My answers to some questions a magazine posed me a couple of years ago...
· Do you think the good old face to face interview practice needs to be changed?
Yes it does have to change. It should remain face to face but be a lot more structured. HR departments need to be able to sense an interviewee’s behavioral preferences. They should use a lot of “what if…” :what would you do…?” “why?” questions rather than ask about “what” and “how” questions focused on the past and based on the CV.
· Why/why not and what are the options?
Companies could use a lot more case studies and group hiring techniques. They could also use ‘work one day on the job’ so that the interviewee gets a feel of the place, his boss and subordinates.
· Could you give an anecdote (not necessarily within your current company) in which a better evaluation technique could have helped avoid a hiring mistake?
Most hiring mistakes happen when both sides do not gauge the requirements of the other side. In one case a candidate with the requisite skills was hired into a fresh team of a company. Even though she had the competencies that the job demanded of her, there were two major differences that both the sides ignored putting any attention to , or to clarify. She had come in from a process oriented company where everyone knew of the field. Here she was going to be in a fresh team that was starting off and had to put processes in place. In the previous job her profile had been to interface and build business with external customers while in this job she had to interface with internal customers, which eventually led to her frustration and quitting the job in 4 months.
· Could you outline some best practises that will help avoid hiring mistakes?
Both sides need to clarify the job down to the last detail. The candidate should meet and spend some time with prospective peer group and boss. The prospect should also find out how critical is the job, who did it earlier, scope for growth and learning, how will performance be evaluated etc. Remember, most hirees leave on account of interpersonal problems with the team working already , or because what was promised and what was delivered wasn’t clear. Both sides need to explore and clarify their assumptions before they jump in to the joining. Costs of not doing so could be not just monetary but far worse like ill-feeling and a bad taste in the mouth.
Feb 3, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blogging About
HR Issues
Social Media
Organization Development
consulting
career management
business blogging
recruiting
strategy
talent
learning
innovation
leadership
management
Organizations 2.0
HR2.0
Knowledge Management
Social Business
networking
training
talent work
skills
employment branding
Enterprise social software
Human resources
Social Networking
india
marketing
Enterprise 2.0
Employment
business books
news
Twitter
Business
future
Online Communities
Social network
communication
jobs
Facebook
personal branding
HR professionals network
Interview
Recruitment
Strategic management
LinkedIn
Employee engagement
Job Search
Talent management
personal
Community
Community Management
the imagence partners
Competencies
Social Enterprise
collaboration
Education and Training
Social web
entrepreneurship
salaries
youth
Employee Relations
Virtual community
socialmedia
coaching
lifestreaming
Human resource management
Knowledge base
Sexual harassment
Trial and error
satyam
I've always wondered about this, gautam.
ReplyDeleteIf we want money and we want it quick, we just go ahead and hire the first 'okay' person that we get to lay our eyes and hands on. We don't really seem to be taking enough time out to go through a series of discussions with the new recruit unless the person is probably to be posted at a very high level. Why don't we pay the same amount of importance to people at the 'lower' levels? Aren't they the ones who finally deliver/make it to the top? So, there seems to be a need for balancing the commercial aspirations of a company and its character.