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.
I work in Human Resources and spend a good percent of my time in recruiting and staffing. (As well as training) and have become very frustrated in the lack of skills most job candidates have selling themselves.
The long term unemployed job candidates are usually unemployed for a reason, they can't sell themselves! Here is a question I ask nearly every unemployed candidate and almost everyone gives a very poor answer:
"I see you are not working right now, what are you doing to stay busy every day while you look for a job, outside of job hunting?"
Most people will say they are watching lots of television, playing with the computer, and bumming around town. Or they will insist that they are spending 12 hours a day looking for work. WRONG ANSWER! What they should say is they are totally devoted to their chosen career and they are doing everything possible to learn new skills so they will be more productive once they go back to work.
Agree or disagree?
Disagree. That is a loaded question by the "what have you been doing every day" portion. I don't care how dedicated someone is to keeping skills fresh, they aren't doing it every day.
If you are asking what they are doing with their time every day, you are inquiring about their leisure habits and daily routine and not their job preparation.
A better question is "what have you done during this time to keep your skills fresh".
Meh, I feel its kind of like an "I got you!" question some lower level staffing agent making $14.00/hour and living with his cousin in a two-bedroom apartment would ask. I've been Human Resources too and a resume and cover letter should speak for themselves - it should tell me this person has X, Y, and Z skill sets. It's because they HAVE those skill sets that I'm interviewing them in the first place.
What they're doing when they're not applying for work I could really care less about. No valuable skill that I'm looking for is going to be developed in the course of a few days or weeks. If the person doesn't know Quickbooks, or Calculus, or how to lay conduit by the time s/he gets to the interview, well then s/he ain't gonna learn it in the next few weeks and probably shouldn't even be at the interview in the first place. It's ridiculous to think that a candidate is going to develop anything valuable for the company in his or her few hours of spare time.
It's a pointless question is what it is, but I can see how someone could trick themselves into thinking they're gleaning some kind of valuable information by asking it.
You are right for candidates who are currently working, in school, or have been unemployed for only a few months. However beginning at about three months it's time to do something other than look for work to keep skills fresh or learn new ones, and an employer should ask.
A hiring manager who doesn't ask someone who has been out of work for six months or more what they've been doing and how they've been keeping their chops up shouldn't have a job themselves. It's not only perfectly acceptable, it's also essential. Obviously if the resume clearly shows that they've been pursuing an education than the appropriate line of questions would be about the education itself--what classes were taken, did they know so-and-so professor, etc.
The problem is that we are looking at this questions as a one-size-fits-all, and it's simply not applicable to short term unemployed, currently employed, and students--nor do I think the original intent was to include those demographics.
The poster below is spot on! If you have lots of time on your hands sitting home collecting jobless benefits, it would be a shame to not use the time in professional development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annerk
You are right for candidates who are currently working, in school, or have been unemployed for only a few months. However beginning at about three months it's time to do something other than look for work to keep skills fresh or learn new ones, and an employer should ask.
A hiring manager who doesn't ask someone who has been out of work for six months or more what they've been doing and how they've been keeping their chops up shouldn't have a job themselves. It's not only perfectly acceptable, it's also essential. Obviously if the resume clearly shows that they've been pursuing an education than the appropriate line of questions would be about the education itself--what classes were taken, did they know so-and-so professor, etc.
The problem is that we are looking at this questions as a one-size-fits-all, and it's simply not applicable to short term unemployed, currently employed, and students--nor do I think the original intent was to include those demographics.
Credit is of interest to any employer that you'll be handling cash for or managing books for or having check signing authority for. It is also of interest to any employer who will be issuing you a company credit card.
Exactly. There are many valid reasons for a credit check for certain types of positions. I have had a couple of employees over the years who were hired before the company I was with instituted credit checks, and then when their corporate card was processed, they were given a low limit - around $5k, which is problematic when one has to travel on their corporate card week-in and week-out. It caused more problems than it was worth.
On the flip side, I do not see the where credit checks are needed if someone will not be handling money for the company or need to have a corporate card with a high limit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annerk
I agree that social media accounts are off-limits--UNLESS they are viewable by the public. If I can see what you are writing, so can my customers, so in that case they aren't only within limits, but should be reviewed by a potential employer.
