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 wonder if you owned a company or were a manager and were held responsible by the productivity of the staff (people you stuck your neck out for) and hired, you would be so easy going about the hiring process. Good business managers and owners know that hiring the wrong person can kill a business or department and they need as many vehicles as possible to evaluate the candidate. Seeing how well they fill out an employment application is just one of many tests you should give applicants.
the issue is not that your process is too tough - in fact it's really not very difficult to do what you want, except for people who can't write neatly to save their lives. the issue is that the qualities it measures are not ones that are valuable in quite a lot of jobs. maybe you're looking for people who follow instructions without question, no matter how absurd, and also have beautiful penmanship. i dunno. but you're eliminating some of the best employees when you make the application process super cumbersome and pointless because 1. they can recognize that it's pointless and redundant and 2. they generally have other options and won't jump through hoops for you.
If you're looking for ability to follow directions, you don't need to do this. You can tell this by seeing whether they follow your directions for submitting their resume and cover letter and showing up to the interview, as well as submitting any other documents that you need to judge their ability to do the job (like writing samples). If your directions online say "Submit your resume and cover letter in the following acceptable formats" and they submit it in a different format without explanation or don't submit a cover letter, you know they're not following directions. If you tell them their interview is at 2 PM and they will need to show their ID to security to get into the building, and then they need to ask the receptionist for John Jones and they call you at 2:05 PM from the lobby because they don't have ID and need your permission to come up, you know they're not following directions.
it's both a skills test and a test of following directions to tell people to title their e-mail a certain way (if you accept e-mailed applications), submit their resume and cover letter in a certain format, as one document, and/or to use a uniform document title format (say, name - job number - job title or something like that). of course whether this stuff is relevant to the job depends on what you're hiring for.
"It's about following instructions...." what is this, high school or summer camp? Getta atta here.
Communism and dictatorships are also about "following instructions". If one failed to do that they went to the "camp."
And we know what happened from there.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick. Why do some people need to use the most extreme, irrational examples when it comes to something like this? Yeah - all employers are Commies and Nazis.
I am guessing that there are reasons why individuals with a mindset such as this are having trouble finding employment.
As to the OP's "test"...seriously?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HumanNature
1) They did not bring the information to supply data on previous bosses and employers and contact information, so they leave it blank or put SEE RESUME.
2) They have made almost no progress on the application at all.
3) Their handwriting is so poor you can not understand what they are saying.
4) They don't remember what they did in past jobs so were unable to write the paragraph description requested about the responsibilities of each job.
I am assuming this is for some type of McJob as this is silly for someone applying for a professional position. In the latter case, #4 will already be spelled out in their resume or CV. Most real companies would provide the application to the candidate ahead of time and ask them to bring a completed application with them when they come in for the interview - they would want an application filled out properly and completely, rather than worrying about if a candidate could do that in a set amount of time. if you are looking to measure application of skills as related to timing, it seems that a test demonstrating technical proficiency of job-related skills would be a much better use of everyone's time (employer and candidate).
As to the handwriting - mine is quite neat and poor handwriting is a pet peeve of mine. But, once again, if one has poor handwriting, unless the position involved doing a lot of writing by hand (and there are a few positions in my profession where this is required) I do not see why this is an issue. It certainly is not a sign of "sloppiness" or some other such trait. I work with doctors and other health professionals on a daily basis - I can guarantee that those doctors with "sloppy" handwriting are likely more highly educated and more competent than most people.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick. Why do some people need to use the most extreme, irrational examples when it comes to something like this? Yeah - all employers are Commies and Nazis.
I am guessing that there are reasons why individuals with a mindset such as this are having trouble finding employment.
As to the OP's "test"...seriously?
