What's wrong with HR?

[Zeelch]

I keep of hearing of candidates trying to get in touch with hiring managers and hiring managers trying to bypass HR. It seems that way too often HR has the last - negative - word even when it comes to hire technically adept but poorly socially-talented employees, let alone the cases in which CVs go directly to /dev/null. What's your experience?

[bediger]

"HR" went wrong when they changed from "Personnel" to "Human Resources". The very name "resources" makes those people think that everyone is plug-compatible. Proceeding from that assumption, they feel they can winnow out candidates as if people were a commodity, where price and price alone lets you make a decision.

The "Harvard MBA" mindset of the late '80s, early '90s, where "management" made the difference to any business, and businesses only dealt in "product", also helped this sort of mind set along. "HR" has a "product" to churn out, at a minimum cost to the company.

[gharbad]

From what I've seen, the problem is that HR only knows what to look for from the job description given by the hiring manager. Typical HR personnel don't have the technical background to properly identify candidates, so you get to play buzzword bingo.

The sad truth is that I know many people in HR as well as hiring managers who weed out resumes for completely arbitrary reasons.

[Zeelch]

Any idea about how to solve this problem? Recruiters cannot do that: Most of them just add another layer between candidates and hiring managers, usually because of lack of a tech background and deep understanding of the business' needs. Any suggestions? Any HR people out there?