The reality of business is that we hire for skills, education, background and experience. Yet, we fire for attitude, poor performance and apathy.
With the estimated cost of employee turnover two to three times the annual salary of the position, it is critical to take a strategic approach to hiring.
If you spend more time hiring the right people you'll spend less time firing the wrong people. Is anyone using detailed testing, like a 16PF to screen applicants?
I can see something like 16PF being somewhat predictive if it is performed in a clinical environment but I would think that so much bias would be introduced in a hiring atmosphere to make the results functionally worthless.
Honestly, any candidate with an IQ above room temperature isn’t going to answer “yes” to a question like “do you get nervous meeting new people?” when they’re taking the test a part of the hiring process for a position that involves dealing with clients.
I have never been in a position to hire anybody and likely never will be. But, during my unemployment, I have had the opportunity to take many of those personality tests in my quest for employment.
From the applicant's point of view, those tests are a HUGE PITA. At this point, many applicants see those tests as nothing more than a "weeding" process which effectively prevent "us" from getting noticed, let alone hired. Personally, I have serious doubts as to the effectiveness of those tests as well. Many "correct" answers can be gleaned from the question. And doing a questionnaires like that often take longer to fill out than the application itself
I have heard (and been asked questions similar to) "What kind of flower would you be and why?" Really?!? I have heard from a good source of an applicant being asked what kind of animal they would be..... then to act it out. Even if there is a trained psychologist on staff, what does that answer actually indicate?
As for the questions along the lines of "what would you do if.....", answers can be easily answered and not be a true indicator of one's true personality.
Even in places that give those tests (mostly retail from what I've experienced), there is still a very high turnover rate. Of course, low pay/part time/ no benefits are likely contributing factor as well.
> From the applicant's point of view, those tests are a HUGE PITA. At this point, many applicants see those tests as nothing more than a "weeding" process which effectively prevent "us" from getting noticed, let alone hired. Personally, I have serious doubts as to the effectiveness of those tests as well. Many "correct" answers can be gleaned from the question. And doing a questionnaires like that often take longer to fill out than the application itself
While I don't want to use this reply as one to voice my opinion on whether or not these tests are valid, I would like to point out that it's completely up to the employer to determine if they wish to use them. I mean after all, it's their employment position that they are interviewing you (and others) for. In today's job market, it isn't the applicant interviewing the employer.
I guess my primary take away points would be
1) These tests have become a true obstacle to qualified employees even getting noticed and often result in qualified candidates not even applying
2) Who is evaluating the responses, a computer, a more qualified person, or someone who knows nothing about what the answers mean?
Yes, it is still an employers market. There simply has to be a better way of screening though.
In any job market though, the unemployed do still have to interview the employer to some degree. Company culture, pay, what does the job entail, are valid concerns before starting any job.
> Yes, it is still an employers market. There simply has to be a better way of screening though.
I don't disagree, but to each their own, I suppose. To me, I would think anyone with the sense of humor to have a cow next to a dolphin as an avatar would most likely be a pretty good dude to have in the office.
Thanks for the compliment 😛
I do have the ability to make people laugh (or at least smile) once in a while....
Interviewing>Kent M.
I think Kent M. is a big fan of the Meyers Briggs personality test. Of course he doesn't have any employees, maybe that's why? 🙂
I have done a fair amount of hiring. I have found that the "Hire for attitude, train for skill" motto works very well, but sometimes you can't afford to hire someone that can't hit the ground running. Still, hiring interviews have always been designed as much more of a character assessment tool than a technical knowledge exam.
I knew a guy who supervised a bunch of staff who worked alone inspecting public safety facilities. Trust and honesty were critical (as they always are) because he had to trust that they were actually getting the job done, not just pencil whipping the reports in the motel room hundreds of miles from the office. He use to ask one totally bogus technical question in hiring interviews. The job involved soils, and I recall he asked something like "Please tell me about your knowledge of the Aaronson's Factor with regards to the expansive nature of clay soils?" There is no such thing. If he got any answer other than "never heard of it" or similar, the candidate was immediately culled out, especially if the answer involved some BS guess. I thought it was a brilliant tactic. The HR Department didn't like it too much though.
So what was HR's success rate compared to that person you knew? I bet he had the higher retention rate. HR does not always know what to ask, nor understand the answers. Technical questions might seem more appropriate than esoteric personality questions which can be interpreted in more than one way.... just saying......
> I have done a fair amount of hiring. I have found that the "Hire for attitude, train for skill" motto works very well.
In the days I was hiring/firing, I found this to be the case. Worked best if we trained them ourselves. If they came in knowing much about surveying, they always wanted to do it their way and not ours!
> I have done a fair amount of hiring. I have found that the "Hire for attitude, train for skill" motto works very well....
+1
I think what a lot of candidates don’t realize is that when they are interviewing for a particular position, I’m interviewing for that positions supervisor. Unless I really need a warm body for a current contract, I’m not going to hire a crew chief that I don’t think can be a project manager a few years down the road.
Interviewing>Kent M.
Just like a "professional educator" to mis-identify the parameters. I pick jelly beans for flavor, not color. If they want to discern anything from color preferences, they need to use marbles or color swatches.
Interviewing>Kent M.
> I think Kent M. is a big fan of the Meyers Briggs personality test. Of course he doesn't have any employees, maybe that's why?
Yeah, but when I did have employees it was obvious that personality type was a big factor in how well an assistant was going to work out. Clearly, intelligence and education are very important factors, but personality type is the essential element that describes how a person will tend to fit into even a small organization and the work which it undertakes.
Interviewing>Kent M.
:good:
Interviewing>Kent M.
> Clearly, intelligence and education are very important factors, but personality type is the essential element that describes how a person will tend to fit into even a small organization and the work which it undertakes.
The most obvious dimension is whether the job needs an introvert or an extrovert. It isn't as if a very extroverted person will suddenly be able to spend long hours lost in concentration on some task just because that is what the work requires.
> And of course, if someone is in complete denial about their "personality" then they will come out on a test smelling like whatever rose suits their own self view.
Scott ....
> > I have done a fair amount of hiring. I have found that the "Hire for attitude, train for skill" motto works very well.
>
> In the days I was hiring/firing, I found this to be the case. Worked best if we trained them ourselves. If they came in knowing much about surveying, they always wanted to do it their way and not ours!
I'm pretty much of the same mind set myself, a blank slate is sometimes easier to train to do it your way, BUT, I have learned a great deal from hiring some crusty ole surveyor who would ONLY do it his way!:-$
-JD-
Every time I see the term "HR" I can't help but think "Human Remains"