Four interviews for one job?
April 1, 2011 6:35 PM Subscribe
I recently started interviewing for jobs for the first time in 7 years. Every single job (coordinator positions) seems to require multiple interviews and/or tests. The process can go on for two weeks. A friend who is trying to get a job as a waiter in a catering company told me he has gone through the same multiple interview thing! Is this common now, due to the recession, or what? I didn't get the first two jobs. I must come across as exhausted as I feel.
I had thought this was more a thing in the tech field where the moronic insistence on putting people on the spot and "brain teasers" has spread from big famous companies to idiots who like to slavish imitate things big famous companies do- but maybe it's spreading everywhere.
posted by drjimmy11 at 6:41 PM on April 1, 2011
posted by drjimmy11 at 6:41 PM on April 1, 2011
Every job from waiter to manager to registered professional engineer has dozen of applications for a single position. Just getting an interview is a coup.
posted by sanka at 6:45 PM on April 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by sanka at 6:45 PM on April 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
I've experienced similarly long processes. On my first interview a couple months ago, the guy told me, "I'll level with you, there are people who are a lot more experienced interviewing for this same position, and you really have no chance. But you're great, so would you be interested in this other position?" The other position is one that is generally for people with associate's degrees at most, where I have a master's.
All I could think about was the faction of people with AA degrees or less trying to interview for this slightly-above-minimum-wage-paying job he was offering to me--those people are having to compete with candidates who have master's degrees and are vastly skilled in comparison, but are willing to take far lower pay because they can't find anything else at their own experience level, and because minimum wage is better than no job at all. I didn't wonder too much after that why it was so hard for me to find a job that was at my experience level, because I realized it's just the same situation at a different spot on a pretty fucked up continuum.
posted by so_gracefully at 6:53 PM on April 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
All I could think about was the faction of people with AA degrees or less trying to interview for this slightly-above-minimum-wage-paying job he was offering to me--those people are having to compete with candidates who have master's degrees and are vastly skilled in comparison, but are willing to take far lower pay because they can't find anything else at their own experience level, and because minimum wage is better than no job at all. I didn't wonder too much after that why it was so hard for me to find a job that was at my experience level, because I realized it's just the same situation at a different spot on a pretty fucked up continuum.
posted by so_gracefully at 6:53 PM on April 1, 2011 [5 favorites]
I stopped using complicated tests and brain teasers long ago. I never seen the candidates facility with a brain teaser demonstrate anything predictive about their efficacy at the position. Instead ask simple everyday questions for an interview ask about doing common things they are supposedly proficient in. An expert will just fly through basic stuff, while intermediate guys will go slower and beginners will struggle. The cadence tells you all you need to know.
posted by humanfont at 7:00 PM on April 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 7:00 PM on April 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
My last job search featured this kind of thing, too. Now that I'm that new job and on the opposite side of the process, I think it may predate the recession. At my job, it's actually arisen from the recognition that the vast majority of HR issues could have been prevented at the point of hiring. We put people through the gamut, through at least two long days of interviewing as well as phone interviews, for midlevel positions, let alone senior ones. But the idea is to really probe at people to see whether any red flags emerge at any point, and to give them a chance to meet a whole lot of the people they'd be working with, to be sure of a fit. This is really focused on saving a lot of excessive coaching and problem employee situations down the road, as opposed to screening more applicants due to the recession. IT's such a resource intensive process that it really doesn't save us time, and it's not done to weed people out, it's done to really seriously examine the people in the final applicant pool and get yourself the best fit of the bunch.
posted by Miko at 7:05 PM on April 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Miko at 7:05 PM on April 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
Best answer: OK, Miko, I'm sorry but that's just bullshit. That's just an excuse for you to have a job that exists solely to cover your own ass if you encounter a black swan.
I'm in the middle of the hiring process with a major European bank at the moment. I've had two phone interviews, two face to face interviews (one with the hiring manger and one with the hiring manger plus his entire team) and three case studies. The position is in market risk assessment.
The petroleum industry PAYS me to come to their conferences and teach market risk, as is clear on my C.V.
