I had a client needing an "agency of record" (PR, not advertising). One thing she was rather adamant about was the firms needed to demonstrate 'they could walk the talk', not just use buzzwords they could research off the internet. So in the proposal stage, we limited their responses to a questionnaire with word limits. (If a communications person cannot write concisely, then who can!?)
The next stage in the process had us provide scenarios to the shortlist to demonstrate they could think on their feet and not just 'research on the internet and write the nice buzzwords'. Ultimately there were two presentations, and a clear difference between the two. The client got what they wanted and were very happy (I believe they are still using that same firm, 5+ years later).
I recall this story right now as I was speaking to an HR person who had recently finished a job posting for procurement. They told me they were screening through applicants for the procurement position and those that DIDN'T use the buzzwords cited in the posting were screened out!?! I thought that rather odd, that HR people were looking NOT for the competency to be demonstrated, but instead, that a person could cut/paste the buzzwords from the job posting?
Are some buying organizations doing the same when purchasing a service they don't quite understand? Personally, I ensure I have a subject matter expert on my team for developing the RFP and for evaluations. Consider this the next time you are hiring, or evaluating an RFP - without a subject matter expert - are you merely hiring someone who can rewrite your posting, or do you want demonstrated competencies?
2 comments:
This highlights one of the challenges I consider from time to time. I think of HR much like procurement in a lot of ways and I hope I don't catch a lot of flack for this. :) First, I think the HR and procurement people in my circle are incredibly competent and I respect them to no end.
That said, when selling people to HR, or to procurement for a contract position, it's about scoring certain criteria that often are at odds with what the hiring manager wants. For these folks, from the outside looking in, it's about translating the hiring manager's desires into the framework used by the company for hiring or engaging a vendor.
The hiring manager wants someone competent, but the criteria is often skewed or entirely different when evaluated by someone else with a different perspective. Buzzwords are a part of this and often, as a proponent or potential employee candidate it's about proving x, which appears to have little to do with y, in order to get to y.
I agree with you Dave! That's why procurement people NEED to have the subject matter experts involved in the evaluation. My role is that of fairness/facilitator, not 'decision-maker' on something I know little about. I'd like to see HR people do the same...
What differs between the proposal process and a hiring process - in the proposal process, the 'initial screening' is for mandatory criteria (on time, references attached, in english), then the full evaluation team reviews ALL proposals that meet mandatory. For hiring, it is at odds to have someone screen for 'buzzwords' and only those with the buzzwords get through to the person that understands what they want :(
Post a Comment