Recently one of our clients at #cajobportal wanted a Banking & Treasury Lead – Instead of specifying “x”number of years, we made the CEO agree to having on board a person who had completed one complete cycle of fund-raising >= 500 crores ; whether its 5 years or 15 years post qualification
Quality trumps quantity, any day.
Whats the point if you have a candidate with 12 years experience but 4 years maturity in terms of the function – because he has always played second fiddle to someone, because he hasn’t independently handled work
In Sales, it could have been a more objective metric like , handled a sales territory with >= 100 crore p.a. revenues
In IT, it could have been – 3 cycles of ERP Implementation at companies with turnover >=1000 cr
However, tradition HR processes are attuned to having filters – Even a profile 4 years 8 months is a reject if the filter is >=5 years
In a country like India, where the problem is of abundance than scarcity, its a common practice to mention ”x” years
The filter is strictly applied and the ones remaining are interviewed to select the best
One probable reason is the typical Indian mind-set that how could you recruit a 24 year old CA at 17 lacs when 30 year old ones in the system are earning 14 lacs.
HRs call it “Internal Parity” – basically soothing the frayed nerves of “deadwood” in their organisation
It is for this precise reason that a lot of companies find it easy to recruit a PGP fresher as management trainees from IIMs 2 year program but find it difficult to recruit at mid-levels ( GM & above) from the 1 year PGPX program. The same internal conflicts
But then how does one become a CFO at the age of 40 if the criteria is only “x”years
Don’t you think the learning curve moves exponentially when one works on transformative projects and not by passage of time
What are your views on this?