Why do we have this on front page?

Dahveydson:


Thanks, but that ship already sailed.

If you read in between the line, he didn't really mean, human resources doesn't have anything to do with human management, but tried to explain to you that anybody can manage human capital. However, he taught you to always prepare answers to both perspective of a situation. In school debate, you would be given a scenario and asked to support and at the same time oppose.


Regarding the second director, I'm of the believe he tried to test you on ethics. When we say "the ends justifies the means", to the best of my understanding, it means the target, or main objective, justifies the actions you take to meet the target. E.g, you may need to lie to protect a life. Your lie could be justified by your ultimate objective which is to protect someone's life.

That's my own little understanding.

Managing the relationship between the employer and the employees..... management gave birth to HR.

One thing about interview is that you just have to be smart. Do not be caught unawares. He is not smarter than you just probably more experienced.
Human resources has to do with management of people in a more extensive level including welfare, promotions, motivations, leaves, allowances and you must have key knowledge or passion for managing people to successfully carry out your role. So I believe it has to do with managing people.

In fact Human resources solves grouses and frictions in the work place. Ensures that disputes are resolved accordingly and that all staff are doing their jobs accordingly.

There are a host of things you guys should learn in 2016. This must be a different year for you and I folks.
Read this thread I just created and it be will updated regularly:
https://www.nairaland.com/2835452/tagged-serious-get-job-2016#41540815

hmmn

I have interviewed in the past forbthat same HR Assistant position you were interviewed for, HR is a field any degree can venture into, so I thought. I have a degree in Foreign Languages and CIPM certification so I thought I was qualified. The fact is,they usually don't employ newbees for that role,they want someone with some HR experience,hands-on experience they can relate to. I can totally relate to your post OP. I understand!

Keneking:
Did you get the job y/n?

I didn't.

tedimola:
It has happened before, wen I answered a question correctly and I was told I was totally wrong. They just wanted to test ur confidence, and ur morale (if it will dis stabilize you) and if u will be able to stand for what u know is the truth. Hope u come out successful. Cheers.

If it was a test of confidence, then i'd have been give an opportunity to defend myself.

Thanks anyway.

Atmmachine:
In America, people don't look for job. Jobs knock on their doors and beg them to come work.

thats not true literally

oshdam2015:


If you read in between the line, he didn't really mean, human resources doesn't have anything to do with human management, but tried to explain to you that anybody can manage human capital. However, he taught you to always prepare answers to both perspective of a situation. In school debate, you would be given a scenario and asked to support and at the same time oppose.


Regarding the second director, I'm of the believe he tried to test you on ethics. When we say "the ends justifies the means", to the best of my understanding, it means the target, or main objective, justifies the actions you take to meet the target. E.g, you may need to lie to protect a life. Your lie could be justified by your ultimate objective which is to protect someone's life.

That's my own little understanding.

Actually his point was that only someone that studied HR can work in HR.

You're right about the other question. Even when I was answering it, my mind was telling me I had goofed on it.

jah bless our hustle

#2016

My dear Op, the interviewer just pulled your leg to see how much you could go in defending your right choices and reevaluating your wrong decisions.
They were basically ascertaining your confidence level.
Next time, ask the interviewer to throw more light on any statement that seems untrue. See interviews as a discussion class with you and your interviewer not a boss-slave relationship.
GOD's Grace this year.

Atmmachine:
In America, people don't look for job. Jobs knock on their doors and beg them to come work.

please are u in America?

Op, don't mind me o. This is what happens when your over rehearsed and thought you'll impress during the interview. Even when you rehearse, try to answer questions from your soul like a STAR. This two questions provided occasions in which you demonstrate that you can hold your ground by arguing your points why HR is related to human management and boldly stating that you don't believe in the statement that the end justifies the means. Answer questions like you're describing, illustrating or explaining. Then learn how to buy time.
But recruitment process for naija na dead. Series of tests, presentations and interviews spanning months to years. What's the company's name again?
Ditto: nlng, Unilever, Dangote, et al.

I believe he Just wanted to shake u up and destabilize You to see how you'd react under pressure

Atmmachine:
In America, people don't look for job.
Jobs knock on their doors and beg them to come work.

I see. They are through with sub-prime mortgage, recession and Lehmann Brothers' Brouhaha.
Good to know.

Here in Sambisanistan we don't work at all. Me make knockouts as a hobby.

