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.
Yes, we hired a guy that I said looked too good on paper.
Well he was, he succeeded not only breaking instrumentation, but he also almost ruined an important study (thank goodness someone stopped him) and he also started wandering into other areas with things he was supposed to do and had to be re-directed. He constantly walked around with a deer in the headlights look and finally after a month of things not getting better and people constantly babysitting him we let him go. I remember my boss coming to me and asking what I thought and I said we hired him for help, it's not helping when we have to do everything side by side with him. He couldn't even do the most BASIC things like clean off an instrument or use a freaking pipet. But this guy supposedly did all sorts of internships and so on? I told the boss I'm pretty sure he padded his resume.
Hiring managers: Have you ever had a hire who you originally thought was barely adequate, but ended up significantly exceeding expectations? Conversely, have you ever hired someone who looked like a star at first, but ended up being a dud?
In 11 years of management, I did inherit one employee that I would have never hired in the first place. His resume was nonexistent, a fresh college grad in philosophy (I'm in IT). By the time I came on board, he had been there 6 months and was "promoted" to our lead technician position (title promotion only, no raise).
But man, this guy was a HARD worker, and took initiative. All the soft skills that people list on their resume, he actually had. Great people person, autonomous, problem solver...he just didn't have any kind of IT background.
No matter. In 3 months, I got him a raise. In 6 more months, I got him promoted to systems administrator and doubled his salary. In a year, I tried to get him more, but senior management balked and he walked. I couldn't blame him, we were paying him 45k and he was worth 60-70.
It's a testament to a) how hard work pays off, and b) how you need to know when people are no longer recognizing your hard work and you need to take the initiative elsewhere.
I have learned the hard way if my intuition tells me something is off, it usually is. There were two hires we made who did well on the interviews, but something to me seemed off, and I could not put my finger on it and elaborate what it was. The background checks were clean, it's just that each lacked certain attributes that were crucial in having them become successful in their roles. Then, I interviewed someone who was very nervous, I saw that was diamond in the rough, a bright person who will work hard, so I did not pay attention to his nervousness, did what I could to calm him down and then raved about him to the rest of the team so they would go easy on him, we made an offer almost on the spot and this person worked out to be awesome.
Social media is fine as long as you know how to control. Am I on facebook? Yes. Will I allow you to post on my wall? Probably not. Linkedin absolutely because I treat that different.I treat facebook differently because it is not to be taken as seriously.
I had an employee that tuned out to be a louse after hiring. On the surface they had the right education, experience, references, and interviewed well. Unfortunately, at that time we did not dig into backgrounds as extensively was we do now. We didn't run credit check, we did't look into their personal lives through social media, and we didn't explore their "life".
As much as I would like to curse him out, I have to thank him for showing us why a person's personal life is indeed a valid factor in hiring a person.
If it hasn't started already, the "credit check" thing will cause a ruckus on CD.
There are those who find it uncomfortable to fathom that a pattern of irresponsible credit might...in conjunction with other yellow flags...indicate a person may not be a good risk as an employee. Insurance companies do this because the facts, not supposition, support that certain correlations between bum-behavior (credit, jobs, etc.) vs. negligence do exist. Else they sure wouldn't ask so many questions or monitor so many behaviors...and more all the time, as Big Data starts to ramp for good or ill of society.
Larger, newer questions: does irresponsible behavior on social media correlate to poor decision making on the job, too? I'm betting "yes," see "pattern" above. It dawned on me three years ago that anything I say (write, actually) can and will be used against me in a court of law AND the court of public opinion, so I quit that and today confine it to this forum under a (very thin) veil of anonymity.
So yes, you and others now "dig deep," within the bounds of the lawy I went through a moderately thorough screen at Big Company in Seattle the other year, pre-hire, on that theory. No more, no less. They, too, were hedging their bets post-offer. That's the way of it anymore.
Yet, somehow, complainers decry policies like that. I'm highly skeptical that bad credit, loudmouth behaviors on social media, shaky references, employment gaps, and an erratic employment history all together (for example) do NOT correlate extremely well with "Bum: do not hire!" YMMV.
Yes, I hired a bum accidently back c. 2006. There were signs, several of which I ignored. He thought he was smarter than everyone else, and wasn't. After a number of instances of bum/stupid behavior, I wrote him up and filed it after a detailed discussion with him. Next time, same thing. Final time, I RIF'd him, with HR's approval though he was a "minority" and we had to tread very softly...GMAFB.
My boss at the time, a general manager, said: "even after plenty of hiring, past twenty years, I'm still only batting .500 or so on good vs. bad hires. The more trusted associates I add to the mix seems to reduce the "bads" a bit." I tend to think he's right, or if it's a group decision at least we're all wrong. That happens, too.
