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.
In many jobs it is. I mean in retail, sales, customer service, supervisory (in any sector), entrepreneur, etc. you need to be a "people person" or else you wont last all that long. It is rare that introverts work in those fields. Even an introverted teacher can have problems unless they have the "extrovert game face." I have it. I mean I talk more now BUT I would say that I am not totally extroverted. I am an extrovert when needed or within my comfort zone.
Now let me turn the tables and ask you, what makes you think "extrovert" is not the right answer?
...
I didn't say it wasn't the right answer. I said there are 16 possible MBTI combination, all of which operate on a sliding scale, not binary. Therefore trying to guess which is the "right" answer is more likely to be wrong than if you just answer honestly.
Now let's take your own example. If for example retail sales requires an extrovert, and if you are a natural introvert, how would gaming the MBTI to make it appear as if you were an extrovert change that? By your own example, you wouldn't last long in the job.
I didn't say it wasn't the right answer. I said there are 16 possible MBTI combination, all of which operate on a sliding scale, not binary. Therefore trying to guess which is the "right" answer is more likely to be wrong than if you just answer honestly.
Now let's take your own example. If for example retail sales requires an extrovert, and if you are a natural introvert, how would gaming the MBTI to make it appear as if you were an extrovert change that? By your own example, you wouldn't last long in the job.
Most retail companies use junk tests rather than MBTI like other companies do. These are more designed to look for introverts to rule them out of the running. Also even though MBTI isn't used for that reason, don't mean someone can't rule out anyone that isn't an extroverted type A person either.
So the root cause has been identified to the masses. why is NOTHING ever done about it??
And why are these inept hiring managers NEVER Held accountable by the higher ups for this ridiculous crap??
Instead companies will waste their time with "employee engagement surveys" when all they have to do is look at THEMSELVES
I agree. Hiring the wrong people for the job is a major problem at companies today and is a top concern of the business leaders themselves, even if a minority of individual workers feel it's not a real problem or is not worth discussing because THEY are personally satisfied with the state of the hiring market today.
The reason so many companies hire the wrong people for the wrong jobs is simple: the hiring process is utterly broken. It, too, is mired in red tape and inefficiency. It is made bloated by internet job postings and online recruiting tools attracting tens of thousands of candidates per posted job. And it is made stupid by outsourcing to "smart tools" that can acquire, process, and cull hundreds of candidates per hour with little or no human input whatsoever.
But the worst thing happens once the hiring manager's narrowed down the candidates to a small list of finalists slated for in-person interviews. Because the in-person interview is an AWESOME opportunity for the company to engage the candidate in real work s/he'd really be doing if hired for a real job at the company -- but almost no one treats it as such, instead wasting time with psychological kung-fu tricks and business jargon B.S. contests. Why waste this rare opportunity to see who can do the job (and who actually can't) -- and allay one of the hiring manager's biggest fears ("Can the person I just hired perform on the job every day?") while you're at it?
Now I am not the first person to say this by far, but I do believe it wholeheartedly: throw out the dumb personality tests, the quizzes, the stress tests, and the rest -- cut all the nonsense and replace it with the Real-Life Test. "Welcome to the interview. This is the job. And here is what you'd do all day at this job, if we chose to hire you for it. Now, show us how YOU would do the job."
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
This is a false dichotomy.
It is simply not true that people are either social or competent. There is no reason why people cannot be both, and I would argue that most are.
I agree here, too, and many social scientists today do as well. They characterize the majority as "ambiverts," able to switch between introversion and extraversion as the situation requires and/or as they feel it necessary.
There's also the fact that the Meyers-Briggs isn't useful for any sort of deep prognostications about a candidate or how s/he'll perform. Basically, it's a study of how people interpret words and phrases, and that's the true extent of its usefulness. I advise anyone applying at a company that relies overmuch (or much more than "hardly") on these or any other types of personality tests to RUN. Such places, in my experience, are bureaucratic nightmares of bad policy, bad work, and bad attitudes.
Now I am not the first person to say this by far, but I do believe it wholeheartedly: throw out the dumb personality tests, the quizzes, the stress tests, and the rest -- cut all the nonsense and replace it with the Real-Life Test. "Welcome to the interview. This is the job. And here is what you'd do all day at this job, if we chose to hire you for it. Now, show us how YOU would do the job."
.
Do you realize how few jobs could actually bring someone in and have them do the job for a day in any meaningful manner? You couldn't even go over the routine processes and procedures with them in that time. That's why there are probationary periods.
Do you realize how few jobs could actually bring someone in and have them do the job for a day in any meaningful manner? You couldn't even go over the routine processes and procedures with them in that time. That's why there are probationary periods.
