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.
Those tests are ridiculous. Why do I need to know how many window coverings are necessary to span 50 windows if I am applying for an administrative position? The personality tests are just as ridiculous. They ask the same question but worded a different way 3 or 4 times.
Those tests are ridiculous. Why do I need to know how many window coverings are necessary to span 50 windows if I am applying for an administrative position? The personality tests are just as ridiculous. They ask the same question but worded a different way 3 or 4 times.
These aren't personality tests. Personality tests are True Colors, Bristol-Myers Squibb. These are "skills assessments" and they are STILL crazy to be considered for the positions when you look at what exactly is asked in them.
It is amazing that while a job as a sales associate at Macy's will ask over 100 of these ridiculous, personality assessment questions, not one single question is asked over the job itself. Furthermore, the ridiculous personality assessments are found most of the time at the low end of the wage spectrum; if they were so essential, every position in every industry would use this.
In an effort to combat an ever turning over workforce (both voluntary and involuntary), these industries get desperate to find a way to seek out that "perfect fit", and they think they can do it through some absurd personality test.
The reason that Macy's and other retail stores will give you a personality evaluation, is their clerks are reacting with their customers day in and day out. It is extremely important to find if the potential clerk, will have the attitude, and personality to make their customers happy and want to shop at Macy's. I spent years in the retail business, and managed stores. The most important 3 things when hiring someone as a clerk. 1: They have a friendly and respectful attitude towards customers. 2: Their personality under stress with a difficult customer is under control and the clerk continue to help the customer the same as if it was the nicest customer they ever had. 3: They can think quickly, and be able to help a customer with problems to solve.
Those tests, will help the HM determine if the applicant, can handle the life of a clerk, and give forth a very friendly helpful front no matter how they feel.
Quote:
I am trying to figure out what grand psychological encounter someone working at Macy's selling socks for six hours a day for $8.20/hr is going to encounter.
This says you have never been a clerk in a quality retail store. If you had, you would know the answer. Some of the nicest customers have a bad day going, and it is up to the clerk to handle their problems, and send them away happy with their purchase, often brightening up their day. If they don't the customer may not return, and remember repeat loyal customers are the backbone of any retail operation.
Getting the right personality to work in retail stores, is much more important than the right personality needed for a IT coder, or engineer that have little contact with customers/clients.
Quote:
Those tests are ridiculous. Why do I need to know how many window coverings are necessary to span 50 windows if I am applying for an administrative position? The personality tests are just as ridiculous. They ask the same question but worded a different way 3 or 4 times.
People in administrative positions, especially need tested for their personality. They are in contact with the public, and subordinates. The right personality for the administrator, is the basis for the attitude of workers in the office, etc. Look how many threads are about the boss from hell. The thoughtful company, is going t o learn the personality of all their administrators, to set the tone for the workplace, as they want happy employees.
You get you hired huh? Not when the idiot/panel of idiots sitting across from you ask irrelevant questions, ask three different questions at the same time, or smart ass questions. Let's also not forget how they tell you what are clearly outright lies. Why waste my time and gas when you clearly have no intention of hiring me? Its fairly simply to get an accurate read on these people so I know right away when I am being played.
If they had the intelligence to conduct a proper interview then you hire you would work. Unfortunately they don't. Its nothing more than an ego tripping/ego stroking game to these fatuous idiots. The only time I have seen you get you hired work was when I interviewed for the property manager's position with my longest serving employer. The owner interviewed me himself and he conducted a proper interview. No stupid questions, no irrelevant questions or tests, no mind games. I had two years experience as an assistant manager and none as a full manager and yet i got the job. This man was/is an excellent judge of character and talent judging from the people I saw him hire over the years I worked for him. Unfortunately those skills are a lost art in today's business world.
This is an example of someone with the attitude of so many people today. They don't understand the people interviewing you and running HR have developed systems, and questions to ask over time, that have developed the best staff they are able to attract. They are looking at two things when they talk to you. 1: Is this someone with not only the ability and knowledge to do the job, but will they fit in with the other employees, while they do their job. The second part is the most important in many jobs. There will be several people qualified for the job, but which ones fit into the employee mix is what they are trying to determine. 2: They are trying to get beyond the resume, which often is inflated to make one look good. The personal talk, is the most important part of the hiring process. It is time to get to know the real you, not the one you put on paper.
HR at a potential employer will call your previous employer and might ask them if you are eligible for rehire.
However, that same HR representative does not ask you, the potential employee, if you would ever want to go back to work there.
Quote:
What would be the point of that?
Quote:
To verify the former employer isn't telling false information.
What would be the former employer's reason to give false information. They are just saying if or if not they would rehire the person. The applicant will be the one that is likely to give false information, as they would be the one that is trying to get the job. The prospective employer cannot legally ask, how good a worker the person is. How honest they are. How knowledgeable they are, etc. The question about if the person would be one they would want to rehire, is the only real question that can be asked. The answer is a simple yes or no, with no explanation of why they would or would not rehire the person. If the answer is yes, it is saying they are a good worker and I love working with them. If the answer is no, it says it all. If that person is not good enough for the other employer, then why take a chance with that prospective employee. There is nothing the prospective employee can say, that will change the reference call from would rehire to not rehire. The employer is going to move on, and look for someone that is more highly thought of, as experience has taught the employer that this is the best way to go.
