe that as an employer, you should ponder some basic concepts to help you make a sound decision.

First, let's examine why employers prefer college degrees. Most often, they associate the following characteristics with people who have degrees (and more specifically, four-year degrees):

• A proven ability to analyze problems, conduct research and produce solutions
  
• A proven ability to learn complex, difficult subject matter
  
• Proof they are motivated and have drive
  
• Proof of intelligence
  
• Better interpersonal skills
  
• More credible qualifications

While it's difficult to argue that these characteristics are consistent with people who have earned a four-year degree, it's easy to question whether or not these characteristics are exclusive to that group. This is the root of my frustration with employers as they define job requirements. There is nothing wrong with requiring a four-year degree if that's what the job requires. But, if that requirement is based on a "that's how it's always been" mentality, or a personal bias, you are probably missing out on a large pool of job candidates.

The field of reliability - especially reliability engineering - is even more susceptible to this pitfall. The fact is that there is no accredited engineering program that produces a "reliability engineer". You can get a degree in many different engineering areas. However, you can't get one in reliability engineering, at least not yet. Many of the job descriptions I see for "reliability engineering" don't justify the degree. The requirement is usually there because the position is within the engineering department or because of a preconceived notion that only someone within an engineering degree can perform these duties. Much of the time, I believe the position could be renamed "reliability coordinator" or "reliability specialist" and be filled by someone with applicable experience and associated competencies.

So, take the time to properly identify and develop the required behaviors, abilities, knowledge and skills of the position. Ask yourself whether or not these required competencies can only be obtained through the process of earning a degree or if they can be acquired through experiences before completing the job description. At minimum, you'll learn more about the job requirements and better understand how you see this position fitting within your organization.

This entry was posted in TALENT MANAGEMENT

Read More

Why Do People Hate Human Resources?

A company’s most valuable asset is people. Business professionals know that. Of course, human resources must understand that, especially since it is the basis of their existence.  However, people-as-a-business-asset should be more general knowledge.

It certainly should be.
Why is it hard to convince some businesspeople and CEO’s that investing in people is more effective than investing in technology? For one, many simply think they do not have enough talent for a successful investment in people.

That belief is one reason why, in some companies, human resources has the least authoritative voice. It begs the question…


Why do people hate HR?

One reason might be that human resources departments often lack the revenue basis of other departments. No income means little power. Outsourcing some of the HR function demonstrates how companies see human resources functions. They are respected, but ultimately superfluous.

Some people say HR only exists for one reason, to prevent lawsuits. Left to focus on compliance, human resources departments are seen as little more than police, something that annoys just about everyone.
You can almost pity the poor employee who believes HR is “on their side.” They soon discover a hard truth: the primary purpose of HR is to protect the reputation and assets of the company; human resources answers only to the employer.

It is also no wonder why HR pros always seem frustrated. They have the task of protecting the most valuable asset of the company, so they know how effective they could be.

Human resources need to stay on top of an ever-changing employment and legal landscape, and are often asked to be way ahead of the departments they oversee. They need to be intimately aware of issues that will have a tremendous effect on the company while continually frustrated with the lack of authority to conduct real change.

Unfortunately, human resources are often forced to endure some of the worst parts of corporate life, enacting a constant stream of terminations.  Their job is to make firings go smoothly, with desks and lockers cleared without incident.

It certainly doesn’t have to be that way.

There are innovative companies that support human resources seriously. They are mostly professional services firms with people as their only real asset. They have no choice but to be creative about human resources.

These companies could prove to be a real game changer. For some firms, no one can rise to the position of a senior partner without serving some time (at least a year) in a human resources capacity. They believe that leaders have to learn to manage the company’s most vital asset.

Everyone talks about the need for “soft skills.” Deal with a variety of disparate and conflicting employees, balancing the needs of the employee with business needs, can be an essential skill. Nobody in a leadership role will succeed without people skills.

A brief stint in human resources won’t transform an introvert into a strong people person, but could be enough to see the value of developing talent. Any boss with his or her salt is made to work in HR. It just might allow human resources to get the respect it deserves. Once HR issues are discussed in the boardroom, departments with large budgets can appreciate the importance of employees as human beings.

It could change everything. And people will stop hating human resources.

Why do you think everyone hates human resources? Join the conversation on the comments below.

This entry was posted in HR

Read More