U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 07-19-2012, 01:49 PM
 
4,919 posts, read 10,687,319 times
Reputation: 5789

Advertisements

In reading many posts, it appears our company is wildly out of synch with current hiring practices. So just curious, are there any others whose company uses a “break the mold” hiring practices?

Here’s ours for solicited (open posted) positions:

Resumes and Cover letters received at contracted company. They open, scan and confirm the applicant meets the minimum posted requirements. If they do they are batch sent to our Corporate Administration. Those not meeting minimum are sent letter telling them they didn’t meet the minimum requirements for the position.

Resumes are reviewed by staff who rate and code education, skills, experiences, certifications, etc. base on a company provided formula. The rating sheet and resumes are sent to the manager responsible for that hiring. The manager reviews, rates and selects a certain number they want to interview.

Manager interviews and narrows list down. Puts together an employee review team, 1 from a direct specialty and another from an associated field. Company belief is that the employees do the work and the hire will be doing that work and working with those employees so why not have their potential co-workers part of the decision making process.

Pier group interviews and rate. They are also tasked and permitted to openly and honestly answer question of the candidate. The belief is that blowing smoke up their butts and lying to them doesn’t give them a true picture of the position. The company believes it’s better to have a candidate know the bosses are hard arses and not take the position than to have them come on thinking its sunshine and cream only to quite or be disgruntle later on.

Ratings of both pier group and manager are sent to administration. They return to manager the top 5 based on both ratings. Manager can not over rule administrations scoring from the two groups. In case of a tie scoring, pier interview score rates higher, so with even score, the one who scored higher with the employee’s interview gets the higher list number. The manager can re-interview or just make a selection. Usually, if there was some wide spread between the two ratings, the manager will want to know what they missed or why we thought someone was better or worse than they thought?

Once selection is made, administration contacts them and sets the hiring procedures in place; all others will receive a decline letter. Now, those who had a special note about skills ability or presentation will be flagged for future notices of opening.

As an added item, it’s a similar process when discipline is involved, an employee review team is also involved and their recommendations also carries weight.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-19-2012, 02:02 PM
 
4,231 posts, read 2,849,014 times
Reputation: 5137
My company is very progressive in attracting, retaining and interviewing talent and have implemented 21st century recruiting techniques for many of our clients. Using social medial along with Find.ly, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and employer branding. It's crazy how out of date recruiting techniques are for a lot of so-called progressive fortune 500 companies. We have to completely overhaul their recruiting process.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2012, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
5,517 posts, read 5,604,602 times
Reputation: 2432
The OP method is ridiculously drawn out, and thats exactly how companies end up with nobody "qualified". After 25 layers of people/machines are done chipping away the "undesireables", its surprising anyone ever even gets an interview, forget about being hired.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2012, 02:24 PM
 
7,238 posts, read 5,182,700 times
Reputation: 5347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
The OP method is ridiculously drawn out, and thats exactly how companies end up with nobody "qualified". After 25 layers of people/machines are done chipping away the "undesireables", its surprising anyone ever even gets an interview, forget about being hired.
Agreed.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2012, 03:11 PM
 
4,919 posts, read 10,687,319 times
Reputation: 5789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
The OP method is ridiculously drawn out, and thats exactly how companies end up with nobody "qualified". After 25 layers of people/machines are done chipping away the "undesireables", its surprising anyone ever even gets an interview, forget about being hired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather View Post
Agreed.
The goal for the corporation is to get the highest qualifed person. They are looking not just for the person who has "credentials" but for the one who is the best. These are careeer positions not just jobs. Due to the efficency of the companies mission models, every employee is essential in the success of the missions. A weak employee can jepordize the entire comopany, so estar steps are used to ensure that when they are an emplyment contract, we didnl;t settle for 2nd or 3rd, we got number 1.

What about the rpocess, in your mind leads you to belive its not efficient to fullfull the goal of hiring the best we can? This is pretty the only way I know for this process since my last interview was 26 years ago and I only had one part time summer job before that, so maybe I'm so use to this that I don;t find it anythng but a proven successful way to weed out the unqualified and go for the gold. I;m not saying your wrong, I'm saying help me understand why you feel the way you do.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2012, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
5,517 posts, read 5,604,602 times
Reputation: 2432
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacificFlights View Post
The goal for the corporation is to get the highest qualifed person. They are looking not just for the person who has "credentials" but for the one who is the best. These are careeer positions not just jobs. Due to the efficency of the companies mission models, every employee is essential in the success of the missions. A weak employee can jepordize the entire comopany, so estar steps are used to ensure that when they are an emplyment contract, we didnl;t settle for 2nd or 3rd, we got number 1.

What about the rpocess, in your mind leads you to belive its not efficient to fullfull the goal of hiring the best we can? This is pretty the only way I know for this process since my last interview was 26 years ago and I only had one part time summer job before that, so maybe I'm so use to this that I don;t find it anythng but a proven successful way to weed out the unqualified and go for the gold. I;m not saying your wrong, I'm saying help me understand why you feel the way you do.
What Im saying is you have too many hands in the pot. Its going way beyond "most qualified" to "who can make it through the gauntlet of people they need to impress".

