Businesses -- large businesses that have HR departments -- have a problem: They find it difficult to hire new staff.
The problem has a few aspects.
First is the processes that businesses have developed for hiring. Businesses have refined their processes over decades. They have automated the application process, they have refined the selection process to filter out the unqualified candidates, and they have documented job descriptions and made pay grades equitable. They have, in short, optimized the hiring process.
But they have optimized it for the pre-COVID market, in which jobs were few and applicants were plentiful. The selection processes have been designed to filter out candidates: to start with a large number of applications and through multiple steps, reduce that list to a manageable three (or five, or ten). The processes have been built on the assumption that many candidates wanted to work at the company, and were willing to undergo phone screens, interviews, and take-home tests.
The current market is a poor fit for these practices. Candidates are less willing to undergo day-long interviews. They demand payment for take-home tests (some of which can take hours). Candidates are especially reluctant to undergo the process multiple times, for multiple positions. The result is that companies cannot hire new staff. ("No one wants to work!" cry the companies, but a better description might be "Very few people are willing to jump through all of our hoops!")
One might think that companies could simply change their hiring processes. There is an obstacle to this: Human Resources.
Most people think that the purposes of Human Resources are to hire people, occasionally fire them, and administer wages and benefits. They miss an important purpose for HR: to keep the company out of court.
Human Resources is there to prevent lawsuits. Lawsuits from employees who claim harassment, candidates who were not hired, employees whose employment was terminated, employees who are unhappy with their annual performance review, ... you get the idea.
HR meets this objective by enforcing consistency. They administer consistent annual evaluations. They document employee performance prior to termination of employment. They define and execute consistent hiring practices.
Note that last item: consistent hiring practices. One of the ways that HR deflects lawsuits is by ensuring that hiring practices are consistent for all candidates (or all candidates in broad classes). Consistency is required not only across employees but also over time. A consistent approach (to hiring, performance review, or termination of employment) is a strong defense against claims of discrimination.
The suggestion that HR change its hiring practices goes against the "consistency" mandate. And HR has a good case for keeping its practices consistent.
Companies must balance the need for staff against the risk of lawsuits (from a change in practices). It is not an easy call, and one that should not be made lightly. And something to keep in mind: The job market may shift back to the previous state of "many candidates for few openings". Should a company adjust its practices for a shift in the market that may be temporary? Should it shift again when the market changes back?
I don't have simple, definite answers. Each company must find its own.
