Is Your HR / Recruiting Stuck in a Time Warp?

In an article I recently read — “Bill Gates and is HR/Recruiting Stuck in a Time Warp?” — the author, Lou Adler, suggests that, while other business functions are improving over time, HR and recruiting is stuck in a time warp. He claims that hiring accuracy and quality has not changed since the ’70s.
I’m sorry Mr. Adler, but I have to respectively disagree. I may not have been in the business in the ’70s, but I can think of a few ways companies are hiring now that they weren’t using then.

In Recruiting, Technology Has Changed Everything

For starters, in the 1970s companies weren’t creating enticing career pages and posting jobs online. The immediate submission process online, alone, has changed hiring drastically. This also allows companies to ask pre-screening questions before even reviewing a resume — making hiring a bit more accurate, if you ask me.
Additionally, let’s not forget the impact of platforms like LinkedIn, allowing recruiters to reach out to passive candidates on top of active candidates, and Twitter, allowing companies to market their jobs and culture.
Beyond that, expansion-stage technology companies are now participating in and hosting events that attract the candidates they are looking for. These range from career fairs to Hackathons to MeetUps. This is something companies were not doing much of a few decades ago and it is absolutely leading to quicker, more qualified hires.

Point / Counterpoint: Has Hiring Accuracy Really Improved?

Additionally, Mr. Adler suggests that HR and recruiting are stuck in this “time warp” because of the lack of measuring and managing what we want to improve. He makes the following suggestions:

1. Stop using skills and experience-based job descriptions: What? Job descriptions need to include the skills and experience required — this is one of the first sections people look at. I do agree, however, that job descriptions should include more action items describing what this person will be responsible for on a day-to-day basis or within the first few months of employment.
2. Measure the hiring manager’s ability to attract, develop and retain top people: I agree with this, but I also think it is something that companies are already doing. Aren’t most hiring managers also given reviews? In those reviews the performance of their team is almost always a primary touch point. If it’s not, it should be.
3. Never interview more than four people for any job: I just don’t think this is a fair limit. Going back to the conversation on hiring for culture — cultural fit is best assessed in the in-person interview. There is a chance that none of the first four people you interview fit the culture and you may need to interview more candidates to ensure you’re hiring the right one. I do agree that, if you find you are interviewing a large number of people for one opening, you should reassess what you are looking for and where these people are falling short. The point where the number becomes “large” is arbitrary though, and will differ depending on the position.
4. Define “Quality of Hire” before the person is hired: Isn’t this the point of the interview process and something that companies are already doing?

There is Always Room to Advance and Improve, but Recruiting Has Moved Forward

In conclusion, it is my opinion that HR and recruiting, especially within expansion-stage technology companies, has become more advanced through the years. No one is perfect and we will never get to 100% success rate with hiring — companies constantly have to evolve and get creative with their recruiting and I’m sure this will continue through the years and decades to come.

Who do you agree with — me or Mr. Adler? Has recruiting evolved or is it stuck in a time warp?