That's not quite right -- I think you read me a bit literally there. Our objective here is to select a core task or set of tasks that are vital to the job and have the candidate perform them (perhaps while timed, perhaps not) on company premises just as s/he would on the job every day. Presuming the correct tasks for the role have been identified, and the sample work is of a length and complexity adequate for assessment but not so unwieldy as to consume an entire day, this method of interviewing is loads more efficient than other hiring methods. Particularly so for a very diverse array of white-collar, professional jobs. My responses and the original article are for a skilled, white-collar audience -- if that's not you, little I say will be relevant to your profession or interests.
Once a worker hits a certain level, s/he may be asked to attend at least one, and less often (but it still happens), MULTIPLE all-day interview sessions. These add up in terms of time and money, especially when they're out of town. For jobs where this is standard, the interview process itself, AND each interview session, is shortened and made more efficient by switching to evaluation of on-the-job performance. Contrary to what you claim, OTJ performance assessments shave HOURS to DAYS off the process -- while the all-day, multi-meeting format I presume you'd prefer does the opposite. Subjecting candidates to one or serial 8-to-10-hour days impressing pointy-haired executives cannot assess ability or skill. Neither can the approach beloved by the worst charlatans, i.e. shoving a Meyers-Briggs or similar useless test at the candidate and shouting "Take IT!" Whereas evaluating real-life on-the-job ability is, and will remain, THE MOST reliable indicator of candidate performance and profitability. Smart companies realize this, and each year, the "real-life test" style of interviewing is introduced at more and more companies, replacing the older, subjective methods that have historically failed to deliver.
Testing real-life skill and performance at interviews has LONG been standard in software -- even junior level candidates are asked to code. Career writers likewise take timed writing tests at interviews, and designers are increasingly asked to design something at the interview. Fitness for various director-level roles in a variety of industries may be ascertained by asking that candidates, prior to the final interview, all develop a proposal or statement of work about a relevant item. Each candidate presents the core concepts of the proposal or SoW at the interview, submitting their documents afterward for the final review. Every test is unique, as it should be -- every job is, too. But as my examples show, every test assesses candidate skill and performance levels where they count: in real life. On the job assessment is more efficient than other interviewing approaches, too. After a brief time spent planning for and creating what's needed for the working interview, it pays for itself many times over. Best of all, it's a great path to profit for forward-thinking companies, while those whose hiring choices hinge on salad forks and extraversion ratios must resort to little and not-so-little white lies -- e.g. pretending to care about hiring top talent, pretending to prioritize the activities required to secure it.
Don't take my word for it of course. Peter Capelli of Wharton Business School, Nick Corcodilios, one of the most successful Silicon Valley headhunters of all time, hell, even my wife, who first taught me this method, wouldn't be where they are now without this. When it's said and done, if it's not for you, it's not for you -- and if it is up your alley, information's widely available elsewhere online.
Last edited by Mr.BadGuy; 11-23-2016 at 08:59 AM..
I moved for a job after having only been through the town a couple times and for the interview. This was a small satellite office of a much larger organization. We were in a Regus office then so even the quarters were cramped. The stress level was high coming from clients, demanding corporate office, and poorly implemented software.
A person with a reasonable background in the industry could be taught the job. However, in such a high pressure environment, with few people on the team working closely together, "fit" was highly important. If you couldn't stand the person you were talking to for six or seven hours a day two arms' length from you, no, it wasn't going to work out no matter how technical you are. The most technical person on our team was fired for basically not being go along to get along.
The next job I had was more technical than fit. On paper, it looked like a great match for me, but once I got in there it was a complete hornet's nest.
I'll intertwine my questions into your post. Should be in blue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.BadGuy
That's not quite right -- I think you read me a bit literally there. Our objective here is to select a core task or set of tasks that are vital to the job and have the candidate perform them (perhaps while timed, perhaps not) on company premises just as s/he would on the job every day. Presuming the correct tasks for the role have been identified, and the sample work is of a length and complexity adequate for assessment but not so unwieldy as to consume an entire day, this method of interviewing is loads more efficient than other hiring methods. Particularly so for a very diverse array of white-collar, professional jobs. My responses and the original article are for a skilled, white-collar audience -- if that's not you, little I say will be relevant to your profession or interests.
Yes, I am talking white collar. But in now job I've held in may career would I expect someone to be able to walk in and do a task from that job without some amount of job specific training. What I need to know is does someone have the core knowledge and reasoning ability to learn. An academic written test would have to be legally sufficient to stand up in court.
Once a worker hits a certain level, s/he may be asked to attend at least one, and less often (but it still happens), MULTIPLE all-day interview sessions. These add up in terms of time and money, especially when they're out of town. For jobs where this is standard, the interview process itself, AND each interview session, is shortened and made more efficient by switching to evaluation of on-the-job performance. Contrary to what you claim, OTJ performance assessments shave HOURS to DAYS off the process -- while the all-day, multi-meeting format I presume you'd prefer does the opposite. Subjecting candidates to one or serial 8-to-10-hour days impressing pointy-haired executives cannot assess ability or skill.
Don't believe in long or multi day interviews either. Half hour to an hour is sufficient.
Neither can the approach beloved by the worst charlatans, i.e. shoving a Meyers-Briggs or similar useless test at the candidate and shouting "Take IT!" Whereas evaluating real-life on-the-job ability is, and will remain, THE MOST reliable indicator of candidate performance and profitability.
I agree. That's what the probation is; an on the job performance demonstration. But it's not a one day thing. It takes place over time.
Smart companies realize this, and each year, the "real-life test" style of interviewing is introduced at more and more companies, replacing the older, subjective methods that have historically failed to deliver.
Testing real-life skill and performance at interviews has LONG been standard in software -- even junior level candidates are asked to code. Career writers likewise take timed writing tests at interviews, and designers are increasingly asked to design something at the interview. Fitness for various director-level roles in a variety of industries may be ascertained by asking that candidates, prior to the final interview, all develop a proposal or statement of work about a relevant item. Each candidate presents the core concepts of the proposal or SoW at the interview, submitting their documents afterward for the final review.
Interesting you said SoW, because the first thing that came to mind as an example of why such as task wouldn't produce useful information is a SoW. It would tell me the habits I'd have to train out, but doesn't give me any added value because I would have to train you do a SoW our way anyhow. And that's where I'm going with this -- do prospective candidtates have the fundamental knowledge to learn what we do and do they have the ability to apply it to unknowns.
Every test is unique, as it should be -- every job is, too. But as my examples show, every test assesses candidate skill and performance levels where they count: in real life. On the job assessment is more efficient than other interviewing approaches, too. After a brief time spent planning for and creating what's needed for the working interview, it pays for itself many times over. Best of all, it's a great path to profit for forward-thinking companies, while those whose hiring choices hinge on salad forks and extraversion ratios must resort to little and not-so-little white lies -- e.g. pretending to care about hiring top talent, pretending to prioritize the activities required to secure it.
Don't take my word for it of course. Peter Capelli of Wharton Business School, Nick Corcodilios, one of the most successful Silicon Valley headhunters of all time, hell, even my wife, who first taught me this method, wouldn't be where they are now without this. When it's said and done, if it's not for you, it's not for you -- and if it is up your alley, information's widely available elsewhere online.
I'll intertwine my questions into your post. Should be in blue.
Regardless of a new idea's merits, or a new technique's benefits, nothing in life and nothing in business can possibly be all things to all people. Ideally each hiring manager has the judgment and wisdom to decide for himself. This concept filters down to the smallest detail, as in the case of the SoW. Assigning an SoW isn't relevant in your world. That has no bearing on its importance to mine, and it doesn't change the fact that assigning such a thing is exceedingly relevant where I stand.
You may, perhaps, believe that by suggesting a new approach, I instantly pronounce it to be the only solution possible in the whole wide world. Or perhaps you feel that any discussion of situations/industries where the hiring process is broken and where new solutions would be of benefit will instantly negate your eminently sufficient hiring process out of existence. Alternatively, given your eagerness to perseverate on how well hiring works at your place of employ in a thread about the opposite topic, I wonder if you believe that your company's hiring process, by dint of existing, automatically negates ALL examples of broken hiring in the world. If true, that is a curious belief. But not one conducive to discussion.
This thread is not titled "My hiring method, and why it is great for me -- by tniff." The title and the linked article, instead, discuss BROKEN HIRING. That is the topic I'm here for. Perhaps it's not the one you are here for. There are many ways to deal with this. You chose one of them, albeit not the most efficient approach. What's most likely the case here however, this being the internet and all, is that you want to argue. Best of luck on your journey.
Last edited by Mr.BadGuy; 11-23-2016 at 05:53 PM..
no one is going to multi day interviews, no one has time for that. did you think people applying were all jobless and had all the time in the world?
besides, what company will let people "try" out their operations prior to being hired? sure, let me play around with your multi million dollar systems that you have patents on so i can show you i know how to do the job. once i do that, i go to your competitor and do the same, and just sell your systems to them.
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.