The more qualified and educated our workforce is the more productive organizations are and the more competitive our economy will be. I strongly support employers doing everything they can to screen out poorly qualified applicants using technology.
Unfortunately its the qualified candidate that gets screened out and the poorly qualified candidate gets hired.
What would be the former employer's reason to give false information. They are just saying if or if not they would rehire the person. The applicant will be the one that is likely to give false information, as they would be the one that is trying to get the job. The prospective employer cannot legally ask, how good a worker the person is. How honest they are. How knowledgeable they are, etc. The question about if the person would be one they would want to rehire, is the only real question that can be asked. The answer is a simple yes or no, with no explanation of why they would or would not rehire the person. If the answer is yes, it is saying they are a good worker and I love working with them. If the answer is no, it says it all. If that person is not good enough for the other employer, then why take a chance with that prospective employee. There is nothing the prospective employee can say, that will change the reference call from would rehire to not rehire. The employer is going to move on, and look for someone that is more highly thought of, as experience has taught the employer that this is the best way to go.
Oldtrader, don't try to figure it out - the whole concept is ridiculous.
This is an example of someone with the attitude of so many people today. They don't understand the people interviewing you and running HR have developed systems, and questions to ask over time, that have developed the best staff they are able to attract. They are looking at two things when they talk to you. 1: Is this someone with not only the ability and knowledge to do the job, but will they fit in with the other employees, while they do their job. The second part is the most important in many jobs. There will be several people qualified for the job, but which ones fit into the employee mix is what they are trying to determine. 2: They are trying to get beyond the resume, which often is inflated to make one look good. The personal talk, is the most important part of the hiring process. It is time to get to know the real you, not the one you put on paper.
I understand them only too well. Irrelevant questions and tests do not prove whether or not someone is a good candidate. Ever.
Unfortunately its the qualified candidate that gets screened out and the poorly qualified candidate gets hired.
Quote:
I understand them only too well. Irrelevant questions and tests do not prove whether or not someone is a good candidate. Ever.
Two people, that have never sat on the employer side of the hiring table.
There has to be some way to determine the desirability of hiring someone. Over decades, companies have worked with all type of employees. They have refined their method of evaluating employees. Trials and errors, have discovered that certain ways of evaluating employees, reduce the problem employees to a minimum. These trials and errors, have improved the quality of their work force, and have reduced the problems in their workplace.
Just because a potential employee thinks they are the perfect candidate for the job, does not mean they are. There is no such thing, as a perfect employee. However some are closer to perfect than others. Different fields of work, require different qualities in an employee. Different departments in a company, may need completely different types of people to best handle the jobs. A receptionist, a book keeper, and an engineer, require different types of people, with different training, experience, and temperaments. Companies have tested different methods of evaluating employees for their own company, and use those that have given them the work force with the least problems, and more ability to handle the job.
Too many applicants feel that companies use tests, questions at an interview, etc., to eliminate them. They are right, because if the applicant cannot handle the tests, do well in an interview, etc., they eliminate themselves for consideration for the job. The applicant says if they would only give them a chance, they could prove they were perfect for the job. The company has given enough people a chance that did not prove out to be a good hire, while developing the best methods to evaluate employees for a particular job, they are going with the methods that give them the best people for the job as proven over time.
Two people, that have never sat on the employer side of the hiring table.
There has to be some way to determine the desirability of hiring someone. Over decades, companies have worked with all type of employees. They have refined their method of evaluating employees. Trials and errors, have discovered that certain ways of evaluating employees, reduce the problem employees to a minimum. These trials and errors, have improved the quality of their work force, and have reduced the problems in their workplace.
Just because a potential employee thinks they are the perfect candidate for the job, does not mean they are. There is no such thing, as a perfect employee. However some are closer to perfect than others. Different fields of work, require different qualities in an employee. Different departments in a company, may need completely different types of people to best handle the jobs. A receptionist, a book keeper, and an engineer, require different types of people, with different training, experience, and temperaments. Companies have tested different methods of evaluating employees for their own company, and use those that have given them the work force with the least problems, and more ability to handle the job.
Too many applicants feel that companies use tests, questions at an interview, etc., to eliminate them. They are right, because if the applicant cannot handle the tests, do well in an interview, etc., they eliminate themselves for consideration for the job. The applicant says if they would only give them a chance, they could prove they were perfect for the job. The company has given enough people a chance that did not prove out to be a good hire, while developing the best methods to evaluate employees for a particular job, they are going with the methods that give them the best people for the job as proven over time.
One doesn't have to sit on the opposite side of the table to understand what another is about and where he or she is coming from. The problem is they continually weed out the qualified candidate in lieu of the unqualified one. Then they whine about a dearth of skilled candidates. A vicious circle indeed. Keep being an apologist for the infallibility of hr foolishness even when many people posted opposite experiences.
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.
The personality tests are just as ridiculous. They ask the same question but worded a different way 3 or 4 times.