This. If a potential employer can go on google and find your FB page and see everything on it, then so can a client or customer. And if a client or customer sees something untoward on one's social media page, that may color their perceptions of the company. Even if the employer is not bothered by what they see on a candidate's social media site, a client might. Its like with anything else involving perception - several of us in my office have tattoos, and everyone in the office (from our admin. assistant to our CEO) has seen them, as it is not uncommon for us to wear polos or even shorts around the office when it is just us around the office. But when we interact with clients, we all make sure they are covered up, even if we are not in full-on suits, because we don't want a client / potential client to have a negative view of the company just because they have a personal opinion on tattoos.
Most technical skills are evaluated through formal testing though. So if the applicant has already demonstrated proficiency in skill X I don't see any merit in asking them about it a second time. If you're hiring people based on their ability to say "Yes, I'm currently developing skill X on my own" then you've got other problems on your hands.
Meh, I feel its kind of like an "I got you!" question some lower level staffing agent making $14.00/hour and living with his cousin in a two-bedroom apartment would ask. I've been Human Resources too and a resume and cover letter should speak for themselves - it should tell me this person has X, Y, and Z skill sets. It's because they HAVE those skill sets that I'm interviewing them in the first place.
What they're doing when they're not applying for work I could really care less about. No valuable skill that I'm looking for is going to be developed in the course of a few days or weeks. If the person doesn't know Quickbooks, or Calculus, or how to lay conduit by the time s/he gets to the interview, well then s/he ain't gonna learn it in the next few weeks and probably shouldn't even be at the interview in the first place. It's ridiculous to think that a candidate is going to develop anything valuable for the company in his or her few hours of spare time.
It's a pointless question is what it is, but I can see how someone could trick themselves into thinking they're gleaning some kind of valuable information by asking it.
I have to disagree with this a bit, at least in the case of quickbooks. First, its not like its hard. Its just another basic office program, but if you haven't used it in past positions then you simply don't know it. I am looking at a new line of admin work where basic quickbooks is now a need to know. Fortunately there are tons of free tutorials online and one CAN learn it within a few weeks or less. Again its not like its hard.
IF I were an HR person and the position in question simply required the ability to use basic quickbooks I personally would look at the persons overall experience with computers and other programs. If they are experienced in others it would not take them long to grasp the basics of a new program. I think companies make bad hiring decisions when they falsely assume that a person is not worth hiring based on one simple computer program.
I am at least getting my free tutorials of quickbooks and will brush up on MS Office. I have used them in the past but my last versions were 2007. I would not consider myself not hireable just because I'm a bit rusty. Keeping in mind that my resume also shows 2 part time jobs and one small home business that have kept me very busy though not as lucrative as the full time job I am going for.
Tell the interviewer what they want to hear and if you to god forbid lie about periods of unemployment so be it. Also if you have your own business, working in a position that isn't in your field or industry or in school full time that is not deemed acceptable either seems like you must be in a cookie cutter corporate position with no gaps in employment from the time you graduate college.
I think companies make bad hiring decisions when they falsely assume that a person is not worth hiring based on one simple computer program.
Yeah I agree completely. Software is not difficult to teach at all, but for whatever reason - at least with the companies I've worked for - they'd rather wait a month to find someone that knows Quickbooks 2012 than spend 15 minutes explaining it to someone who just knows Quickbooks 2007.
We have an entire industry called HR who's only purpose is to keep people down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80
I agree HR people are hacks and their theories about selection are a serious problem. They bring stereotyping, generalizations, BS psychological testing and profiling because they have managed to convince employers that they can reduce the chances of a bad hire and employers, like people suffering chronic illness, are vulnerable to such quackery.
Blanketly referring to all HR people as mean, petty, incompetent "quacks" is no different (or stereotypical) than calling all unemployed people lazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by statisticsnerd
People go into HR because they aren't smart enough to get a real job at the corporation they work for.
Or saying that people only go into statistics because they are not smart enough to do real mathematics like calculus (I kid, I actually taught stats at one point in my career)
Disagree - What I do on my own time is none of your business, what I’ve done at past jobs is.
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.
(I kid, I actually taught stats at one point in my career)