Picking the "right" applicant is a lot like the NFL draft

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by mrcnkwcz

First off, get over yourself.

Secondly, there may be many, many hours of preparation that go into each pick, but that doesn't it doesn't still remain a crapshoot. Tom Brady in the 6th, decent bust rate in the 1st round, all the Jerry Rices coming from Mississippi Valley States of the world that you could never hope to correctly peg, etc etc. Too early to list Johnny Manziel in the first as anecdotal evidence of the flaws of the draft process? I don't think so...and you could of course argue that hindsight shouldn't be the gauge, anyway. If that's so, well, that pick was a good example of one that most preparation-free fans would've never made at the time, due to obvious question marks. This said, hindsight does tend to be the measure, and given that reality, no sport's drafting track record is especially impressive. At least the Oakland A's (and their now-many imitators) try to make it a bit more "scientific", but even in the most highly quantified-and-quantifiable sport (baseball), you still run into issues with projectability of college/HS stats, weighing stats vs. physical tools and opinions of scouts, etc.

In addition to what Anfield said, there have been more general psychological studies done which suggest that sometimes a surfeit of information hinders our decision-making ability, anyway. Paralysis by analysis.

Bottom line, dice rolls abound in life, and whether the place of employment is the NFL or the accounting firm, similar caveats apply to both.

The bottom line is A) I'm awesome and B) The hiring process is NOTHING like the NFL draft.

[BeerGeek40]

Originally Posted by alphamale

The bottom line is A) I'm awesome and B) The hiring process is NOTHING like the NFL draft.

The bottom line is A) you're not as great as you think and B) if you read the analysis on here, you would see that hiring people is a LOT like a draft because you really never know what you've got, until you've got it.

And let me echo mrcnkwcz: GET OVER YOUSELF. Please. And do it quickly.

[EdwardA]

Maybe I'm in the wrong industry but it's been my experience that HR doesn't have much say in the matter beyond the initial screen. A screen determined by the hiring manager.

I just went to the final round in the interviewing process at a major bank. It involved taking an IQ like test and case interviews. I thought the HR professionals were kind and professional. They called as opposed to emailing me that they weren't going to extend an offer. Even though i didn't get the offer I have nothing but positive things to say about them.

Conversely I had a recruiter contact me recently to setup an initial call, times rolls by no call (this has never happened to me), she called back to reschedule and then when I called back to confirm the time never responded back. I thus have a poor view of the company which has been confirmed by a classmate that used to work there.

It's the companies that are the problem not necessarily HR.

[sholomar]

Hiring ones that have good attendance at previous jobs is a good place to start. Hiring people that constantly call in sick, or find ways to use up all their sick and/or FMLA time lowers morale when other people have to cover their hours.

I pretty much have perfect attendance though I admit to not liking to work overtime if I can avoid it. People always pretty much know I will be there if I am scheduled. That's a good starting point. People like that will be more likely to be reliable performers.

Also: people who think they are awesome and are irreplaceable are annoying. In the end we are all monkeys and anyone can learn our job. Hiring people who have some modesty and don't have super large egos ... do that.