This company has yet, however, to even ask me for a reference or see an example of prior work. I have the head of BP's unsecured trading asking me for help - and this guy oversees multiple high nine figure unsecured trades per day. They know this. Still the games. I came within inches this morning of telling the recruiter that if the hiring process is this fundamentally dysfunctional that the job must be as well.
And yet HR here and everywhere still doesn't grok the fundamental principal of risk in all situations: past performance (contrary to disclaimers in prospectuses) IS in fact the single most informative data point when predicting future performance.
What HR (and hiring mangers that want to be all hip with the six sigma) do nowadays is a kind of stress test, a sort of meta-process whereby the answers to the actual questions and one's past performance is irrelevant: all that matters is how this particular candidate jumps through whatever hoops are fashionable at the moment.
So, OP, to answer your question: this is how it works now. Either jump through the hoops and hope the Russian judge doesn't give you a "7" or find a different company, and good luck with the latter.
posted by digitalprimate at 7:21 PM on April 1, 2011 [12 favorites]
I'm in the middle of the hiring process with a major European bank at the moment. I've had two phone interviews, two face to face interviews (one with the hiring manger and one with the hiring manger plus his entire team) and three case studies. The position is in market risk assessment.
The petroleum industry PAYS me to come to their conferences and teach market risk, as is clear on my C.V.
This company has yet, however, to even ask me for a reference or see an example of prior work. I have the head of BP's unsecured trading asking me for help - and this guy oversees multiple high nine figure unsecured trades per day. They know this. Still the games. I came within inches this morning of telling the recruiter that if the hiring process is this fundamentally dysfunctional that the job must be as well.
And yet HR here and everywhere still doesn't grok the fundamental principal of risk in all situations: past performance (contrary to disclaimers in prospectuses) IS in fact the single most informative data point when predicting future performance.
What HR (and hiring mangers that want to be all hip with the six sigma) do nowadays is a kind of stress test, a sort of meta-process whereby the answers to the actual questions and one's past performance is irrelevant: all that matters is how this particular candidate jumps through whatever hoops are fashionable at the moment.
So, OP, to answer your question: this is how it works now. Either jump through the hoops and hope the Russian judge doesn't give you a "7" or find a different company, and good luck with the latter.
posted by digitalprimate at 7:21 PM on April 1, 2011 [12 favorites]
Best answer: This has been common for several years now. No one has confidence in their ability to read people, and no one wants to be the person who hired someone who doesn't work out, so they make you go through multiple interviews and tests so that if you are hired and don't work out, it can't be blamed on any one one particular person.
posted by MexicanYenta at 7:26 PM on April 1, 2011 [8 favorites]
posted by MexicanYenta at 7:26 PM on April 1, 2011 [8 favorites]
Last month I had to go through three different interviews with three different managers to get a job watering plants at Lowes garden center. In addition to the little retail psych test. They told me it only required two interviews up until a few months ago but was changed due to "HR issues."
So, er -- not just white collar jobs.
posted by frobozz at 7:30 PM on April 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
So, er -- not just white collar jobs.
posted by frobozz at 7:30 PM on April 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
I just got back to work a couple of weeks ago after 90 days of unemployment. The interview process is brutal. In one case, after 3 trips to the company office to interview with a total of 6 different people, plus online personality / IQ testing, they got down to 2 people and the partners were split on who to hire. So neither of us got the job.
In another case I had a sales VP badger me about what my college GPA was. I graduated in 1989! When I told him he wanted to know why it wasn't higher. Did I mention I graduated from college 22 fracking years ago?
So yeah, the process of getting a job may actually be worse than being unemployed right now.
posted by COD at 7:39 PM on April 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
In another case I had a sales VP badger me about what my college GPA was. I graduated in 1989! When I told him he wanted to know why it wasn't higher. Did I mention I graduated from college 22 fracking years ago?
So yeah, the process of getting a job may actually be worse than being unemployed right now.
posted by COD at 7:39 PM on April 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
The only reason the interview process looks the way it does right now is because employers aren't hiring fast enough to make any place trying this stuff lose out on candidates.
There's actually a pretty easy fix for this if you have the funds to weather the process and/or the balls - call them on their ridiculousness. You've got other stuff to do, and other employers to talk to, and their crappy job at their crappy company isn't worth the hassle.
posted by NoRelationToLea at 8:46 PM on April 1, 2011
There's actually a pretty easy fix for this if you have the funds to weather the process and/or the balls - call them on their ridiculousness. You've got other stuff to do, and other employers to talk to, and their crappy job at their crappy company isn't worth the hassle.
posted by NoRelationToLea at 8:46 PM on April 1, 2011
I interviewed four times over the course of two months for my current job. For the fourth interview I had to sit for half a day, unpaid, observing and basically training with the person who was doing what I would be doing. This was for a receptionist position, for which I am more than qualified. They didn't call to offer me the job for two weeks after that.
I was in the process of interviewing for another job over the same time period. I interviewed with the department manager who would be my direct supervisor and thought the interview went extremely well. He then told me the next step, assuming they were interested, would be to interview with his boss the following week, and possibly with the president of the company the week after that. This was for a job in the mailroom.
Job hunting seriously sucks right now.
posted by Serene Empress Dork at 9:07 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
I was in the process of interviewing for another job over the same time period. I interviewed with the department manager who would be my direct supervisor and thought the interview went extremely well. He then told me the next step, assuming they were interested, would be to interview with his boss the following week, and possibly with the president of the company the week after that. This was for a job in the mailroom.
Job hunting seriously sucks right now.
posted by Serene Empress Dork at 9:07 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
My last job search featured this kind of thing, too. Now that I'm that new job and on the opposite side of the process, I think it may predate the recession.
No, it does not. Whether the process is useful is another question. But no, it's very new.
But the idea is to really probe at people to see whether any red flags emerge at any point, and to give them a chance to meet a whole lot of the people they'd be working with, to be sure of a fit.
"Give them a chance to meet"? Who are you kidding? It's not a cocktail party. It's a game of musical chairs, with an increasingly rare livelihood at stake. Probe away and find your sure fit. But don't pretend that the winnowing process is just the same as ever. It's not.
And congratulations for getting through it!
posted by dogrose at 9:13 PM on April 1, 2011
No, it does not. Whether the process is useful is another question. But no, it's very new.
But the idea is to really probe at people to see whether any red flags emerge at any point, and to give them a chance to meet a whole lot of the people they'd be working with, to be sure of a fit.
"Give them a chance to meet"? Who are you kidding? It's not a cocktail party. It's a game of musical chairs, with an increasingly rare livelihood at stake. Probe away and find your sure fit. But don't pretend that the winnowing process is just the same as ever. It's not.
And congratulations for getting through it!
posted by dogrose at 9:13 PM on April 1, 2011
It is really appalling, from what I've heard from all my friends, but yeah, I believe it really does predate the recession (well, depending when you think the recession started). I think the recession has brought it to the ridiculous levels that frobozz mentioned, though, where it's ridiculous for any job at any level. And the drug testing! A friend took a seasonal job at Target restocking overnight and had to pass a drug test. For restocking!
When I finished grad school back in 2000, I applied for a few positions. The standard then seemed to be two interviews per position. But only two, and they were usually on the same day, just with the hiring person first and then HR to have them answer questions about benefits. I remember being annoyed with (my current employer!) one because they wanted me to come in for a third interview because the first manager was disorganized.
On the other hand, in 98 I remember having five interviews (four on one day, one on another) at a tech firm. Blame them, they started it. It really felt like Mexican Yenta said, that no one wanted to take responsibility for the hire. [I didn't get that job, what a relief in retrospect!]
I know I'm old, but when I used to do the hiring for my record store I sat with someone for about a half an hour. Made my decision. Offered them the job within the week. Then they were ringing up product the next day. I don't get it, frankly.
posted by clone boulevard at 9:44 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
When I finished grad school back in 2000, I applied for a few positions. The standard then seemed to be two interviews per position. But only two, and they were usually on the same day, just with the hiring person first and then HR to have them answer questions about benefits. I remember being annoyed with (my current employer!) one because they wanted me to come in for a third interview because the first manager was disorganized.
