interview went well then ?
who did you get...go on tell......
I've been toying with this one for a while, and now that we're in the middle of a new round of interviews, I'm beginning to feel a bit like
My Cunning Plan
Anyone wanting a job interview must pay a deposit of £200 for the privilege. To get their deposit back, they will have to prove in the interview that they were actually worth interviewing (there's a few ways to do that, including not lying on their CVs, being able to demonstrate the skills they claimed to have, proving themselves even slightly capable of doing (or even learning to do) the job they've applied for etc etc etc)
They don't actually have to get the job to have their deposit returned - all it takes is for me to leave the interview room knowing my time wasn't completely wasted.
Any thoughts?
interview went well then ?
who did you get...go on tell......
I know you're not being entirely serious - but *******s to that.
Do you tell your candidates all the things in the organisation that get people moaning around the water-cooler (like failures in management communication)? Bet you downplay how much overtime might be needed - or expected. Etc.
If you're interviewing people who are not worth interviewing, is it worth considering that there is something wrong with your filtering process as well as them? When I go for a job interview, it's as much me interviewing them as vice versa. They are considering paying me to provide a service - neither party is doing the other any "favour".
Caveat emptor.
Aren't I?
No to the first, but I'm lucky enough to work in a place with a pretty high level of employee satisfaction. Everyone has some gripes, but overall, we all enjoy it here.
As to the second - no - we're completely up-front about that.
Could be, and I'm looking quite hard at that at the moment.
Yes, I fully agree. But if I'd made up a glowing CV and successfully blagged my way into an interview for a brain surgeon's post, I think my interviewers might still feel a bit aggrieved at my lack of suitability for the position...
My previous company used a 2-stage selection process, employing an agency to act as "Cv-filterers"; they would also do the first interview (by phone), and only then would they pass on recommendations for interviews.
Yes, they charged a lot for this service, but it worked pretty well.
Having said that, interviewing takes a lot of effort, I know - you need to allow at least a half-day per interview per interviewee, including prep time and review. So interviewing 8 people will take up almost all of a week's time - and then you may have several second interviews to sort out
Fun fun fun...
- I've no idea how that would go down in the UK but somebody doing that in France is a sure way to get all the Unions and half the French in the streets for a few weeks. You may get some nice riots as well if you're a tad lucky.
As others have said, any chance you could improve your pre-interview screening process?
I'm also sometimes involved in interviewing people (mainly graduates) for my company and we have an online screening process before candidates get send to the interviewers. People have to answer 2 (sort of) personnality questionnaires in addition to describing their CV.
I'm sure you could get them to play one of those games you're so keen on (remember santa flipping over the deers? ) and select them according to their score
If CV lying is an issue, could you get somebody to check them (i.e. call the references) beforehand?
Personally, from both sides of the fence, I'm in favour of a telephone interview pre-screening process.
It tends to be much quicker, works very well, saves employers time and money and saves applicants time and money. It doesn't matter whether the actual employer or an agency does this so long as they are upto it.
You could start by avoiding interviewing unlucky people by throwing half the CV's in the bin.
I would be in favour of your £200 plan, IF the firm offered something similar & promised to:
1. Place me in the role that they interviewed me for, instead of asking me to do something completely different on the first day
2. Had pc, phone, network access, desk, chair, etc. set up ready for me, instead of plonking a large pile of "documentation" to wade through
3. Warned, in advance, that they have a "smurf friendly" recruitment process
OK - that's it. Something's definitely messed up with our pre-screening.
The latest (soon-to-be-ex) candidate has just turned up for a technical test, nursing a serious hangover
For some reason, I'm not allowed to send him packing without talking to him. Won't. This. Be. Fun.
Ask him really bizzare questions like "Why are man hole covers round?" or "Give me 5 reasons for and against Michael Jackson"
Beat me to it Caro
Buy some extra smelly curry and leave it under your desk, near his chair Ask him if he thinks there is a funny smell. With a bit of luck this will make him feel a) sick and b) paranoid
(Agree that turning up hungover is unacceptable - if he'd do that at interview/testing ...)
The majority of manhole covers aren't round, but consist of two vaguely triangular pieces of metal loosely connected together. Most other shapes are prone to rocking when traffic goes over them.
I'll get my coat!
(although this isn't as embarassing as dropping a cover down a sewer manhole when I was a recently graduated engineer; luckily it was a storm water sewer so it was ok to go down and get it).
So why do they make square man-hole covers?
And, on the subject of interviewing. I think it's all in the pre-screening. You really shouldn't be interviewing people who you've not spoken with on the 'phone.
Having said that, years ago I was a senior manager with a well-known blue-chip multinational. We used to take our Graduate Recruitment Programme very, very seriously and had thousands of applicants for a few dozen places on our 3 year Graduate Training Programme that was going to turn them into the next Richard Branson. We whittled them down through rounds of selection interviews, selection days, individual interviews with dozens of managers, a residential 3-day selection process, etc, etc. After all of that I was constantly amazed that a handful of no-hopers had, somehow, managed to sneak in with the fabulously talented people we took on.
The message I received from this is that some people are very good at being selected for jobs. They are great interviewees but not such great employees.
Do I have an answer? I wish I did
You'd need to tell your candidates that prior to them applying as well. Surefire way to put quality candidates off even applying in the first place.
It can take time and effort to complete a good application. If you just let people send in CVs then its easier - so one way of weeding out some time wasters might be to get them to complete an application form (maybe you already do that.)
Though any examples of lying on application forms or CVs is a big 'thanks but no thanks' - what else would they lie about to you as an employee?
Sometimes they ask 'if you were offered this job would you accept' - which I didn't use to understand - I mean I applied for the job didn't I? Til one interview where they kept me waiting 20 mins with no apology and weren't able to adequately answer a couple of questions I had, amongst other things. I'd decided by the end of the interview that I probably didn't want to work for them (at least without checking references from current employees) - but they didn't ask that question.
If you want good candidates applying - you've got to attract them to want to work for you, and if you want quality people to interview, you need a good selection process.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks