Picking the "right" applicant is a lot like the NFL draft (employment, interviews)
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.
NFL coaches and GM's don't just show up on draft day and try to get lucky.
There are many, many hours of preparation that goes into each pick.
You're welcome for the education!
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 best setup Ive seen in the Corporate world so far is 1. Let the hiring manager filter through the resumes, not the computer keyword search. 2. Let the hiring manager make the hiring decisions. 3. Dont use recruiters, that saves on your hiring costs. 4. Use a probationary period, Ive seen a lot of crap hires get the boot this way that in other companies it would have been difficult to get rid of due to red tape.
A Candidate might pass the "eye" test, his resume "highlights" look great, he has good references.
But, you can't measure the person's heart or aptitude for learning from those tools. You also don't know that once that great "pick" starts that he is taking the money and slacking off.
Meanwhile, a candidate who might have less credentials but an incredible work ethic and an ability to learn quickly gets passed over due to not passing the eye test.
The best setup Ive seen in the Corporate world so far is 1. Let the hiring manager filter through the resumes, not the computer keyword search. 2. Let the hiring manager make the hiring decisions. 3. Dont use recruiters, that saves on your hiring costs. 4. Use a probationary period, Ive seen a lot of crap hires get the boot this way that in other companies it would have been difficult to get rid of due to red tape.
If the hiring manager had to spend his day going through 1000 unqualified resumes, he would not have time to do his core job. That is the reason recruiters are brought in, to save the hiring managers time.
The entire thing is a roll of the dice on both sides. Each side, employer and employee, ultimately have no surefire way of knowing if its going to work out. An employee can present themselves well, pass all the hurdles, and wind up being a disaster. Conversely, there are lots of companies who present themselves well, and wind up being a snakepit of lies, gossip and backstabbing, and in some case starts from management. Been there, seen that...
And that is the problem. Companies cannot accept that there is no reliable way to ensure a good hire so like a person with an incurable illness they turn to all sorts of questionable quackery and inflict it on the candidates. Noone likes having others inflict their quackery and crazy beliefs on them especially real scientists who see right through it.
Last edited by MSchemist80; 06-03-2015 at 07:41 AM..
H/R departments try to make the entire job selection process into some sort of science. They make it much more complicated than it needs to be. You see, it's a big 'game' to most of them, and they enjoy the power they have over people's lives.
I liken job selection to the NFL draft.
It's a roll of the dice.
Out of every 100 people that are hired, 70 of them will probably do an acceptable job. 15 of them will be excellent workers, and the remainder will turn out to be a bad decision.
H/R departments: Get over yourselves. You aren't doing God's work, and most of the people you hire will turn out fine, no matter how many hoops you make them jump through, or how many interviews you put them through.
I'm in HR.
You sound like someone who has run into a lot of the old-fashioned HR departments, and I'm sorry you've experienced such bad management.
I have seen absurd interview tactics. If you see a bad HR department, let that guide you. Bad HR = bad company.
I disagree with your figures, howver, and think your attitude will likely seep into your interviews, and reinforce your world view, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy of rejection by ANY thinking interviewer.
I don't enjoy having "power" over people, and indeed, I have none. My job is to get the best candidate for the position. Not the cheapest, not the youngest, not the most experienced, not the most attractive, not the smartest. I don't care about anything other than the person being an asset to the company and a good fit for the company and the existing department. And if you think "most" applicants would be a good fit, you don't have much work experience. A bad hire - someone who doesn't fit - can ruin a department, injure morale, hurt the company in the long run as well as the short, and just generally hurt the existing employees.
And BTW, "doesn't fit" has nothing to do with race, creed, gender orientation, etc. It's someone whose skills or mindset clashes with the needs and ideals of the department and company. My first job is to protect the existing employees. They are our greatest assets.
I have mixed emotions on this. In the last few years I have had positions responsible for hiring literally hundreds of people. I think most HR departments try to do the best they can and are mean well. The problem is the process requires an entry level "talent acquisition specialist" that is often fresh out of college and has zero real world experience to match a resume to a job posting based on key words and limited criteria given by their department.
Hiring managers need to communicate to the HR department what they are looking for and then let HR know they want to review more rather than less of the potential candidates. As an experience professional in my field, I know more about what I need and what personality will fit my organization than anyone in the HR office will. Let me see and meet them.
Problems finding good candidates is due to 50% inexperienced HR staff and 50% lazy hiring managers in my opinion.
IF you truly do, then you have no idea what an NFL draft is like.
You missed my point.
The NFL draft is a gamble.
So is the hiring process.
Sometimes you would be better off throwing darts.
There are MANY unknowns and situations can change. In other words, in the NFL a guy could be a great draft pick and plays well for a year. Then he gets hurt a year later, career goes down the tubes. In business, someone could be a great hire, they are making money for the company. Then their wife gets caught cheating with the milk man and files for divorce. The guy stops being productive at work and eventually quits to move across the country and start a new life. Your company ultimately made a bad hire and has to find someone else.
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.
And BTW, "doesn't fit" has nothing to do with race, creed, gender orientation, etc. It's someone whose skills or mindset clashes with the needs and ideals of the department and company. My first job is to protect the existing employees. They are our greatest assets.
I agree 100%.
I manage a small, tight knit group of people that all work in one room together. I have passed over people that may have the skills for the job, but that I can tell will not be a good fit with the group. I don't need any extra stress or drama, and they don't either. I can't afford to bring someone in who will sabotage what we have built.
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.