When you have to start interviewing with 3 or 4 different layers, simply being qualified has went way out the window in favor of who can BS the most amount of people.

At the end, you are going to get someone who "fits your corporate culture" and may have the minimum qualifications, but not neccessarily be the best qualified to do the job.

If you are looking for the perfect "yes man" or "drinking buddy", I would absolutely recommend this method.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2012, 03:41 PM
 
172 posts, read 100,713 times
Reputation: 177
The absolutle best way to get hired is pretty much to skip all that stuff in the OP, try and network your butt off, and make your first interview with the ultimate decision maker.

the 3,4 even 5 interview process is a total waste of time.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2012, 03:54 PM
 
4,919 posts, read 10,687,319 times
Reputation: 5789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
What Im saying is you have too many hands in the pot. Its going way beyond "most qualified" to "who can make it through the gauntlet of people they need to impress".

When you have to start interviewing with 3 or 4 different layers, simply being qualified has went way out the window in favor of who can BS the most amount of people.
I may not have made it clear, they interview with the direct manager over their position. Next they interview with the employee group as a group. The manager can have a second interview if they want. After that the only interaction is with the Admin staff to go over their emplyment contract, company policies, individual compensation and benefits, etc.

The reason for the two employee part is because it sweeps away any ability top BS us, it breaks down that staged interview process a applicant have practiced and perfected. Your interviewing with the very people who do that job, who knows the ins and outs, who walked in those shoes and knows the reality. You can;t BS us about somethig we already know.

Let me ask you this, you are applying for a position to which you are skilled, but the manager hiring you is not involved in your day to day skill set and is more an administrator; do you belive that person is best suited to guage your skills or is maybe another employee doing the job in a better position?

I was under the impression from your other post that you belive that managers are too out of touch so I'm a bit confused why the estra employee role is "Too Much" when it puts knowledge on an equal footing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude View Post
At the end, you are going to get someone who "fits your corporate culture" and may have the minimum qualifications, but not neccessarily be the best qualified to do the job.

If you are looking for the perfect "yes man" or "drinking buddy", I would absolutely recommend this method.
Again, this is opposite of all your other post. We do not accept paper people. A resume or application does not tell us how good that person is. Are you saying that we should look only at the paper presented and not try and explore the person? We are afterall hiring a Person with skills and traits, not the 24lb bond paper representing that person. We need to ensure that the person is what they present on paper and the only way we have been able to figure that out is to have the person vetted by another person of equal standing.

Additionally, the proces is also designed to ensure those are not making the cuts are beig informed in a timely manner so they know where they stand.

"yes Men", good lord that will get you canned in no time. We don;t have "yes men". Afterall, the company gives us certain authority to handle certain issues on our own, all we might be doing is Yesing ourself and if its a bad yes.... No we often have intense discussions over the proper course of action and the managers don;t always get their way..

Truthfully, I'm kinda shocked with what your saying, it almost appear to be advocating a process and system that rewards idiots and con artist over proper talent. Removing those direct face-to-face with the knowledge base almost seems to say, let the paper and acting rule, not the person.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2012, 04:07 PM
 
4,919 posts, read 10,687,319 times
Reputation: 5789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip Mcnealy View Post
The absolutle best way to get hired is pretty much to skip all that stuff in the OP, try and network your butt off, and make your first interview with the ultimate decision maker.

the 3,4 even 5 interview process is a total waste of time.
I agree that networking is a great way to get in to the right person. Some of our employees were recommended outside any position posting. But, if you read this forum, over and over again people complain that that is fiction, networking like that is not possible for the bulk of job seeker. sSome have gone so far as to say it's un-american as it leave them out of the chance to be hired. They feel netwroking is some evil plot by the man to squish the low worker into submission by having to compete for jobs with their competetion on an equal footing ...blah-blah-blah......

Since so many have literally had a nervious breakdown on thei forum when networking was mentioned, I;m looking to see in the traditional method of posting a position and having people apply where we sit in the picture. Many candidates have told us they appreciate the opportunity to talk with their equals and counterparst who they belive actually understand what is being said and what assets they could bring to the company. And, I;m sure there are those who prefer that their resume do all the speaking and they remain invisible to everyone.

Want to add, we also had candidates that practically panice when told they will be intervewieng with other employees in their ttile and associated titles in private. We try to alive their fears by holding the interveiw out of the office so to speak, and let them know that the purpose is to have them talk about their skills and experience with someone who been there and can relate to what they are saying, to have someone who understands that on paper it looks like nothing but in practical application its a major positive to a company like ours. Yes, we had the person who knew all the corporate speak intervieweing things, they don;t get very far. All we are tryingt o do is make sure the candidate is the best and that they fully understand how we work so they are not walking into an equally BSing enviroment. How many of you now wished an employee of a company told you the truth about working there before you started?