I am assuming this is for some type of McJob as this is silly for someone applying for a professional position. In the latter case, #4 will already be spelled out in their resume or CV. Most real companies would provide the application to the candidate ahead of time and ask them to bring a completed application with them when they come in for the interview - they would want an application filled out properly and completely, rather than worrying about if a candidate could do that in a set amount of time. if you are looking to measure application of skills as related to timing, it seems that a test demonstrating technical proficiency of job-related skills would be a much better use of everyone's time (employer and candidate).
As to the handwriting - mine is quite neat and poor handwriting is a pet peeve of mine. But, once again, if one has poor handwriting, unless the position involved doing a lot of writing by hand (and there are a few positions in my profession where this is required) I do not see why this is an issue. It certainly is not a sign of "sloppiness" or some other such trait. I work with doctors and other health professionals on a daily basis - I can guarantee that those doctors with "sloppy" handwriting are likely more highly educated and more competent than most people.
Exactly, I hope this is for a Mcjob or they will soon be destroyed by the competition who use more logical means of finding good employees.
Poor handwriting can be a pet peeve, but an employer must realize that people have very little control over it. I have an advanced degree, have been very successful, and now own my own thriving business, I am more competent than most people, yet I would struggle to complete that application in a way that appears neat, and I do not approach anything in a "sloppy" manner.
If the applicant were nervous about the interview, any amount of stress affects the muscles, and makes handwriting anything much more difficult, it also makes remembering 10 years of employment more difficult, these days that may include a lot of jobs. The OP seems to be making some grand declaration that most people are too incompetent to complete the employment application, and is refusing to see that this new process may be the larger problem.
Yes, let's. I am just getting back to the post so here's my views on some of the more recent posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HumanNature
You assume that the applicant has a standard traditional chronological resume that lists every job they have held for the last ten years and lists all their basic duties and tasks for each and every job.
Instead many of the applicants had a functional resume and only promoted the jobs that made them look good.
A resume is an advertisement, while the application is similar to a legal document.
I can understand the document vs. resume. IE: on a resume many mention relevant work experience and promote the skills. Plus you can ask for specific needs that are related to the job. For instance, if you are the hiring manager of a company who requires car use for instance, wouldn't you need to ask a person if they use a car (nothing asked.) Previous employer phone numbers and addresses, not often mentioned on the resume. However when you ask for redundancy, it doesn't help. To have a candidate type up the resume and then write about it on the application as a paragraph or bullet points is redundant. What if the person has a cover letter with the resume? Couldn't you say that is the paragraph for the application?
Also to assume that you have to show a chronological is antiquated.
If everyone did that for one, the resume would be over two pages in some cases. To get an employer to read more than one page let alone two is a herculean task as with a double sided resume, I maybe had five out of everyone I gave one of those to read it in its entirety in the 30 second fast read that is the telling sign that you can get hired. If they do that with two pages, imagine if they did that with more than two.
Two, you can selectively knockout people due to the type of job hopping the person did if they had 10 jobs and less than half have been truly relevant to the job. Say for instance I have worked as a fry cook for say a year, then move to a fast food cashier for say six months, then you move to a retail store cashier but then get promoted to a retail store lead cashier after say six months to a year before being promoted as an retail store assistant manager for another year and a half maybe two. Then your store closes say a year or two later and you cannot find a relevant retail job job so you then took a bank teller and been in it for say the past eight months. Now the position you are offering is a retail assistant manager, there is only two relevant positions to your job (the lead cashier and the assistant manager), the other work history is irrelevant other than to show they worked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HumanNature
I wonder if you owned a company or were a manager and were held responsible by the productivity of the staff (people you stuck your neck out for) and hired, you would be so easy going about the hiring process. Good business managers and owners know that hiring the wrong person can kill a business or department and they need as many vehicles as possible to evaluate the candidate. Seeing how well they fill out an employment application is just one of many tests you should give applicants.