On the other hand, in 98 I remember having five interviews (four on one day, one on another) at a tech firm. Blame them, they started it. It really felt like Mexican Yenta said, that no one wanted to take responsibility for the hire. [I didn't get that job, what a relief in retrospect!]
I know I'm old, but when I used to do the hiring for my record store I sat with someone for about a half an hour. Made my decision. Offered them the job within the week. Then they were ringing up product the next day. I don't get it, frankly.
posted by clone boulevard at 9:44 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
In many fields it predates the recession. In my corner of engineering I had full-day interviews at both companies that I interviewed with out of college. In other fields - retail, as mentioned - probably not so much. I'm sure people are getting more risk-averse.
posted by Lady Li at 10:43 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Lady Li at 10:43 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Sounds like this is a common thing. Like I said my friend wanted a waiter job and had a bunch of interviews and got bupkus. Finally a buddy of his at another company got him on with 1 interview. So I think it's manipulation, not good hiring practice.
On this last interview, the guy told me that "even attorneys" are applying for this job. I "only" have a master's, LOL. He then asked me to draft a marketing letter when he knew I had no formal marketing training or experience! I think the letter sucked. Big surprise.
Like you say, sanka, an interview is looked on as a coup! I think MexicanYenta probably has it right: no one wants to take the blame.
As for future employee problems, whatever happened to the good old 90-day probationary period?
posted by PJSibling at 10:45 PM on April 1, 2011
On this last interview, the guy told me that "even attorneys" are applying for this job. I "only" have a master's, LOL. He then asked me to draft a marketing letter when he knew I had no formal marketing training or experience! I think the letter sucked. Big surprise.
Like you say, sanka, an interview is looked on as a coup! I think MexicanYenta probably has it right: no one wants to take the blame.
As for future employee problems, whatever happened to the good old 90-day probationary period?
posted by PJSibling at 10:45 PM on April 1, 2011
Response by poster: COD, I took a personality test too. PI inventory or something. Wonder how I did...maybe I don't want to know!
posted by PJSibling at 10:47 PM on April 1, 2011
posted by PJSibling at 10:47 PM on April 1, 2011
I've been going on interviews just like this since early 2000.
Also, everything MexicanYenta said upthread is exactly why the company I work for makes all applicants (from receptionist to senior exec) go through an interview loop of 4-5 interviews in a day. The heavy technical positions have more intensive interview schedules that might last a couple of days, but my interview (for an admin position) was with 5 different people, spread over two days.
posted by palomar at 10:57 PM on April 1, 2011
Also, everything MexicanYenta said upthread is exactly why the company I work for makes all applicants (from receptionist to senior exec) go through an interview loop of 4-5 interviews in a day. The heavy technical positions have more intensive interview schedules that might last a couple of days, but my interview (for an admin position) was with 5 different people, spread over two days.
posted by palomar at 10:57 PM on April 1, 2011
I had a long job search back in 2007. The guy at the unemployment office explained that the hiring process is taking forever these days, because people are in fact more risk-averse.
ISTM the interview circus is intended to catch you out and expose you as a con artist. I find it extremely difficult to pass technical interviews even when I know the technology like the back of my hand. When I get an interview I stop looking for new things to apply for and spend 100% of my time preparing for the interview. It usually isn't enough.
Eventually I connect with the hiring team that, for whatever reason, isn't treating me like a suspect in a major crime, and they're thrilled (why wouldn't they be, I prepared as though my life depended on it) and I have a reprieve from jobhunting hell until the next time.
The only solution is to start looking for jobs six months before you think you'll need one.
posted by tel3path at 4:41 AM on April 2, 2011
ISTM the interview circus is intended to catch you out and expose you as a con artist. I find it extremely difficult to pass technical interviews even when I know the technology like the back of my hand. When I get an interview I stop looking for new things to apply for and spend 100% of my time preparing for the interview. It usually isn't enough.
Eventually I connect with the hiring team that, for whatever reason, isn't treating me like a suspect in a major crime, and they're thrilled (why wouldn't they be, I prepared as though my life depended on it) and I have a reprieve from jobhunting hell until the next time.
The only solution is to start looking for jobs six months before you think you'll need one.
posted by tel3path at 4:41 AM on April 2, 2011
I popped in to say I think this crap has been on a fairly steady growth pattern for a long time now.
