71–80 of 93 posts
Lesson: Be on the hiring side of the table. That is, be an entrepreneur. As someone with some high value, tough to get paid that value as an employee; that's a very old lesson. E.g., I've been programming for decades and am doing so now in my startup, but my programming background doesn't meet the criteria in the job ads. So, I have little or no experience with Python, Java, JavaScript, C++, Linux, Unix, Haskell, Sch…
Recently I was interviewed by a well-known dating company. After the onsite interview they rejected me by saying "Our team liked you very much but they have decided to go with the candidate that they worked with in the past". Is this right ?
Yes. They chose a known quantity over an unknown one. I'd be disappointed though.
Here's what I've learned from 20+ years of hiring people: 1. Make all the resumes that come in responding to technical jobs go straight to your inbox. If your company has a candidate tracking system then set up an alias that sends it to you and to the tracking system. 2. Review every resume yourself. Jump in and ask follow up questions for candidates that are interesting. 3. Interview them yourself. Every one you bri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't understand the author's problem with "look good on paper" This is paper that the applicant has full control over. The applicant can put whatever they want on their resume and cover letter. Yes, up to and including blatant lies. If your company establishes a reputation of screening resumes based on certain features like university you encourage less moral applicants to fluff up their resumes. While these peo…
> Yes, up to and including blatant lies I wasn't suggesting that people lie on their resume or cover letter. > That puts anyone from a defense contractor, HFT firm, R&D group, and similar at a significant disadvantage. I was a defense contractor and experienced this first hand. I found that good communication skills both verbal and written were able to overcome this. Since the hypothetical non-technical recruiter in…
>I wasn't suggesting that people lie on their resume or cover letter.
Suppose a job ad asks for 10+ years of node.js experience.
They get 5 resumes that claim 10 years of node.js experience. They get 5 resumes that claim 1 year of node.js experience.
They interview only the 5 people who claimed 10 years of node.js experience.
So the liars push the honest people out of the interview pool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My wife is an Industrial/Organizational psychologist. It's a thing I didn't even know existed until I met her. In her years of grad school education, she learned all about memory, learning, human interactions, workplace management, etc, everything relating to how human psychology affects work. Part of that was how to hire the right people. It turns out there ARE things that can strongly indicate employee competence a…
What are the things that can strongly indicate employee competence and success? I am sure it is a big topic, so a link to an article your wife would agree with would be as good as an answer. It's troubling to think that something is being done backwards, but it happens in so many areas that it seems nearly inevitable that it is also done in hiring.
Schmidt & Hunter, 1998: http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My wife is an Industrial/Organizational psychologist. It's a thing I didn't even know existed until I met her. In her years of grad school education, she learned all about memory, learning, human interactions, workplace management, etc, everything relating to how human psychology affects work. Part of that was how to hire the right people. It turns out there ARE things that can strongly indicate employee competence a…
What are the things that can strongly indicate employee competence and success? I am sure it is a big topic, so a link to an article your wife would agree with would be as good as an answer. It's troubling to think that something is being done backwards, but it happens in so many areas that it seems nearly inevitable that it is also done in hiring.
Honesty is a huge factor. She mentioned a blog post by a semi-well known HR professional Tim Sackett that ends on a very telling note: "Here’s my take on candidate lies – candidates continue to lie, because Talent/HR Pros don’t call them out on it. We (HR) also perpetuate this problem by hiring the folks who give you the crappy lie, but don’t hire the folks who come clean and tell you the truth." Here's a link [ http://www.timsackett.com/2013/07/24/top-candidate-lies/ ] but the lies were less important than the fact that interviewers ignore the honesty and look only at the "problem" that was revealed. She said if someone told her "yes there was crime X from ten years ago," it's more important to evaluate their honesty about it and the circumstances than simply crossing that person off the list, for example. Did they bounce a check, or get a single DUI in college? Is that really relevant when they're 35? Isn't that level of honesty a good sign?
Another aspect of honesty was revealed by that study that came out last year: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/narcissists-do-better-on-job... "Narcissists or shameless self-promoters do better in job interviews than more modest personalities, a study by University of British Columbia researchers finds"
She read the study and felt it was very insightful and academically solid. Again, interviewers examine the delivery but not the substance. Which is better, someone who says, "Yes, I'm very proficient" to every skill question, or someone who honestly says, "I'm very god with XYZ but I do feel there's room for improvement"? It turns out the latter winds up being a more conscientious and useful employee, but they don't perform as well in interviews.
Testing is huge, as well. There are a lot of companies that use it, but some, like ProMetric tests given to low level retail employees are still flawed, and don't use sound methodologies in eliminating biases in answers.
In my own businesses, she's helped me create better hiring methods, and I went from never hearing about "I/O Psychology" to wondering why more people don't know about that seemingly very valuable type of professional.
Note: I'm not trying to blow my own horn or even my wife's, but simply point out that there's a lot of science in HR that a lot of companies don't utilize. HR is more than managing people like machines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My wife is an Industrial/Organizational psychologist. It's a thing I didn't even know existed until I met her. In her years of grad school education, she learned all about memory, learning, human interactions, workplace management, etc, everything relating to how human psychology affects work. Part of that was how to hire the right people. It turns out there ARE things that can strongly indicate employee competence a…
Does she have any suggested literature? I'd hire her AND listen if I had budget.
I'll try to remember to add to this after a few days when she's found more for me to share.
I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…
There's another domain that struggles with this. Professional sports. I'm more familiar with the NFL, but this applies to the NBA as well. There are countless "can't miss" 1st overall draft picks that are busts; there are undrafted players that make it into the hall of fame.
hire people with at least some demonstrated aptitude and invest in them instead
Certainly pro sports tries to do this, but some players are just more coach-able than others.
Also, especially at the pro level, there's a certain very intangible "thing" that separates the merely good from the great. How do you coach for that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That all rings of truth. HR overstate their abilities and interfere far too much. Over the years I've been told "if you hire, it's your risk", which turns into "I'm glad we picked Sam". Also, if you're a woman, don't make a big deal about it. Saying "I'm a woman ..." Anything will almost certainly get you shown the door - this is a red light for "attitude". There are many indicators I see, people who talk about being…
"Attitude" is acknowledging that you are a woman? Wow. I sincerely hope I never work at your company.
I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…
My wife is an Industrial/Organizational psychologist. It's a thing I didn't even know existed until I met her. In her years of grad school education, she learned all about memory, learning, human interactions, workplace management, etc, everything relating to how human psychology affects work. Part of that was how to hire the right people. It turns out there ARE things that can strongly indicate employee competence a…
I agree in theory, but the real world doesn't work like this. There is a very high probability that the candidate that you want to hire is a very busy person and can devote half a day or a day to figuring out if they want to come work for you. Similarly if you have 5 people on your shortlist, you can only devote a finite amount of time to figuring out which one of them is the best fit.