Football16 I like your style. Most interviews I've been to were ridiculous. Considering it is such an important process, I wonder why they are conducted so badly.
Football16 I like your style. Most interviews I've been to were ridiculous. Considering it is such an important process, I wonder why they are conducted so badly.
I went for a job a couple of months ago that intrigued me.
Part of the interview was conducted by the GM whom had her lapdog on the desk growling at me!!!
I knew it virago. You didn't howl. Ridiculous - You're unemployable. The peeing was OK, but not enough to redeem you and your clear failings at life.
If the dog humped your leg - you were the winner.
HR training and "a little learning is a dangerous thing" leads to this.Most interviews I've been to were ridiculous. Considering it is such an important process, I wonder why they are conducted so badly.
I have hired alone, in teams with HR, panels which was required for our exec jobs and direct reports at the P&C insurer where I was a VP and a committees of 14 -15 for Presidents and VPs. No one method gets better results. As the numbers rise from 2 to 3 or more or large committees - each takes on a different dynamic.
If the entire process is not set up right before the resumes are requested and then the relevant tools (testing) and interview questions and subsequent pre-employment check processes in place (relevant ONLY stuff) then you might be lucky and get a good one.
But so many firms fail to start first with the basics because at the end of the day it is about contribution. Will the successful candidate stay longer, contribute more and deliver on the promise of our brand.
Forget the job description for the moment. What do we need this role to accomplish? What time frames?
What skills and experiences will the incumbent need?
It's not about the tricks and questions its about identifying candidates that have a desire to make a contribution and who possess a proven track record in prior roles to back it up and who brings skills and experiences that fit your needs.
To me it is like the rule in a court room. If you don't know what you are looking for - don't ask the question.
Structured and unstructured interviews with the right tools and questions can work.
The worst predictor of managerial success? The job interview?
The number one tool to select managers? The job interview.
The most proven method of selection are assessment centers with tools like normative testing, in basket exercises (normed and benchmarked) and career interviews and other pysch. profiles.
One guy on Linkedin posted his one best question which I thought was bizzarre as he wanted to learn more about the person. When I suggested it had other impacts on the process he messaged me saying something like 92% of the firms use questions like that. I messaged him back a few studies that showed that these MNCs would be lucky to get to 50%.
I am about to re-start our blog where I should be posting this sh't but I am trying to drive traffic (the right people to my linkedin and twitter that I just started at CNY).
Last edited by Football16; 22-03-2013 at 12:50 PM.
If interviewers ask stupid questions should the candidate just walk out?