If I managed I would have the typical application, phone screen interview, in person interview but then mix it up. I would then have the applicants who passed the tests to this point would end up in a half day long situational "interview" working with my current employees in the role they would they are interviewing for. I would be watching this and then talk with my subordinates and see who is a fit for the job and the team. If nobody works out, nobody gets the job and I start the process again. I would do this because it is important to see if the applicant can do the work and be a fit in the team they would end up working with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleShadow
If someone asks me to fill out an application right before my interview when I've already sent them my resume, my first thought is going to be that they're disorganized and that the interviewer might not have my original resume (and time to review it before the interview).
This would be the case in an employees' market. Unfortunately we are in an employers' market where we have Human Nature do what they want with us job seekers and unless it breaks a law or is discriminatory, it is not really wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Ok, but recognize the consequences of giving these kinds of tests. Maybe you identify the candidates who are best at filling out paperwork under pressure, which gives you docile and compliant workers.
However, if you're hiring high-skilled individuals, you're going to have a difficult time competing with other employers for top talent when you treat your applicants with this hostile attitude.
That's the problem. As I said earlier in an employees' market this would not fly unless your company has a demand and is an inside hiring only company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleShadow
If you're looking for ability to follow directions, you don't need to do this. You can tell this by seeing whether they follow your directions for submitting their resume and cover letter and showing up to the interview, as well as submitting any other documents that you need to judge their ability to do the job (like writing samples). If your directions online say "Submit your resume and cover letter in the following acceptable formats" and they submit it in a different format without explanation or don't submit a cover letter, you know they're not following directions. If you tell them their interview is at 2 PM and they will need to show their ID to security to get into the building, and then they need to ask the receptionist for John Jones and they call you at 2:05 PM from the lobby because they don't have ID and need your permission to come up, you know they're not following directions.
This is so true. This is the way you have the "follow directions" test. Give them directions, time and bring resume and a form of ID to pass security to get to an interview. Works for many companies already. Good call shadow.
Who cares whether it is long or short, detailed or not? That is completely irrelevant. The OP said he tested it and it should take 20 minutes to do; he is giving them 30.
If nobody can finish it that would become apparent to the OP pretty quickly and he could give people a longer time period, or simply choose from amongst those who did the best given the time constraints.
Both you and just-the-facts have missed the point. It is not about filling out the form, penmanship, or even accuracy. It is about following instructions (bring your documentation), being punctual (arrive 30 minutes before scheduled interview), and working under a deadline (self evident).
Not everything in a job is completely cut and dried. Computers go down. Once/year projects need to be done. People have to fill in for others who get sick. You never really know what is going to happen over the next five years, so testing for work habits is a reasonable thing to do.
If I were the OP and you were the applicant, I would know not to hire you because you have missed the point of the test and then whined about irrelevant stuff.
I disagree with your point somewhat. This whole process is just another attempt by Human Resource departments to screen applicants. Unfortunately, their criteria may not match the hiring manager's criteria. As an example, in most technical areas, the hiring managers probably have little concern on how fast applicants fill out applications.
it would definitely be interesting to know what the hiring managers at the OP's company would think about this screening process. i wonder if they even know about it?
i'd be pretty annoyed if i found out an otherwise qualified candidate was passed over because they wrote too slowly or too messily. seriously??
it would definitely be interesting to know what the hiring managers at the OP's company would think about this screening process. i wonder if they even know about it?
i'd be pretty annoyed if i found out an otherwise qualified candidate was passed over because they wrote too slowly or too messily. seriously??
If a job requirement requires job applicant to be able to be timely for reports, it makes sense. The issue is the OP hasn't posted them so we may not know if it is the company having a requirement, a want that doesn't add value in the position or it is division of "desirables" from "nondesirables" in an arbitrary way that does not add value. I don't know why the OP isn't posting the requirements because if the requirements lists any part of the test, it is a good call and then people who complain can be considered whiners rather than those who are questioning a potentially legit case of having non job related criteria affect job candidates.
If a job requirement requires job applicant to be able to be timely for reports, it makes sense.
if the reports are handwritten, sure.
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.
