There are two ways to classify the professionals who are in charge of selecting staff: those who exalt the objectivity of their work and the up-to-dateness of their trends, praising their constant search for better strategies to really make human resources a business unit in the field. organizational environment, caring about people and their ability to generate value; and those who admit the dose of subjectivity with which they do the interviews, examinations and selection, since experience has shown them that in most cases it is more about what they call feeling than anything else.
Those who pride themselves on objectives defend the techniques learned, based on serious and proven studies, reject the possibility of being subjective since decisions are based on the results obtained, but in the end, when the process has finished, it seems that they do not notice the use of expressions such as: "that boy was the one I liked for the position", "since I saw her I knew that she was the one who was going to be selected", "what I liked the most was the way she responded to the interview", expressions whose common factor contains the bacillus of subjectivity.
But is there something wrong with it? In accepting subjectivity? No. In putting it into practice? It may be. In denying it? Yes.
The words "human resources", "human capital" and "personal" are full of subjectivity, since we are dealing with people, people are one hundred percent subjective, since our whole life is based on perceptions. For example, a child chooses a particular position in the classroom because he likes it, as well as the first person he considers his partner. Sciences or Humanities are chosen because they attract or not certain subjects.
You take a college degree because you think that's the right one. It is studied with eagerness or disdain because there is motivation or not for a particular class and, when working, small subgroups arise in the offices because some people fall better than others, or there is simply more feeling with certain people in the environment. That is our reality. We are subjective in choosing, whether they are friends, careers, clothes or partners and to deny that is to deny that we are human.
Obviously, anyone who boasts of being a professional will resort to the techniques learned to defend his management, since the use of abstract knowledge tests, projective, behavioral, etc., whose results provide us with objective information about the person we are evaluating for a position in particular. That's very true.
Actually it is, in fact the tests reflect more than what can actually be observed. But the problem does not lie in the application of these tests to support decisions in measurable and objective facts, but in the fact that it seems to be forgotten that the person who is undergoing the selection process is subjected to endless pressures that go from the simple fact of being unemployed, as if that were not enough, to the point of knowing that it is part of a number of applicants.
Furthermore, their economic, social and sentimental situation is unknown, which undoubtedly affect the result of the evaluation or simply only show the today and now of that candidate. That is the dilemma of the selection.
Usually there are more candidates than vacancies, then it is incredible to observe the similarity of the levels that the evaluated people are capable of reaching, even under pressure, and in the end, when the decision should arise between those whose profile has been satisfactory, whose weighting It shows, objectively speaking, that it covers the demands of the position, it is so common to hear sentences such as: "I think we should hire So-and-so, he made a good impression on me from the beginning and the tests corroborate it."
It is a fact, people are selected using subjective criteria supported by objective results. Subjectivity turns out, at the end of the road, the real reason that motivated to complete the search.
But what about new? Nothing! Absolutely nothing. It is practiced daily, it is so daily that we are completely incapable of being aware of its presence. So it is rather to accept that it is not possible to be totally objective when selecting and that there is no science in the world that can prevent it.
Once this premise is accepted, it is easy to understand certain arguments in the world of work that end up disturbing, which are the open secret of the selection. For example: Obesity is evaluated as a point contrary to aesthetics, ignoring biological reasons, such as thyroid, genetic or psychological problems such as anxiety caused, in certain cases, by the lack of employment translated into the high consumption of carbohydrates. Sheets are separated according to the physical appearance of the photos attached to the form, as if all the works depended on beauty.
The quality of the suit or dress of the interviewee is observed, ignoring the socioeconomic environment of our society where the highest percentage of the population is poor, and in addition, the name of the university or institution from which the candidate graduated is observed with acute vision, subtly evaluating To what extent are their credentials reliable, as if all individuals were able to study in the best universities in the country.
In addition to these and other "niceties", candidates who for whatever reason have been fired from previous jobs or whose duration is short are discarded.
In the first case, it seems not to be noticed that the unjustified dismissal is the way in which the employer tells the employee "I have no reason to dismiss you, but I do not wish to continue the employment relationship", however, it seems automatic to relate the dismissal with disability to carry out the work, an element that triggers an alert signal to the brain suggesting that the candidate be discarded immediately.
The same occurs with the duration in the jobs, which also becomes a paradox, if the person shows a long tenure, it is usually associated with a low level of expectations, conformity and even little capacity to hold other positions.
On the contrary, if the person has a short duration, it tends to be related to instability, fear of making mistakes, inability to fit into the group, among others. Assumptions based on completely subjective elements, since the scenarios that led to one or another situation are completely ignored.
It may be asked: Does being fired from a company disable the experience and knowledge of professionals? Is being fired an immediate indicator of mediocrity? Is dismissal in itself a determining factor in professional life? Isn't someone who has been fired the right to another chance? On the other hand, does not the professional have the right to withdraw from a company, regardless of the time, because they consider that they do not identify with it? Should the candidate ignore his work experiences simply because they are short? Is it that experience should be measured by time and not by results?
In any case, it turns out to be completely objective, the information that is processed during the selection comes from sources contaminated with subjectivity: interview, third-party reference, appraisals and perceptions, assumptions that are usually based on experience to be able to offer an answer.
The selection must be made based on concrete results, on the candidate's own merits and demonstrated by the candidate, it is required to delve into the scenarios that make up the reality of the candidate to understand the management of emotional intelligence and logical thinking of the applicant in order to understand decisions made in the past.
Subjectivity plays an important role at the time of selection, it obeys the perspective of the interviewer who will judge whether or not he can ignore them. Perhaps if the presence of subjectivity in the selection process is recognized, administered and managed, a door will be opening that allows us to see beyond our paradigms and in the end the answer will really be given by the candidate.