I had an employee that tuned out to be a louse after hiring. On the surface they had the right education, experience, references, and interviewed well. Unfortunately, at that time we did not dig into backgrounds as extensively was we do now. We didn't run credit check, we did't look into their personal lives through social media, and we didn't explore their "life". The individual otherwise met all the paper and interview standards. In the end, that individual turned out to be a brilliant mind but with so much personal baggage, he just couldn't do the job to the standard we expect from out employees. That person taught us to dig deep into the applicants personal life so we don;t make another mistake. As much as I would like to curse him out, I have to thank him for showing us why a person's personal life is indeed a valid factor in hiring a person.
As for the "diamond in the rough"; we have hired many unpolished diamonds. Since we pay above average wages, have above average benefits, and provide a certain level of autonomy in how a person accomplished their task, we have the ability to sit at the diamond mining table and hand select what we want instead of taking what some stone cutter put together for sale at the mall's jewelry shop. Many of our employees were hired not only based on their education and experiences but on who they are as a person.
I really dislike credit checks by employers. What does that tell you? Sometimes it just means they've fallen on hard times. People can be excellent workers and still be overextended.
I really dislike credit checks by employers. What does that tell you? Sometimes it just means they've fallen on hard times. People can be excellent workers and still be overextended.
Especially in this economy who has perfect credit? Probably people who don't need jobs.
I always have to smirk when someone that turned out to be a "better fit" actually ended up being a terrible employee. At the same time though, I get insanely irritated when employers who lost that "better fit" employee don't bother to hire the #2 person behind him.
Example: Hiring Manager hires Bob instead of Norma because Manager sees that Bob is great on paper, has all the skills, and interviews well. Bob turns out to be a terrible employee, causes problems, forces the team to delay projects, and is late all the time. Manager has to fire Bob after only 4 weeks on the job. Then Manager opens up the job vacancy again. WHY? If Bob hadn't shown up, Norma would've gotten the job, even though she was nervous and interviewed horribly, her resume was pretty good. Why doesn't Hiring Manager think about calling Norma and extending her the offer? Why go through the trouble of opening the job vacancy and re-interviewing a slew of different people?
Even worse, why ignore Norma when she re-applies and requests another interview? This is what I don't get -- and yet, most hiring managers do this. Are they too embarrassed to admit that they should have gone with their other choice because their first choice was a mistake?
===
I had this happen to my husband actually, he had to re-apply to the same company THREE times in all positions and the other positions. He *barely* got hired, if he wasn't so persistent in calling the company over and over, they would have passed him over. To this day, I don't know why they would have looked him over or looked him over in the first place! Guess what? The other hires before him? They mostly quit, some of them that still works there slacks off and are now causing problems for the other employees because of delays. They hired one new person at the same time they hired my husband, I guess he was a "just in case" hire... in case my husband didn't work out or something because honestly it was only one opening... why hire two?
That new guy that's supposedly in the Army, is disciplined, and is desperate for a job while going to school? Yeah, he quit yesterday. In fact, Army guy actually called my husband and asked if husband could take over his shift because, and I quote, "I quit 30 minutes ago man" (he was only working 8 hours a week, for someone so desperate for a job... he kept asking for less hours LOL).
Meanwhile my husband is actually asking for more hours (he's slowing getting more and more hours) and is being recommended flexibility to move to other departments to help out. He's the type that actually doesn't mind working 60 hours a week if Management needs him to, and they are finally seeing that.
It just pisses me off when employers make horrible mistakes like that and just blow someone over that's clearly hard working. I actually wonder about the other candidates that they DIDN'T hire in lieu of the quitters.... are they going to offer them a job? Or are they going to start the interview process all over again wasting more time and money?
I don't know, it just seems that there are more idiot employers out there than smart ones. At least the smart ones extend an offer to Potential Candidate #2 or #3 if the first candidate didn't work out, instead of wasting more time and money xD
I haven't hired for a company but I have hired contractors for our home renovations. Normally I get it right and have had quality work done by professionals. One however was a huge mistake. He had the pitch, all the right answers and talked the talk. His bid was on the lower end. After having a terrible time getting him to finish the job (our main bath was torn apart) I did some research and I really didn't like what I found. I eventually had to hire someone else to finish the work and it took months, BBB intervention and the very real promise of small claims court to get my deposit back for the rest of the job. Hiring a dud is terribly disruptive and ultimately expensive. If I owned a company I would not hesitate to use any means including social media to my advantage and hidden or private profiles would equal red flag IMO.
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.