(If you want to apply a little game theory, you have to wonder why these companies have the time to do all this mucking around. They must not need that job position filled very badly.)
It is silly. Whatever happened to a probationary period? Whatever happened to having a goddamned schedule? The HR person schedules interviews for Thursday morning, and has the management types available to meet decent candidates the same day?
posted by gjc at 5:50 AM on April 2, 2011
(If you want to apply a little game theory, you have to wonder why these companies have the time to do all this mucking around. They must not need that job position filled very badly.)
It is silly. Whatever happened to a probationary period? Whatever happened to having a goddamned schedule? The HR person schedules interviews for Thursday morning, and has the management types available to meet decent candidates the same day?
posted by gjc at 5:50 AM on April 2, 2011
Response by poster: Yes, tel3path, I felt like I was being investigated and entrapped and became quite nervous and flubbed it. I wouldn't want to work for a place with that culture anyway, if that permeates the company. Guilty until proven innocent.
And yeah, does all this mean they get a perfect candidate? No. But I guess they don't have the guts to try them out on probation either.
posted by PJSibling at 7:48 AM on April 2, 2011
And yeah, does all this mean they get a perfect candidate? No. But I guess they don't have the guts to try them out on probation either.
posted by PJSibling at 7:48 AM on April 2, 2011
OK, Miko, I'm sorry but that's just bullshit. That's just an excuse for you to have a job that exists solely to cover your own ass if you encounter a black swan.
I can tell you, personally, that it's not bullshit, and in the world of educational and cultural organizations someone's performance over a full day of interviewing with a wide variety of people with differing job descriptions and work styles tells you a whole lot of what you need to know that you will be unable to find on a resume. People applying for work in my field come from heterogenous backgrounds and much of what they do is unquantifiable. Using past performance is part of the process, as we get their CV and portfolio and talk to their past employers, but you can look fantastic on paper and not work out in the human-interaction trenches of what we do. It may vary based on field.
I find these processes useful - far more useful than an hour or so with a person, leaving just a surface impression.
Also, I don't understand that next sentence at all anyway.
I'm kind of surprised at the dismissive responses to this idea, and I can only conclude it boils down to fields. I think it really depends on your field. This kind of interview has been common in higher education and cultural organizations for a long time, most definitely pre-recession. Even in 2004, during my previous job search, I had a lengthy phone interview with two staffers, followed by a full-day experience at which I met staff senior and junior to the position I was hiring for, was taken to lunch, and got a walking tour of the facility. That position was not even as senior as the one I have now. But that's pre-recession, and it was a standard type interview for a director slot in a cultural organization. Another example: Back in the mid-90s, when I was teaching, I interviewed for a private-school job which involved, on Interview Day 1, a tour, conversation with the principal, observation in 2 different level classrooms, lunch with selected faculty, and a meeting with the reading specialist. On Interview Day 2, I taught two demonstrations lessons, had lunch with the principal and some board committee members, and then had sort of a panel interview with a group of parents. That was 1997. So whatever it is - it's not new, at least not in the world of education.
I see opinions differ about why it's been more widely adopted, but I wouldn't rush to dismiss it as bullshit. I'm not sure it's really useful in the world of business, but maybe it is, and that's the hiring manager's to decide anyway. If it's inefficient for those fields maybe it'll go away. But in other fields, we have to recognize that much of performance is going to depend upon the very kinds of soft skills visible in the interview process. Statistics are relatively useless to us - work histories and influencing factors vary too much. It's all about personality fit, work style, composure, adaptability, responsiveness, smoothness, organization, flexibility, and presentation are important, and that's what the process brings out.
There's also career trajectory to look at. When I was getting frontline jobs in public programs and retail, no, I did not have these kinds of interviews. At each transition to higher responsibility, the interview commitment got more serious. When people are flying you in for a look-see they're going to want to spend some time with you and make sure you see enough of the operation to make a solid decision about whether you want to work there.I'm willing to believe this could be bullshit in your field(s), but it's not in mine. At this point I'd hesitate to take a job that didn't take it that seriously.
