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.
OP, once this process wraps up you will have to come back and tell us who was selected.
Here is some possible insight about the interview panel:
I have been privy to the creation of these "interview panels" or "interview task force" when we were trying to pull one over on the rank and file. Basically upper management was about to promote someone junior up a few levels or somebody at the top was placing someone they knew from outside the company into a nice management role.
Essentially they would advertise a job and select the most average to bad candidates to come in and interview with various levels of employees being included in the process giving them a sense of control. After the candidates proved to be duds upper management would simply announce that a hire had been made and everyone should be happy that they were able to find such a qualified candidate in the face of such a talent shortage.
Lets look at some of the posts, and evaluate them from the point of view of someone that has been the HM hiring hundreds of people over half a century. These posts say one thing. The poster knows nothing about what it takes to hire someone for reponsible job, and what a HM or committee faces when trying to fill a position.
Quote:
And yet, you seem clueless to understand that your company's process is also to blame for interviewing "unremarkable" candidates and having to re-do the process all over again.
When what you get replying to an advertisement is all unsatisfactory advertising for someone with responsibility, there is no choice but to advertise the job again, and hope you get at least one first class applicant.
The problem the HM has, it so many people apply for jobs they are in no way qualified for the job. The first thing done, is to sort out the absolutely impossible applicants, and come up with the maybe 5 best applicants out of sometimes hundreds. Then at interview period you interview those 5, and often find not one of them is even half way qualified for the jot, and you re-advertise and try again.
Quote:
I t seems that you, and perhaps the other interviewers are running a "popularity" contest based on your comments, rather than looking at a persons skill set.
The problem the HR/HM/Committee has, is finding the person with the right skill set, that can do the job you need done.
Quote:
Given that an Office Manager position itself is average and unremarkable, what do you really expect? Its the kind of position where people just do the job and collect the paycheck. Of course they're boring. Its boring work. There's nothing to get excited about.
Here is someone that knows absolutely nothing of what is needed in a high end office managers job. You don't want just someone to do the job and collect the paycheck. You want/need someone that can make the office operate smoothly, and get the people working in the office to do the job you need done. It is not an average and unremarkable job as that poster claims it is. I always wanted a top office manager to run the office, so I did not have to worry about the work being done. I then could devote my efforts to other duties, knowing that the office is in good hands, when I am away.
Quote:
Agreed. Sounds like you all are asking boring, typical interview questions that don't allow you to really get to know a candidate or to find out how they would perform the actual job you are advertising. If you asked me my greatest weakness or some other dumb interview question, I'd probably thank you for your time and leave.
Again someone that knows nothing about what is needed to be learned about an applicant. If you are hiring for a responsible position, you must get into their heads, and learn what they have done, how they think, and how they can benefit your company and make your office run smoothly in this situation.
Quote:
Don't just repost. Analyze your ad, and see if you are posting for the right person. Other posters are right, office manager is often a mundane job. If your position does more, say so. Is it an office marketing manager? Assistant controller? Logistics and operations manager? Are you offering the correct salary level? If you are offering a competitive salary, do you post that, or are you admitting you want to lowball by posting DOE?
Problem is, no matter how you word the add, the majority of the applicants will not be suitable for that position. And the salary may be what the industry is paying at the current time or even above, but the big problem is, so may applicants think they are worth so much more money than they are worth, and they may even be worthless to fill the needs of the company. There are starting salary levels for new college graduates and those new to that particular type of position, mid rage salary ranges which will cover people with 10 years or more experience in that field, and final career wages, when a person has spent many years in the field and is worth every penny they pay them.
Problem that HR/HM has with so many potential applicants, is they are demanding mid career wages to start in that particular field. Truth is they are not worth that kind of money.
If you aren't a top company, one of the best in your industries and/or offering top pay, best benefits, promotions, flex time, employee development etc...then you aren't going to get top people.
Half the employees are below average.
Most employers expect way more than they are willing to give.
Ahh, the old "hiring Team", a flat out job shirking exercise on the part of upper management carried out by inexperienced people who love to have a tad bit of power to chew on. I owned my own business and managed for others for years, I hired and fired, no team needed, no lengthy interview needed, no need to string out the process for three or four (and more) attempts to interview the same person. If a company can't hire in an efficient manner what are the chances it can operate any differently in the daily business realm?
I call this "the kid in the candy store syndrome," hemming and hawing, hoping to find that "just right" piece of sweetness that triumphs over all the rest of the equally sweet stuff in sight. Most jobs require a new hire to acclimate to the basic-task specific- training for their position, one can have the same job title for years, through many different companies--- but not necessarily the same tasks in that capacity. I think the real question of importance here why the OP is deemed to be an adequate resource for this task..
