Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER CANADIAN HR REPORTER June 16, 2014 June 16, 2014 INSIGHT INSIGHT 15 15 Should hiring managers give advice Should hiring managers give advice to unsuccessful job candidates? to unsuccessful job candidates? QUESTION: Our hiring managers are of- ten asked by unsuccessful candidates to explain what they did wrong or what they could have done in order to land the job. What type of information should we be providing? Answer: Most of us have been jobseekers at one time or another. For that reason, we should have a certain degree of empathy for candidates who, for whatever reason, are having diffi culty fi nd- ing a job. It is particularly important to provide candidates with timely and honest feedback when they don't quite measure up for some reason — especially when they have been through a lengthy se- lection process and had multiple interviews with several people in the organization. Even if someone isn't a good fi t for a role or organization, they still could be a considered a fi t at some point in the future — or be a potential customer for the orga- nization's products and services. For this reason, how an organi- zation treats candidates is impor- tant from a branding perspective, both with respect to the organi- zation's employer and product brands. Negative candidate ex- periences can go viral on social media in a matter of hours. I have seen situations where someone may have been a fairly good fi t for a role but something about the candidate's resumé, dress sense or mannerisms may have been a little off -putting. In such situations, there may be a temptation to provide the can- didate with a little constructive feedback or coaching to help her land a job elsewhere or when she applies for a similar role at your organization. Career counsellors sometimes coach candidates to ask for this type of candid feedback from recruiters and hiring managers, since they are often blissfully un- aware they could be turning po- tential employers off . For example, I once received feedback from a hiring manager that she didn't like how I avoided eye contact during the interview. While that didn't seem to me like a valid reason for rejecting a candi- date, I was at least glad to receive the feedback. Not about career counselling On the other hand, hiring manag- ers aren't there to provide career counselling. They also need to be very careful about what they say to unsuccessful candidates from a human rights perspective. Nothing they say should relate to any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. On a practical level, hiring managers should also avoid get- ting into arguments or debates with candidates about why they may not have been considered the best fi t for the role. Let's face it — in most situations, once you de- velop a shortlist of candidates, any one of the shortlisted candidates could probably have done the job. It can be very hard to rationalize your decision. It can also happen that your top candidate doesn't work out, for whatever reason, and you have to go to your number two candidate. For that reason, it's particularly important to let candidates down gently and not be too specific about why the other person was a better fi t. Middle approach best Hiring managers should take the middle ground in their approach to rejecting candidates. While candidates should be given fair, objective and honest feedback, it is best not to provide too much information or divulge anything confi dential about the successful candidate and why he was consid- ered a better fi t. If the successful candidate had more varied experience and a stronger academic background, then it is generally a good idea to say so. However, that isn't the time to get into a debate with the rejected candidate or show her the other candidate's resumé to explain why he was the better choice. Hiring managers should be trained and coached on human rights legislation and the prohib- ited grounds of discrimination. ey should avoid rejecting can- didates for reasons that relate to prohibited grounds, including a lack of Canadian experience, mannerisms that could have cul- tural explanations (for example, avoiding eye contact, although that wasn't the situation in my case) or not appearing "youthful," "dynamic" or "mature." From a liability perspective, it may be best to refrain from pro- viding candidates with any type of career or interview advice. How- ever, if such advice could not be connected in any way with the prohibited grounds of discrimina- tion under human rights legisla- tion, I personally believe it usually doesn't hurt. In some ways, it can even be helpful. A minor point about a candidate's resumé is one example. Managers should avoid making candidates think they were reject- ed for seemingly trivial reasons (again, my eye contact example comes to mind). Such advice should be given only as a general suggestion and not be provided as the reason for rejection. However, if a candidate for an entry level marketing role was rejected, for example, in favour of another candidate with sales experience (previous sales expe- rience is often said to be advanta- geous for marketing roles), I don't see any harm in recommending the candidate try to gain some sales experience before applying for other marketing positions — especially when asked by the can- didate what he could have done to land the job. Brian Kreissl is the product develop- ment manager for Carswell's human resources, OH&S, payroll and records retention products and solutions. He can be reached at brian.kreissl@ thomsonreuters.com or visit www. carswell.com. Brian Kreissl Toughest HR Question Say goodbye to national certifi cation Say goodbye to national certifi cation I AM deeply saddened by the decision by Ontario's HR association to leave the Canadian