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.
When I 1st got hired into management of a somewhat professional job I was told by my mentor that interviewing and picking the proper candidate is one of the hardest skills pick up and do correctly. That is one reason for all the tests, for all the lists of questions that HR and managers are given to ask prospects, and why so many hoops are being placed to bet hired. companies are trying to hard to protect themselves from making a bad hire.
while this may **** off some HM and HR people the fact is that to really get decent at interviewing and hiring people you have to do it and learn from experience. With many entry level jobs you are dealing with people who have little to no experience doing it, and are hoping they get it right. The crutches are what they use to help them. In some companies I have met people who have hired 3 or 4 people in their lives, and they are considered the expert as they had half of them work out long term. It sucks. You deal with people who have been hiring for a long time they usually are much better at picking the right candidate.
That being said one other thing to remember is that not all companies, HR, or even HM are the same. What one person finds as a lack of passion others may find as a control passion. What some consider as too nervous others find as really wanting the job. While you should listen to any feedback you get from interviews and try to improve on what you perceive as your weakness, you should always take it with a grain of salt and look back at it and see if you agree with it yourself.
I agree with this. Give an experienced hiring manager a list of mandatory silly questions from HR and they will still be able to expand on questions and probe answers in order to determine if the candidate has the qualities they are looking for in addition to their technical skills.
As for feedback, I would agree take it, bounce it off others, but don't obsess over it. Sometimes, the only truly valid feedback is that someone else was the better or more preferred candidate.
Crazy hoops are also counterproductive as the most in demand candidates are going to bail on the process leaving you just the really desperate ones. I've bailed on several applications after the company let HR off their leash and it got out of control with HR people jerking me around with writing assignments long psyche tests, multiple day long interviews.
This brings to my mind one of my favorite stories. My wife has been much in demand during her career and has not had much trouble landing a job. She has an BS in Nursing, a B.S. in Nutrition, an M.S. in Health Education, and an R.N. license. She has decades of experience in public health and community health nursing.
Years ago, a nationally known company advertised a position for a company nurse. My wife applied for the job. She was called in for an interview. A week later she was called in for a second interview. Two weeks later she was told they liked her application, but needed more from her. She was asked to go meet with the company physician which she did. The two got along fine. The company than said it would need two weeks to check her references. She waited the two weeks. At the end of the two weeks, the company contacted her to ask her to come back for a third interview.
At this point, she had finally had enough.
She told the guy from HR "No thank you, I'm pulling my job application". There was dead silence for a minute on the other end of the phone. Finally, the guy said something like "you can't do this, the last interview is just a formality!" My wife told the guy that she had no use for an employer who took that long to make decisions and that she had better things to do.
I admit I get a chuckle out of thinking of these losers having to start their process all over again.
Employers, no one denies you the right to scrutinize job applicants. What we challenge is your right to literally beat this process to death because the people in your HR Department don't know what the hell they are doing. Employees can say "no" too.
As a side note, I did so poorly interviewing for jobs, I finally gave up. I started working for myself more than 25 years ago and I am totally uninterested in applying for any job. Its a bunch of BS.
She told the guy from HR "No thank you, I'm pulling my job application". There was dead silence for a minute on the other end of the phone. Finally, the guy said something like "you can't do this, the last interview is just a formality!" My wife told the guy that she had no use for an employer who took that long to make decisions and that she had better things to do.
HR has been on one heck of a power trip lately. They figure the labor market is so desperate they can subject applicants to whatever quackery their useless excuse for a profession can conjure up. I strongly encourage applicants to do what I do and withdraw your application when they get off their leash and jerk you arround beyond reason. Let them hire phonies and nitwits and continue to whine about it.
There is entirely too much amateur head shrinking that goes on at interviews and that is the problem and why companies often end up with great phonies rather than great workers. I got nailed with the stupid "lack of passion" charge to. My first few interviews I was to nervous and got labeled not confident and then I learned to stay calm and collected and treat the interview analytically and got labeled not passionate. Is it any wonder companies can't hire well!
I've had the SAME problems too! I was labeled not qualified, then not a good fit, and then not passionate enough. I just want to work and I WILL work. It's amazing to realize that's not enough.
Again I have no way of telling how you come across in interviews, but one thing I have noticed is if you are at the beginning of your career and are already changing careers there are red flags that come up. You have to get your message across on why you are doing it. Also it depends on what you are trying to do as compared to your degree, are they in any way similar?