As a FYI, I think the interview process was not explain properly so I corrected the misunderstanding in the above post.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2012, 04:40 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
5,517 posts, read 5,604,602 times
Reputation: 2432
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacificFlights View Post
I may not have made it clear, they interview with the direct manager over their position. Next they interview with the employee group as a group. The manager can have a second interview if they want. After that the only interaction is with the Admin staff to go over their emplyment contract, company policies, individual compensation and benefits, etc.
No, you were clear, I understood the process perfectly. It is 4 layered, and to me, thats three too many layers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PacificFlights View Post
The reason for the two employee part is because it sweeps away any ability top BS us, it breaks down that staged interview process a applicant have practiced and perfected. Your interviewing with the very people who do that job, who knows the ins and outs, who walked in those shoes and knows the reality. You can;t BS us about somethig we already know.
You can BS anyone, and in fact, with a multilayered interview approach, you actually have to BS many people, unless every single interviewer is a carbon copy, and your normal "non BS" self is exactly what they are looking for.

Look, that first layer you have, theyve already weeded out people who dont meet the minimum paper qualifications youve set, whatever they may be, which means that every single person that even makes it to the manager interview should be able to do the job unless they flat out lied. The second layer weeds them down even further. After that point, its mostly BS and a popularity contest. Who "clicks" with the manager, and can manipulate their past experience in a way that it impresses him.



Quote:
Originally Posted by PacificFlights View Post
Let me ask you this, you are applying for a position to which you are skilled, but the manager hiring you is not involved in your day to day skill set and is more an administrator; do you belive that person is best suited to guage your skills or is maybe another employee doing the job in a better position?
First thing, I dont believe in managers who have no grasp of the job function of their employees, that is ridiculous. I know it happens, but its ridiculous.

Second thing, how on earth is an "employee group interview" going the guage any skills? Are they giving them problems to solve on a white board? My guess is that they are just grilling them group style, and its a similiar BS/popularity contest, except, adding more opinions to the group. A rehash of the managers interview if you will.

Guess what happens with "group think"? Not only does nothing ever get accomplished half the time, but even when it does, the "group" tends to go with the most vocal or senior member any how.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PacificFlights View Post
I was under the impression from your other post that you belive that managers are too out of touch so I'm a bit confused why the estra employee role is "Too Much" when it puts knowledge on an equal footing.
Im not sure I ever made a public declaration on managers one way or the other. Its not the fact that I dont get the "concept" of trying to involve the coworkers in the decision, its the fact that its making the process much more convoluted, and complicated, not to mention, could stick the manager with an employee he absolutely cannot get along with

Quote:
Originally Posted by PacificFlights View Post
Again, this is opposite of all your other post. We do not accept paper people. A resume or application does not tell us how good that person is. Are you saying that we should look only at the paper presented and not try and explore the person? We are afterall hiring a Person with skills and traits, not the 24lb bond paper representing that person.
No, what Im saying is when you are getting so many peoples "personal opinions" involved, its taking the emphasis off of actual technical qualifications altogether.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PacificFlights View Post
We need to ensure that the person is what they present on paper and the only way we have been able to figure that out is to have the person vetted by another person of equal standing.
How do you do that in an interview without extensive testing? Out of probably 30 interviews Ive been on, Ive taken exactly 1 written, and 1 oral test. 1 was at a fast food place (and they were testing me for basic math skills, not to "see if I was what I said I was"), and 1 was for an accounting job at a place I wouldnt work at any how.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PacificFlights View Post
"yes Men", good lord that will get you canned in no time. We don;t have "yes men". Afterall, the company gives us certain authority to handle certain issues on our own, all we might be doing is Yesing ourself and if its a bad yes.... No we often have intense discussions over the proper course of action and the managers don;t always get their way..
You absolutely are hiring "yes men". You are hiring a guy who has told like 10 different people exactly what they want to hear. How is that not the definition of a yes man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PacificFlights View Post
Truthfully, I'm kinda shocked with what your saying, it almost appear to be advocating a process and system that rewards idiots and con artist over proper talent. Removing those direct face-to-face with the knowledge base almost seems to say, let the paper and acting rule, not the person.
No, Im saying that the more layers you add, the even bigger con artist is needed to get through the gauntlet, while at every level, actual qualified people could be getting cut because they rubbed one of the 200 people they had to get through the wrong way.

I had an inteview like this once. I had to interview with 6 different people. A couple really liked me, a couple I couldnt read, but one guy seemed like he just didnt like me the minute he set eyes on me. Now, if you were to "rate me", and I got say, a 1 from him, and averaged a 4 from everyone else, that makes me a 21. Say, some schmoozing dillhole comes through, gets a 23. They are going to get the job based on that "rating system", regardless of how much better work I did.

Atleast if there was just 1 person, Id have a 50/50 shot of clicking with the hiring manager over the other guy. Yeah, it isnt fair that one guys standards are the end all be all, but hiring someone based on common denominator standards is even more unfair and far fetched.

Keep in mind we havent even addressed how much BS this is on the potential employee, who has to get through multiple processes before starting multiple interviews, and the fact that they have to assemble "groups" will almost certainly complicate things more.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top