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.
The people in human resources can be moronic idiots. But once in a while, they get it right. I'm not sure what the answer is. But if there's a problem, that's likely where it lies.
Experience and knowledge is very important, but it is not the only thing hiring decisions are based on. Imagine there are 6 people with equal experience and knowledge. Which one do you decide on. You use other factors to evaluate each potential employee, trying to find the one that will fit in with existing work force the best. Hire someone that does not fit, keeps the department upset, etc., and you have problems that will reduce the work done by the group as a whole. Experience is what gets you considered as a finalist. They next look at the soft skills as a person and your personality to decide which one to hire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
I don't hire anybody who doesn't have the appropriate experience. The experience is what gets them the interview.
Once they get the interview though, it is the soft skills that land the job.
Exactly. I've worked for companies that took interviews seriously and one company that didn't and used the "all that matters is that they can do the job" lackadaisical approach. That just happened to be the job where I had the worst coworkers ever. Not a coincidence.
I am retired. I spent all my working life in the business world, and highest corporate job was division sales manager for half the country. I worked in several fields till 1972 when I went into commercial/investment real estate brokerage and stayed there till I retired.
I was in a position several times I acted as HM, and have hired hundreds of people. I have been an insider in positions to know how things work.
Giving you the tour, shows they consider you one of several that can fill the job from education and experience. Now they need to see which one will best fit into the company. What they are doing when giving you a tour, is people you would be working around get to know you, and gives the HR/HM people a chance to see if you will fit in with the existing employees by watching your reactions. I know many of you just have a terrible time accepting, the fact that companies want people that will feel comfortable in their work environment, and others working there will feel comfortable with you. But that is one of the most important factors in hiring someone to come to work with an existing crew. If you don't fit in, you will not be happy there, and you will disrupt others to the point that they will be less productive and may become unhappy.
Wrong. Experience and knowledge is very important, but it is not the only thing hiring decisions are based on. Imagine there are 6 people with equal experience and knowledge. Which one do you decide on. You use other factors to evaluate each potential employee, trying to find the one that will fit in with existing work force the best. Hire someone that does not fit, keeps the department upset, etc., and you have problems that will reduce the work done by the group as a whole. Experience is what gets you considered as a finalist. They next look at the soft skills as a person and your personality to decide which one to hire.
Soft skills and personality cannot be adequately judged by an interview and taking a seminar or two in psychology doesn't change that. Somehow I managed to fit in everywhere I have worked. The reliance on these things nowadays is a crock. Good luck with the sociopaths you bring on board with this inanity.
I don't hire anybody who doesn't have the appropriate experience. The experience is what gets them the interview.
Once they get the interview though, it is the soft skills that land the job.
As one example, several years ago we were hiring for an HR VP. One candidate certainly had the experience. 25 years of experience in HR in my specific industry. Education, SHRP credentials, and appropriate level experience too. But his demeanor upset every woman in the room. The search committee consisted of 6 people, 4 of whom were women, and two men, the president and myself.
Every time the candidate answered a question he spoke to either the president or me, never to any of the women in the room. Everybody noticed it. Can anybody truthfully say that we should have hired this guy because of his experience?
Soft skills and personality cannot be adequately judged by an interview and taking a seminar or two in psychology doesn't change that. Somehow I managed to fit in everywhere I have worked. The reliance on these things nowadays is a crock. Good luck with the sociopaths you bring on board with this inanity.
You are correct, to a point. Interviews are inadequate vehicles for judging a personality, and I don't think anybody is going to argue that point. However, they are the best tools that we have, so we must make do.
For the record, I am not a supporter of the multiple question personality tests.
What we are left with is a pool of qualified, experienced candidates and the need to choose between them. So we use the interview as a relatively crude tool for differentiating between them, and a probationary period to make sure you made the correct hiring choice.
What would you do differently? How is using personality as one factor wrong?
On another note, I object to your sociopath comment. You seem to be implying that by using soft skills as one factor in the hiring process, the HM is, in effect, selecting for sociopathic tendencies. The logical conclusion to your remark is that you do believe that interviews are successfully selecting for a personality type, albeit a negative one. The corollory to this would be that if interviews can select for a negative personality, with a minor tweak they can also select for a positive one.
That being said, would you like to clarify your position?
Yes they did. And the candidate directed the answers to me or the president. It wasn't a rank thing either. Every person in the room with the exception of the president was a VP of one type or another, and I was the junior one. So the candidate addressed his answers to either the senior or junior man in the room, and ignored the 4 women.
Yes they did. And the candidate directed the answers to me or the president. It wasn't a rank thing either. Every person in the room with the exception of the president was a VP of one type or another, and I was the junior one. So the candidate addressed his answers to either the senior or junior man in the room, and ignored the 4 women.
Just wondered. I can't argue with that. I always direct my answer to whomsoever asked the question.
You are correct, to a point. Interviews are inadequate vehicles for judging a personality, and I don't think anybody is going to argue that point. However, they are the best tools that we have, so we must make do.
For the record, I am not a supporter of the multiple question personality tests.
What we are left with is a pool of qualified, experienced candidates and the need to choose between them. So we use the interview as a relatively crude tool for differentiating between them, and a probationary period to make sure you made the correct hiring choice.
What would you do differently? How is using personality as one factor wrong?
On another note, I object to your sociopath comment. You seem to be implying that by using soft skills as one factor in the hiring process, the HM is, in effect, selecting for sociopathic tendencies. The logical conclusion to your remark is that you do believe that interviews are successfully selecting for a personality type, albeit a negative one. The corollory to this would be that if interviews can select for a negative personality, with a minor tweak they can also select for a positive one.
That being said, would you like to clarify your position?
I didnt say they were selecting for sociopathic tendencies. What I said was that sociopaths can easily play others and hr/hm is no different.
Doing and saying whatever hr/hm wants to see and hear to get a job.
I didnt say they were selecting for sociopathic tendencies. What I said was that sociopaths can easily play others and hr/hm is no different.
Doing and saying whatever hr/hm wants to see and hear to get a job.
I interpreted your comment differently, but I am also not going to start an argument over grammatical nuance.
How about the rest off my post that you quoted? Given multiple qualified candidates, why not make your best attempt at selecting for soft skills based upon an interview?
I interpreted your comment differently, but I am also not going to start an argument over grammatical nuance.
How about the rest off my post that you quoted? Given multiple qualified candidates, why not make your best attempt at selecting for soft skills based upon an interview?
Because it means instead of making an intelligent, reasoned, selection you are relying on your assumptions and not facts to chose for you.
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.