Actually I wasn't at the beginning of my career. In my previous field, I spent well over 5 years in it and then decided to make a change. The fact I wanted to make a change was a "red flag." I've been asking so many times why I'm not going to graduate school. Honestly if I wanted to go to graduate school wouldn't I already be there? The longest I've been with an employer was 4 years and if it hadn't been for the budget cuts after 2008, I would have made a longer career with them.
This brings to my mind one of my favorite stories. My wife has been much in demand during her career and has not had much trouble landing a job. She has an BS in Nursing, a B.S. in Nutrition, an M.S. in Health Education, and an R.N. license. She has decades of experience in public health and community health nursing.
Years ago, a nationally known company advertised a position for a company nurse. My wife applied for the job. She was called in for an interview. A week later she was called in for a second interview. Two weeks later she was told they liked her application, but needed more from her. She was asked to go meet with the company physician which she did. The two got along fine. The company than said it would need two weeks to check her references. She waited the two weeks. At the end of the two weeks, the company contacted her to ask her to come back for a third interview.
At this point, she had finally had enough.
She told the guy from HR "No thank you, I'm pulling my job application". There was dead silence for a minute on the other end of the phone. Finally, the guy said something like "you can't do this, the last interview is just a formality!" My wife told the guy that she had no use for an employer who took that long to make decisions and that she had better things to do.
I admit I get a chuckle out of thinking of these losers having to start their process all over again.
Employers, no one denies you the right to scrutinize job applicants. What we challenge is your right to literally beat this process to death because the people in your HR Department don't know what the hell they are doing. Employees can say "no" too.
.
I love what your wife did, and I'm not surprised it shocked HR. I'm not saying every hiring manage or HR department is like this, but many in the last decade have gone on a power trip. HR used to be around to help solve problems among the workers to being a valuable asset to the hiring process. Now they seem to spout slogans and mission statements all the time, find anything to create context that would prevent a legal battle for getting rid of someone, then play around with applicants as they get this sense of entitlement that candidates should be grateful we might bring you on. It's pathetic and sad, and the only pleasure I get is seeing the people who jerk you around eventually get what's coming to them. Some might weasel their way out of it for years, but I've seen jerks get what's coming to them.
I can't resist adding one little thing since we have some HR posters here. How can one get experience when 99% of jobs say in the ad "Experience Required"? Some of these jobs I could pick up on in a couple days or less with very little training, but since I have no experience I don't even get a chance.
I've had the SAME problems too! I was labeled not qualified, then not a good fit, and then not passionate enough. I just want to work and I WILL work. It's amazing to realize that's not enough.
Right.
It's not like we're all in this world together or anything like that.
I mean, if you are hiring for Goldman & Sachs or General Manager of the NY Yankees, then I understand. There's lots of $ at stake possibly and you can put your prospectives through all the head games you want. There's a reason I didn't become an investment banker.
But if you are a run of the mill tax accountant or engineer, there's no reason to put people through excessive rounds of interviews, and scrutinize things like 'lack of passion' and 'qualification'.
It's a job. Pick a person. You go in, work hard, and if you need to change something, hopefully management will let you know.
A lot of it I agree is due to the economic climate.
Actually I wasn't at the beginning of my career. In my previous field, I spent well over 5 years in it and then decided to make a change. The fact I wanted to make a change was a "red flag." I've been asking so many times why I'm not going to graduate school. Honestly if I wanted to go to graduate school wouldn't I already be there? The longest I've been with an employer was 4 years and if it hadn't been for the budget cuts after 2008, I would have made a longer career with them.
Changing careers or using applicable skills in a different role was a plus as it showed you willing to learn and diversify. Now it's a red flag as you don't look "committed" to your work. Sadly a lot of HR and employers just want a guy who did the exact same job elsewhere, and would require barely any training. Honestly the lack of training is why we have so many picky employers and issues in the work place. No one wants to devote time and resources to training anymore as they feel like they can be super picky and underpay overqualified people in this toxic economy.
I can't resist adding one little thing since we have some HR posters here. How can one get experience when 99% of jobs say in the ad "Experience Required"? Some of these jobs I could pick up on in a couple days or less with very little training, but since I have no experience I don't even get a chance.
Because HR are looking for the 10-25-25 type person. They want someone with 10 years of experience at the age of 25 and would only want 25 grand a year on a contract basis so they don't get benefits
p.s.: I'm being facetious if you think I'm serious with those numbers, but HR wants people who are in a sense overqualified as they can underpay them in this environment. I think it's backfiring on them as nowadays some openings have been left unfilled for a long time, and the increase demand with being shorthanded has affected a company's effectiveness. We still have a long way to go from the hiring process of the late 90s in which employers look for more trainable people who seem to have some basic knowledge and skills to succeed.
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.
