Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
by the way, if you don't want people to write "see resume", you should probably say that on the application. because otherwise it's a highly logical and efficient solution that any smart person who was prepared and brought a resume would do to save time. if you put that in the instructions, at least they know they have to waste their time writing everything out again.
This is the part I don't get. I would never even think to put "see resume". I would assume the application goes to a differnt area for data entry or something and I would just write it out.
I also don't see it as "blind following" I just see it as wanting to put your very best foot forward at an interveiw. I don't understand what the big deal is. I also had to take some sort of weird logic test at home before the interview. It took me an hour, but I guess I wanted the job so it didn't seem like a big deal.
I had to do the same sort of thing at my interveiw for my current job. I came in, filled the form out neatly, made sure all the infromation needed was on little note cards so I could find them quickly. And viola! I got the job.
i prefer employers who have some respect for my time i guess. it's one thing if the task is necessary, but if it's not, it makes me question what it's going to be like to work for the place. i mean, on top of the applicants filling out these handwritten applications, there is also likely some poor schmoe who will have to do that data entry from a handwritten form. what a colossal waste of time on all fronts. if i'm really interested in the job, i'll put up with a fair amount of inconvenience, but it's definitely a deterrent if there are a lot of pointless and cumbersome tasks to complete just to be considered.
i think that as long as job seekers have the luxury of being choosy (obviously not everyone does - if you need a job you need a job), we should be. and that means we don't have to unquestioningly do everything every potential employer requests. i'm also a big believer in interviewing the interviewer and trying to find out what it's really like to work at the place. it's all part of the same thing - finding a job that's a good fit and not just trying super hard to get every single job you qualify for. in my experience, good managers are impressed by this because it makes you come across as confident and thoughtful about your decision.
Where I work, we just developed a new Employment Application and had a few people completely fill it out to see how long the typical person would take to completely fill it out. We determined a reasonably efficient person should take no more than 20 minutes to fill it out.
Testing your own employees under non-stressful conditions is NOT going to give you the same results as testing applicants during stressful conditions.
Quote:
All applicants for employment in our company have to completely fill out an Employment Application in our lobby. We email all applicants and tell them to arrive 30 minutes before the interview to fill out the application and bring all the supporting documents and information they will need to complete the document.
The HR Assistant checks with the applicant 30 minutes after they start filling out the application and usually finds the following:
1) They did not bring the information to supply data on previous bosses and employers and contact information, so they leave it blank or put SEE RESUME.
2) They have made almost no progress on the application at all.
3) Their handwriting is so poor you can not understand what they are saying.
4) They don't remember what they did in past jobs so were unable to write the paragraph description requested about the responsibilities of each job.
In general, many applicants don't pass the first test in the employment process, The Employment Application.
I think if you're looking for mindless compliance with the rules, then your process is fine.
However if you're looking for someone intelligent, you're just going to drive them away with these arbitrary hoops. There are so many better ways to evaluate a candidate's skills and knowledge, that this strikes me as an incredibly lazy approach.
Both you and just-the-facts have missed the point. It is not about filling out the form, penmanship, or even accuracy. It is about following instructions (bring your documentation), being punctual (arrive 30 minutes before scheduled interview), and working under a deadline (self evident).
It reflects poorly on the company that's hiring, though. It shows you that (A) They don't value your time, and (B) They value compliance above everything else.
If a company put me through this, I would immediately expect higher compensation due to the work environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
Who cares whether it is long or short, detailed or not? That is completely irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant, it's a reflection of whether the company values its employees or not. Nobody wants to deal with an overbearing HR department.
"It's about following instructions...." what is this, high school or summer camp? Getta atta here.
Communism and dictatorships are also about "following instructions". If one failed to do that they went to the "camp."
And we know what happened from there.
Sidenote: If I am instructed to take a crap in front of the employer, put it on a plate then eat it, I am supposed to do it "if I want the job? " - yea.. I thought not....- #@!#@!~
I wonder if you owned a company or were a manager and were held responsible by the productivity of the staff (people you stuck your neck out for) and hired, you would be so easy going about the hiring process. Good business managers and owners know that hiring the wrong person can kill a business or department and they need as many vehicles as possible to evaluate the candidate. Seeing how well they fill out an employment application is just one of many tests you should give applicants.
Judging someone on their handwriting, and filling out a pen and paper form is worse than useless for finding good candidates, it would eliminate many very intelligent, well qualified people who can TYPE, which is actually a necessary skill for most job in 2013. I have an advanced degree and work in a field that requires a great deal of intelligence and decision making, but my handwriting is very difficult for someone else to read, and I usually have difficulty fitting my writing into a small space, so apparently this HR person would disqualify me.
It would also disqualify many highly qualified people who happen to be dyslexic. I used to work in HR, I knew better than to make any decisions based on a written application. So what if they write "see resume" if the information is already there in written form, that actually makes sense unlike this ridiculous process. That process is asinine, but apparently this HR department is patting themselves on the back for their brilliant idea. This is just one of the many reasons why HR should be much less involved with hiring. As a manager I would not want this process choosing my employees.
I wonder if you owned a company or were a manager and were held responsible by the productivity of the staff (people you stuck your neck out for) and hired, you would be so easy going about the hiring process. Good business managers and owners know that hiring the wrong person can kill a business or department and they need as many vehicles as possible to evaluate the candidate. Seeing how well they fill out an employment application is just one of many tests you should give applicants.
I do own a company, and I worked in HR for a number of years. I know from real life experience that this process is a terrible way to choose employees. Unless the job involves spending one's day filling out forms by hand, I would never allow this hiring practice at my business.
If someone asks me to fill out an application right before my interview when I've already sent them my resume, my first thought is going to be that they're disorganized and that the interviewer might not have my original resume (and time to review it before the interview).
I wonder if you owned a company or were a manager and were held responsible by the productivity of the staff (people you stuck your neck out for) and hired, you would be so easy going about the hiring process. Good business managers and owners know that hiring the wrong person can kill a business or department and they need as many vehicles as possible to evaluate the candidate. Seeing how well they fill out an employment application is just one of many tests you should give applicants.
Ok, but recognize the consequences of giving these kinds of tests. Maybe you identify the candidates who are best at filling out paperwork under pressure, which gives you docile and compliant workers.
However, if you're hiring high-skilled individuals, you're going to have a difficult time competing with other employers for top talent when you treat your applicants with this hostile attitude.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