It is possible he wanted you to dimension all the technical facets of an HR function in the organisation and relate how your educational background or prior experiences have prepared you to handle each areas which you mentioned you covered. Depending on how technical the interviewer wants to be and how you answered initially could have been the reason for the rough tackle so if your initial answer summarised HR as "managing people" without quickly elaborating on the specifics, that could put a technical person on the offensive. It's like when you apply for Head of finance role and your summary of how you will do the work is that you will manage the company's finances without quickly drilling down to the specific areas like budgeting, working capital management, financial reporting etc.


APQC process classification framework (PCF) defines the following process/functional domains within HR function. Depending on the organisation's maturity, some of the areas may not be applicable.

Develop and Manage Human Capital

7.1 Develop and manage human resources planning, policies, and strategies
7.2 Recruit, source, and select employees
7.3 Develop and counsel employees
7.4 Manage employee relations
7.5 Reward and retain employees
7.6 Redeploy and retire employees
7.7 Manage employee information and analytics
7.8 Manage employee communication
7.9 Deliver employee communications

Wish you the best in 2016.

HR really isn't about managing people regardless of what you read in books, or at uni.

The real purpose of the HR department is to reduce or eliminate Employer Liabiity.

Quite frankly, HR only exists to try and prevent the Organisation from getting sued by it's Employees.

Truthfully, it has very little to do with managing people

dahmie2013:
Op, d director expected u 2 criticize his opinion&defend ur postulatn. U cud have said ppl mgt involves training, skill gap analysis, which a cleaner won't do. However, 4 d second questn, its just abt success. Meaning whatever effort u put in 2 a thing, is how much results u get. Aldo dere are execptns especially in academics, were one will read 4 hours&fail&some will read 4 minutes & pass. My take though! Happy New Year!

I will rather answer the second question from an ethical point of view. When it comes to business ethics, the end doesn't always justify the means.

[b] I THINK HE'S RIGHT. NO ONE CAN manage MAN. YOU CAN ONLY lead MAN & maximize HIS TALENTS

Also, as a Political Science graduate, I'm quite disappointed that the OP didn't do much justice to the second question, despite it being the most famous paraphrased line from arguably the most famous treatise on politics of all time.

I just don't understand how that question could confuse you...

athorello:
Op, don't mind me o. This is what happens when your over rehearsed and thought you'll impress during the interview. Even when you rehearse, try to answer questions from your soul like a STAR. This two questions provided occasions in which you demonstrate that you can hold your ground by arguing your points why HR is related to human management and boldly stating that you don't believe in the statement that the end justifies the means. Answer questions like you're describing, illustrating or explaining. Then learn how to buy time.
But recruitment process for naija na dead. Series of tests, presentations and interviews spanning months to years. What's the company's name again?
Ditto: nlng, Unilever, Dangote, et al.

I agree with you on structuring your answer in a descriptive way that substantiates your experience. When I interview people I look out for them to structure their answers to cover the STAR model and I often have to rephrase the questions to ensure that all are clearly answered. I am more impressed when the candidate naturally covers it in this structure without the nudging

S - situation/context
T - task
A - actions
R - results

http://www.quintcareers.com/star-interviewing/

Dahveydson:
Before 2015 ends, i'll like to get this off my mind. Always wanted to write it, but never got the push.

Here goes...

I applied for an HR assistant through a vacancy that was shared on here. Was invited for the chat, then wrote a test. After a week, I got a success mail, inviting me for a panel presentation and interview.

I prepared for it, gave the panel presentation and answered all the questions to the best of my knowledge. Let me introduce at this point that I studied political science and have a management certification. So the questions bothered on my course and it's relationship to human resources.

I was able to successfully convince the panel with the leadership experience, the skills that come with my course and my management certification. I got another success mail for the a computer skill based test and chat with directors.

The Computer test was a piece of cake. Now the directors chat is where my story centres on, after being ushered it to the first office. The director already gave me that unfriendly stance, but I smiled and greeted him anyway.

He asked two basic questions, then asked about the relationship of my course to Human resources, I was leaping for joy inside of me because I have rehearsed and prepared well for this question. As I was reeling out my answer confidently, he stopped me and said Human Resources doesn't have anything to do with management of people, that even cleaners manage people every day

I was stunned! In my head I was screaming - "What the hell is this man say?" - he went on to say he cannot employ a civil engineer to do a medical doctor's job. Every attempt to defend my position was shut down.

Going to the second office. The whole scenario kept playing in my head. The second director asked basic questions also, I had picked and gave answers confidently. Then he adjusted well on his sit and unexpectedly asked What are you thoughts on the Principle - The End Justify the means. I couldn't fashion out coherent thoughts on that question and that was the last question he asked.