But if it is, in fact, becoming a more popular method across disciplines, there's probably not much to do but develop the skills to get through it, like you do for any interview process.
posted by Miko at 1:17 PM on April 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
I can tell you, personally, that it's not bullshit, and in the world of educational and cultural organizations someone's performance over a full day of interviewing with a wide variety of people with differing job descriptions and work styles tells you a whole lot of what you need to know that you will be unable to find on a resume. People applying for work in my field come from heterogenous backgrounds and much of what they do is unquantifiable. Using past performance is part of the process, as we get their CV and portfolio and talk to their past employers, but you can look fantastic on paper and not work out in the human-interaction trenches of what we do. It may vary based on field.
I find these processes useful - far more useful than an hour or so with a person, leaving just a surface impression.
Also, I don't understand that next sentence at all anyway.
I'm kind of surprised at the dismissive responses to this idea, and I can only conclude it boils down to fields. I think it really depends on your field. This kind of interview has been common in higher education and cultural organizations for a long time, most definitely pre-recession. Even in 2004, during my previous job search, I had a lengthy phone interview with two staffers, followed by a full-day experience at which I met staff senior and junior to the position I was hiring for, was taken to lunch, and got a walking tour of the facility. That position was not even as senior as the one I have now. But that's pre-recession, and it was a standard type interview for a director slot in a cultural organization. Another example: Back in the mid-90s, when I was teaching, I interviewed for a private-school job which involved, on Interview Day 1, a tour, conversation with the principal, observation in 2 different level classrooms, lunch with selected faculty, and a meeting with the reading specialist. On Interview Day 2, I taught two demonstrations lessons, had lunch with the principal and some board committee members, and then had sort of a panel interview with a group of parents. That was 1997. So whatever it is - it's not new, at least not in the world of education.
I see opinions differ about why it's been more widely adopted, but I wouldn't rush to dismiss it as bullshit. I'm not sure it's really useful in the world of business, but maybe it is, and that's the hiring manager's to decide anyway. If it's inefficient for those fields maybe it'll go away. But in other fields, we have to recognize that much of performance is going to depend upon the very kinds of soft skills visible in the interview process. Statistics are relatively useless to us - work histories and influencing factors vary too much. It's all about personality fit, work style, composure, adaptability, responsiveness, smoothness, organization, flexibility, and presentation are important, and that's what the process brings out.
There's also career trajectory to look at. When I was getting frontline jobs in public programs and retail, no, I did not have these kinds of interviews. At each transition to higher responsibility, the interview commitment got more serious. When people are flying you in for a look-see they're going to want to spend some time with you and make sure you see enough of the operation to make a solid decision about whether you want to work there.I'm willing to believe this could be bullshit in your field(s), but it's not in mine. At this point I'd hesitate to take a job that didn't take it that seriously.
But if it is, in fact, becoming a more popular method across disciplines, there's probably not much to do but develop the skills to get through it, like you do for any interview process.
posted by Miko at 1:17 PM on April 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
In 2009 I went through an 8 week interview process. After the second interview, I was told to await an offer letter that would go out in a day or two. After a week, I was asked to come in for another interview. Did that, told again, you're great, look for the offer letter. Another 10 days goes by, no letter. I call to inquire, get told there's one more interview. Do that. Invited back for salary discussion, where I am told they have NO idea what they think the salary should pay. Not one idea, not even a range. I suggest a range, based on fairly thorough research. I am told the next day no, no job. No reason, other than in the last interview, it appeared that I hadn't shaved (which of course I had).
posted by buzzv at 1:48 PM on April 2, 2011
posted by buzzv at 1:48 PM on April 2, 2011
It's like this for temp jobs too. Back in the day, I'd do the interview and the tests at the agency itself. The only interviewing I had to do with a client company was for a temp-to-hire position. When the agency called me to tell me about an assignment, it was because they were going to send me on that assignment if I was interested and available. Not anymore. The last time I was actively temping, when agencies called about a position and I was interested and available, they would send my resume to the company (along with other potential candidates), and if the company was interested, they would let the agency know and the agency would then send me to the client company for an interview. This was for straight temp positions - not even temp to hire!
posted by SisterHavana at 9:21 PM on April 2, 2011
posted by SisterHavana at 9:21 PM on April 2, 2011
Response by poster: Sister, I can't even get an appointment with a temp agency. I send in my resume on line and then wait for them to call me!
posted by PJSibling at 10:34 PM on April 2, 2011
posted by PJSibling at 10:34 PM on April 2, 2011
Miko said, " It's all about personality fit, work style, composure, adaptability, responsiveness, smoothness, organization, flexibility, and presentation are important, and that's what the process brings out."