Council of Human Resources Association (CCHRA). Saddened, but not surprised. is announcement by the Hu- man Resources Professionals Association (HRPA) will have a huge eff ect on national HR certi- fi cation. How could it not? HRPA will no longer be at the table. Phil Wilson, chair of the board of directors at HRPA, is quoted by Canadian HR Reporter as saying: "Leaving CCHRA does not aff ect the transferability or the mutual recognition of designations across the country in any way. Legally, the provinces have the sole re- sponsibility in this area, and des- ignations can only be dealt with on a province-to-province basis." But he is also quoted as saying that this action "empowers HRPA to focus basically on upgrading our (CHRP) designation, because now we're a tier-one association." at sounds to me like a diff er- ent designation with huge impli- cations for the continued health of a countrywide designation. Abandoning CCHRA also means HRPA could fi nd itself ex- cluded from the North American Human Resource Management Association (NAHRMA) and the World Federation of People Management Associations (WF- PMA). Maybe they have nothing to share in or outside of Canada? Improve the CHRP? All provincial HR associations (and some specialty groups) contributed to the development of the national CHRP. Hundreds of volunteers from across the country worked hard to create a strong national standard. And the federal government contributed a signifi cant sum to make the vision of a national stan- dard a reality. Perhaps HRPA will do the ethical thing and return its share of the federal monies? An apology to all those volunteers wouldn't be amiss either. No one suggests the CHRP program is perfect. It is essential that it continue to evolve in pro- cess and content. Regarding the latter, Ontario has long suggested the CHRP should have a more specifi c focus on labour relations. It claims practitioners need more knowledge in this area. at may very well be true, but is it any less true in other provinces? What about human rights, health and safety or pri- vacy legislation? ese are all diff erent in every province, but the goal of a national certifi cation was to set a standard for the basis of practice, not to provide an all-inclusive learning experience. Perhaps working together to develop and off er supplementary courses with plug-in provincial legislation segments that can be used for recertifi cation would be a better approach. Instead, HRPA's planned "up- graded CHRP" — be assured that it is already planned — will diff er from the rest of the country. So if you are an HR professional who wants to practise in Ontario… Imagine the impact on busi- nesses (and their HR staff ) that operate in Ontario in addition to their province of origin. e CHRP may continue to be recog- nized in some form but its image will be severely diminished. Where we came from CCHRA represents the third or fourth attempt, and the only suc- cessful one, to create a national presence for the profession of hu- man resources in Canada. Created in 1994, its objectives are to: •collaborate on national issues and share information •be the national voice on the en- hancement and promotion of the profession across Canada •co-ordinate the national CHRP designation •proactively position the national human resources agenda at the international level. With which of these goals does HRPA disagree? Like any political entity, the growth of CCHRA has been fraught with diffi culties. CCHRA truly refl ects the Canadian real- ity: small provinces fi ghting for an equal voice with large ones, Que- bec's "special" status and national co-ordination of a provincial legislative responsibility. CCHRA's birth overcame those challenges, in no small part be- cause the then leaders of HRPA had the vision to see a national presence was needed to give HR professional status. To make the confederation possible, Ontario agreed to a model of equality — every member association was to have two votes. is despite the reality — then and now — that Ontario repre- sents more than 50 per cent of the members of Canadian HR associations. Medicine, law and other pro- fessions have national associa- tions. Why can those provincially regulated professions cope while providing a national face, while HR cannot? Canadian accounting associa- tions — all provincially regulated — have not only acted as national organizations for decades, but they are now joining together for one nationwide accounting voice. Which "profession" will present a better face to Canadian business and the public now that CCHRA has lost any pretense of being national? e death of CCHRA? Rather than lead by strengthen- ing national certifi cation and rep- resentation, HRPA has celebrated its new "special" status by drop- ping any pretense of leadership, grabbing its toys and leaving the playground. Unfortunately, many no longer care. But for those who believe a strong national voice and certifi - cation are crucial to the well-being of HR as a Canadian profession, it is time to mourn. It is unlikely CCHRA can sur- vive with only the Maritimes and Western provinces at less than 50 per cent of prior membership and no truly national certifi cation but, regardless, it will no longer have a truly national voice. Only in Canada you say? Pity. Ian Turnbull is the former chair of the Canadian Council of Human Re- sources Associations (CCHRA) and he presided over the offi cial announce- ment of adoption of the national Cer- tifi ed Human Resources Professional (CHRP) standard and exams. He can be reached at iturnbull@lairdan- dgreer.com, (416) 618-0052 or via Skype: ianturn. Ian Turnbull Guest Commentary CCHRA represents the third or fourth attempt, and the only successful one, to create a national presence for the profession of human resources in Canada.

• Cover