____________________________________

Now I look back and I don't understand something. Why will the first director say Human resources doesn't have to do with the management of people?

That's my experience guys. Thanks for reading.

Sometimes, interviewers, especially non-HR interviewers like CEO, Directors etc, ask some questions just to play the devil's advocate. Just to disrupt the flow and see how coherent you will be in the face of disruption to your line of thought.

Most executive-level interviewers don't ask traditional interview questions. The good thing is most of them are usually lenient once you demonstrate basic intelligence.

Mere mention of Nicolo Machiavelli even if you went on to ramble, would have convinced him.

On relationship between the course, the civil engrg and medicine example is different. These are more specialist courses. HR is different. HR is not a specialist area in the sense of medicine. You just needed to go on and list example of successful HR practitioners that had academic background different from HR

Lofx:


I agree with you on structuring your answer in a descriptive way that substantiates your experience. When I interview people I look out for them to structure their answers to cover the STAR model and I often have to rephrase the questions to ensure that all are clearly answered. I am more impressed when the candidate naturally covers it in this structure without the nudging

S - situation/context
T - task
A - actions
R - results

http://www.quintcareers.com/star-interviewing/

STAR approach is only useful for framing answers to competency based questions, or when discussing deliverables at previous jobs.

I fail to see how he could used STAR approach to answer the 2 questions he outlined in his OP.


The way the OP should have answered the 2nd question is like this:

"What do I think about the statement 'The ends justify the means?'

Well, the statement itself arises from a book written a few centuries ago by Nicolo Machiavelli.

Machiavelli had written the book stemming from his experience in politics and realised that many rulers of old often faced dilemmas with serious consequences, and his statement serves to encourage decisiveness in an era when ethical considerations were often secondary concerns.

These days, organisations still encounter dilemmas in the very competitive and often ruthless business world, but the difference is that ethical behaviour is now a primary concern.

I believe that following due process is very important in this day an age, and I will very much look to do things by the book(where possible) because The End doesn't always justify the Means"


......

Nihilist:
HR really isn't about managing people regardless of what you read in books, or at uni.

The real purpose of the HR department is to reduce or eliminate Employer Liabiity.

Quite frankly, HR only exists to try and prevent the Organisation from getting sued by it's Employees.

Truthfully, it has very little to do with managing people

I was actually looking out for answers like this (but not the suing part as the only reason of existence). I had to read (for once) to the end of the comments in search of it.

Since the Director has smashed the Idea of HR being about just managing people, then it is better to take another angle to it. And this is the angle I always love to take:

HR is not just about managing people. HR is MORE!!! Here's a good look at it... The REVENUE angle (which all managers so much love). HR is growing the company's Human Capital and making it more productive. It is discovering the RIGHT TALENT that can take a company to the next level. It is leveraging on skills (hard skills dominantly), talent, behaviour, potential to produce the best results and increase revenue for the company.

Now the way you can achieve the above is now by managing people; going through the hiring, sourcing, selecting bla bla bla process and having an excellent knowledge of what the law says, devising policies, interfacing between firm and employees.

Most times we answer questions using the bridge technique. I'm not saying the OP is wrong. No. The OP is right. Very right. But it takes experience to have in-depth knowledge and understanding of the concept. The Director must have probably heard from so many people before you the same thing about the conventional HR definition.

I personally call it the bridge technique because it is what will take you to the main thing. It's like asking 'What is the capital of Lagos' and you say 'The capital of Lagos is taking Oshodi, after which you 'drop' at toll gate then take a bus from 7up to the capital city, Ikeja.'

Here's a simple and more comprehensive way. The capital of Lagos is Ikeja but to get there from your location involves taking Oshodi to Berger then to 7up...

I work with a firm that's into recruitment and very revenue driven. Maybe that's why I have such idea of HR. I do not work with HR or have I ever worked with HR (but I'm seriously and enthusiastically searching for such opportunity). I only did a Training in HR and have keenly watched the HR Manager and Analyst where I work going about their work and from every of their action, I learnt a lot (I learn a lot from people from afar and that's typical of me)

HR is bla bla bla (as I understand it and have explained above) and the way to achieve that is going through the managing and normal conventional HR definition process. That's an approach I would have taken if my normal idea of HR has been smashed and more is required of me)

Anyway, I run www.acegoals.com and I try to help job applicants/recruiters with my over 2 years Recruitment experience.