What happened in America that has made us into a bunch of helpless chumps who find the hiring process to be an invitation to put others through the wringer in a series of grueling interviews and STILL end up with the inadequate, unproductive, people that I'm forced to deal with as a customer on a daily basis? Good grief, grow up and hire the person who looks to be a decent candidate and stop thinking of yourself and your petty critiques as the stuff of heavy intellectual matter. It's an office manager job, not the guy who's going to run the Nuclear power plant...
Beautiful post.
I'm guessing that early on in your career you threw out books smarts for street smarts.
Ahh, the old "hiring Team", a flat out job shirking exercise on the part of upper management carried out by inexperienced people who love to have a tad bit of power to chew on. I owned my own business and managed for others for years, I hired and fired...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy64
Beautiful post.
I'm guessing that early on in your career you threw out books smarts for street smarts.
Great. Your opinion and $2.00 gets you cheap coffee.
I have also owned my own business for years, as well as worked at reasonably high levels in private and public sector jobs. I have hired and fired independently, and as part of a panel.
Again, we both have opinions, and $2.00 for coffee.
There are many different ways to get things done. Autocratic and collaborative methods both have pros and cons. Saying that a hiring team is a means of shirking responsibility simply means you don't understand the process. The team leader, committee chair, whatever you want to call it, makes the final decision. Hiring authority tests it's one person, the rest is advisory.
Great. Your opinion and $2.00 gets you cheap coffee.
I have also owned my own business for years, as well as worked at reasonably high levels in private and public sector jobs. I have hired and fired independently, and as part of a panel.
Again, we both have opinions, and $2.00 for coffee.
There are many different ways to get things done. Autocratic and collaborative methods both have pros and cons. Saying that a hiring team is a means of shirking responsibility simply means you don't understand the process. The team leader, committee chair, whatever you want to call it, makes the final decision. Hiring authority tests it's one person, the rest is advisory.
The OP is 10 candidates in and is still empty handed. Maybe there is too much committee and not enough practicality.
I was in a group interview where my boss demised the candidate after 5 minutes because the guy just had nothing interesting to say. The one thing I've learned after 20 years on the candidate side is that no matter how bad I want a job I have to go in with the attitude that I don't care too much and that something else will come up if this one doesn't work out. That always gives me a false sense of confidence without arrogance and in turn I have probably gotten offers on 75% of the jobs I've interviewed for in my life
The OP is 10 candidates in and is still empty handed. Maybe there is too much committee and not enough practicality.
Maybe. But there are many other possibilities too. Presuming the problem is because of the interview method is foolish, as you simply don't know any of the other facts that come into play.
How long did they advertise?
How did they advertise?
Who screened to produce 10 poor candidates?
What is the local economy like?
What is the reputation of the company? Pay rate? Benefits?
Was the job announcement clear and accurate?
All of these factors will come into play to create a candidate pool before the interview team even schedules the first interview.
I know that it is trendy on this forum to trash management as incompetent, but you aren't exactly showing a deep understanding of the topic you are weighing in on.
Frequently, yes. "Tell us about yourself" is a gift to a candidate. It is the best way to pitch something the committee wouldn't otherwise find out, and all candidates should have a 30 second elevator speech prepared. I don't ask "what are your weaknesses". Dumbest question ever, and I hope the person who came up with it suffers unemployment for eternity.
I turned this around, obviously I can read a resume and didn't want to waste my time on what's already known. I instead would ask tell me something about yourself that I wouldn't be aware of from your resume. This usually caused people to stammer and stutter.... but then let them focus on telling me something about them and how well they could think with a bit of a curve yet still sell themself.
Agree with you on the silliness of "what are your weaknesses", never asked that. But didn't ask instead that "Everyone in their career has encountered a situation that was challenging, tell me about an experience you had and what you learned from it". It helped me to frame what people thought as being a challenge vs. what is just a typical day in the life of working....
It does sound like the OP's candidate selection needs to be reviewed, or perhaps they need to ensure their ad aligns to what they truly are expecting for job applicants.
I turned this around, obviously I can read a resume and didn't want to waste my time on what's already known. I instead would ask tell me something about yourself that I wouldn't be aware of from your resume. This usually caused people to stammer and stutter.... but then let them focus on telling me something about them and how well they could think with a bit of a curve yet still sell themself.
Yes, this is what I am getting at. Nicely put.
Quote:
Agree with you on the silliness of "what are your weaknesses", never asked that. But didn't ask instead that "Everyone in their career has encountered a situation that was challenging, tell me about an experience you had and what you learned from it". It helped me to frame what people thought as being a challenge vs. what is just a typical day in the life of working....
Yes, this is a good technique. Situational questions are a nice way to tease out personality, competence, and ability to think.
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.
