Register now or log in to join your professional community.
Firstly, it depends on the situation. It is the responsibility of selection board. HR can find what are the reasons for non performing emplyees who did not perform well? Is it performance problem? or other factors which hampers employee's performance. What was role of supervisor and how he or she helped to perform the employees? If supervisor fails to develop him by providing sufficient support then HR can extend contract aditional03 months or termnate his or her contract with the discussion of his or her supervisor.
the employee performance falls under direct superviser's responsibility. recruitment team job ends when the contract is signed.
What is the reason for non performance? Is it wrong fit or incorrect qulaifications or is there some internal issue of not getting the enviornment in the team. Till thsesstions are not anwered how can any one be held responsible. HR invariably is the facilitator the final Yes/NO will invariably rest with the HEAD of TEAM or Department Head so if there is a problem of misfit, inadequate support, or inadequate skills then it is responsibility of team leader, if the problems are related to back ground checks or qualifications then HR may be asked to explain.
This is a very broad question and would require further information around what processes were used when hiring said individual and further clarification on how the individual was under performing. If the recruitment process with robust and objective and the individual was under performing in accountable tasks then it could be safe to say that perhaps other factors have contrubuted to the individuals under performance. Rather than the blame game I would look into other factors that may have contributed to the unsuccessful employee to gauge a better understanding of the issue i.e. could it be lack of employee engagement, lack of direction etc...
One of the Best questions with NO matching answers yet in the industry :-) .......!! Assuming "HR function" in the said organisation is professionally managed & involved in organisation's decision making body. Even in that scenario, "Recruitment team can be held responsible for a PERIOD or PROGRAMME level, NOT on case to case basis". If a period review (6 months) indicates,15% of hiring failed - recruitment team can accept50% share, NOT100% still. Case based 'research & findings' are a separate topic....like any business issue (say, errors like!!....procurement, investment etc.). If the case findings implicate recruitment team (CV fudged, medical examination errors etc.), well it is a simple 'liability ownership'.
Recruitment team is not to be held responsible for performance of new joinee / employee. The interview process involves technical team who formally interviews the candidates before selection based on the technical requirements of the project. Recruitment team plays a role of fecilitator here.
If there is issue at large scale then it could be possible that team approach / process needs to be relooked. Again if, there are issues with supporting certification documents or reference checks etc then Rec team could be asked but these areas are not related to employee performance.
Dear Mr. Mario
As per my opinion recruitment team can be responsible for non-performance only in following condition
1. If non-performance due to lack of required Industry experience ( recruitment team have to insure by background verification )
2. If non-performance due to language or cultural trend (must be verified during screening )
Aside if reason of non-performance are others like he do not know to perform operation which he claim that he can did during interview it is failure of technical person which accompanied during interview etc. checking of technical and functional knowledge is the responsibility of functional expert .
Regards
Anurag
Randa, truly appreciate your response, however my question still stands why recruitment should be held responsible? we either play the role of facilitators or advisors. We can influence decision to some extent, ultimate decision is made by the hiring manager based on his technical evaluation of the candidate who has been interviewed, also performance of an individual (as you rightly mentioned towards the end of your response ) also depends on the “on floor” experience i.e. has the employee been engaged enough? Has the employee been given the direction on how things works in the current organization? Has the new employee’s supervisor / colleagues been welcoming? Has the employee been provided with information / training required for the current job?
This is a very useful Question.. It depends on the the candidate and we should analize the situation of the candidate. And what he did during the Gap.. should do a clear background verification to find the information provided by him is True !!!!