(Pls ignore typo, if any, I typed with a phone)

Jarus:


Sometimes, interviewers, especially non-HR interviewers like CEO, Directors etc, ask some questions just to play the devil's advocate. Just to disrupt the flow and see how coherent you will be in the face of disruption to your line of thought.

Most executive-level interviewers don't ask traditional interview questions. The good thing is most of them are usually lenient once you demonstrate basic intelligence.

Mere mention of Nicolo Machiavelin even if you went on to ramble, would have convinced him.

On relationship between the course, the civil engrg and medicine example is different. These are more specialist courses. HR is different. HR is not a specialist area in the sense of medicine. You just needed to go on and list example of successful HR practitioners that had academic background different from HR

Of course I mentioned Nicolo machiavelli and a brief history of the principle, but I pitched against the principle, guess that was the problem.

Thanks anyway.

Nihilist:


STAR approach is only useful for framing answers to competency based questions, or when discussing deliverables at previous jobs.

I fail to see how he could used STAR approach to answer the 2 questions he outlined in his OP.


The way the OP should have answered the 2nd question is like this:

"What do I think about the statement 'The ends justify the means?'

Well, the statement itself arises from a book written a few centuries ago by Nicolo Machiavelli.

Machiavelli had written the book stemming from his experience in politics and realised that many rulers of old often faced dilemmas with serious consequences, and his statement serves to encourage decisiveness in an era when ethical considerations were often secondary concerns.

These days, organisations still encounter dilemmas in the very competitive and often ruthless business world, but the difference is that ethical behaviour is now a primary concern.

I believe that following due process is very important in this day an age, and I will very much look to do things by the book(where possible) because The End doesn't always justify the Means"


......

You can actually adapt STAR ...
Even your proposed answer to question 2 can be extended with a situational context to move it from a theoretical narrative to a relatable discussion that is based on the candidate's own experiences/ personal philosophy.

Also for question 1. When someone challenges your competence or ability to perform a role on the basis of your course of study, the real question is that do you have a practical understanding of the role and do you have what it takes to perform it well? Convince me. I would dimension the facets of the role/ function and provide details of my experiences and results in such areas.

rman:


I will rather answer the second question from an ethical point of view. When it comes to business ethics, the end doesn't always justify the means.

U're right, its anoda exceptn.

Nihilist:
HR really isn't about managing people regardless of what you read in books, or at uni.

The real purpose of the HR department is to reduce or eliminate Employer Liabiity.

Quite frankly, HR only exists to try and prevent the Organisation from getting sued by it's Employees.

Truthfully, it has very little to do with managing people

This is new and I totally disagree.

Even at that, the process of settling dispute between and among employees and employers still falls under the prisms of Management.

Nihilist:
Also, as a Political Science graduate, I'm quite disappointed that the OP didn't do much justice to the second question, despite it being the most famous paraphrased line from arguably the most famous treatise on politics of all time.

I just don't understand how that question could confuse you...

What confused me was trying to get the stance of the director towards the principle, not the principle itself. So I gambled and pitched against it.

yompy:
[b] I THINK HE'S RIGHT. NO ONE CAN manage MAN. YOU CAN ONLY lead MAN & maximize HIS TALENTS

Man, Money, and Materials can all be managed.

Let me come in here...

I do agree with the Director to some degree but not to all extents: Human Resources does involve the management of people but that is not what it is all about. Thing is, everybody manages people: Supervisors, Bank Managers, Bus Conductors, Mothers, and Teachers, but would you call what they do Human Resources?

Human Resources really is the matching of people with the right set of skills and competence to the positions where their expertise will be most beneficial to the hiring organisation. It also extends to keeping these people trained and ensuring they continue to improve on their skills sets as they grow in the organisation and are charged with greater responsibilities; this is the reason why Managers and Engineers do not attend the same training classes. So do you see why the Director said "I cannot hire a .... to do the work of ...."

So, essentially, Human Resource is
1. Hiring intelligent, skilled and hardworking people to fill in vacant positions in an organisation
2. Training these people so that their skill sets improve to match whatever new/higher positions they may occupy

For the "end justify the means" question....
In an organisation, getting the job done is one aspect, how you get the job done is a second aspect. Organisations do not want people that want get a job done at all costs, regardless of whose ox is gored because organisations stand to lose a lot more if something goes wrong as a result.
Imagine completing a project on cost and schedule (mad props for you) but causing the death of one of the workers (a huge minus) due to your overlooking a safety measure as you tried to complete the project on time. There could be lawsuits, government sanctions or maybe just negative publicity for the organisation coming as a result. So, no, the end does not always justify the means.

Savvy?