Perhaps you could explain why subjecting candidates to atypical and more often (as demonstrated above) excessive stress will tell you one god damn thing about how these candidates perform in a normal working environment. Of course, that may in fact be your company's normal working environment.
You actually believe your going to find out anything about that laundry list above in any interview process, let alone one in which you repeatedly induce fatigue and anxiety in your candidates? If you really wanted to know how they perform in a working environment, past performance is your single best indicator: the entire credit and risk management industries are built on it.
Sorry, OP, that doesn't help your question and feel free to have the mods delete it. I was trying to illustrate to you that, from an HR point of view, the highly stressful nature of the interview process itself is nowadays a feature, not a bug. A wrongheaded feature, but one nonetheless.
posted by digitalprimate at 7:22 PM on April 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
Perhaps you could explain why subjecting candidates to atypical and more often (as demonstrated above) excessive stress will tell you one god damn thing about how these candidates perform in a normal working environment. Of course, that may in fact be your company's normal working environment.
You actually believe your going to find out anything about that laundry list above in any interview process, let alone one in which you repeatedly induce fatigue and anxiety in your candidates? If you really wanted to know how they perform in a working environment, past performance is your single best indicator: the entire credit and risk management industries are built on it.
Sorry, OP, that doesn't help your question and feel free to have the mods delete it. I was trying to illustrate to you that, from an HR point of view, the highly stressful nature of the interview process itself is nowadays a feature, not a bug. A wrongheaded feature, but one nonetheless.
posted by digitalprimate at 7:22 PM on April 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
It took me a minute, digitalprimate, to get what you were doing there! I did start writing a response, so to reinforce your point, here it is:
You actually believe your going to find out anything about that laundry list above in any interview process, let alone one in which you repeatedly induce fatigue and anxiety in your candidates?
Yes; you learn whether people can retain their poise, focus, and lucidity when fatigued and anxious. That's something we need in people whom we're asking to face the public, high-end donors, corporate partners, and collaborators in the role of a representative for the institution.
If you really wanted to know how they perform in a working environment, past performance is your single best indicator: the entire credit and risk management industries are built on it.
Heh. At least in the world of education and cultural institutions, we are concerned with face-to-face endeavors, and people come to these fields with institutional experience from a variety of scales and structures, with their performance often highly shaped by widely varying external constraints like mission and budget, meaning that comparing portfolios is not enough to determine their potential for success in our particular environment.
posted by Miko at 6:28 AM on April 4, 2011 [1 favorite]
You actually believe your going to find out anything about that laundry list above in any interview process, let alone one in which you repeatedly induce fatigue and anxiety in your candidates?
Yes; you learn whether people can retain their poise, focus, and lucidity when fatigued and anxious. That's something we need in people whom we're asking to face the public, high-end donors, corporate partners, and collaborators in the role of a representative for the institution.
If you really wanted to know how they perform in a working environment, past performance is your single best indicator: the entire credit and risk management industries are built on it.
Heh. At least in the world of education and cultural institutions, we are concerned with face-to-face endeavors, and people come to these fields with institutional experience from a variety of scales and structures, with their performance often highly shaped by widely varying external constraints like mission and budget, meaning that comparing portfolios is not enough to determine their potential for success in our particular environment.
posted by Miko at 6:28 AM on April 4, 2011 [1 favorite]
OK, that was a good explanation for the "why," thanks. I still disagree with these hiring practices for many reasons, but I won't belabor the OP's thread anymore with them.
posted by digitalprimate at 2:19 PM on April 8, 2011
posted by digitalprimate at 2:19 PM on April 8, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by drjimmy11 at 6:38 PM on April 1, 2011