Hiring staff has
always seemed like a crap shoot to me. I have used a lot of the
techniques offered in this learning module, and they certainly cut down on the
likelihood of choosing the wrong candidate. But, hiring is still my least
favorite aspect of being in a management position.
A lot of my
distaste for hiring has to do with an inability to predict who is really going
to stay in the position long enough to actually learn the job and become able
to work autonomously. Sometimes the person who is over or under qualified on
paper is a good bet as someone whose credentials seem to be a perfect fit.
I will use the
information from this module to help students think about how they will handle
questions in an interview about their ability to fill the prospective employer’s
needs. Sometimes people looking for a job don’t actually think about the skills
and abilities they will need to perform in their career field. So, I think I’ll
include some scenario development activities that include mock interviews with
employers who ask tough questions.
Brenda... I agree that hiring will always place a challenge on any manager. I see the biggest problem lies in the position announcement. Many job announcements do not specify the exact job to be filled. An example... you see a position that describes a general job duty saying, knowledge on computers and for expertise in certain software. Degree in computer technology desired. You may have people apply with a high tech degree, when the actual job may be... computer data entry. Thus the new employee gets board with a position beneath his/her expectations. This, on average, yields about 40% retention rate of new hires. There are several analysis programs out there on the market that can better define the expectations of the company and provide a better match with job need and wants. With proper analysis, you can improve your retention rate to over 85%. Just my 2 cents.
ReplyDeleteAndy, hey.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I think the bad match up does start with the job announcement being vague, just as you said. But, even then, the interviewer ought to be able to sort out the candidates that are over or under qualified in an interview. Asking the right questions i that interview could save a lot of resources spent to train the wrong person or the job.
I will say, though, that I'd rather take a risk on someone who is under qualified but highly trainable than to hire an over qualified applicant. The one with a bit yet to learn is not as likely to get bored and move on so quickly when something that pays more comes along.
Here is my 2 cents worth added to yours...and we still couldn't buy a pack of gum.
Have a tremendous rest of your day!
Brenda
I totally agree about avoiding hiring over-qualified applicants. Also, people with a lot of experience are sometimes difficult to acclimate to your way of operating. In the hospitality industry, I hired for personality and a heart of service rather than for degrees. Obviously, some positions such as controller, chief maintenance manager, or chef required specific skills, but most jobs just required basic computer skills and a desire to learn.
DeleteHi Brenda,
ReplyDeleteI was not able to actually look at this particular module but I do agree about the hiring process being a challenge. I have never hired an employee, however, we use interviewing as a process of entrance to our dental hygiene program. One thing I have learned from this is that people will tell you what you want to hear just to "get the job" and then you learn pretty soon that the person is nothing like you thought they would be after interviewing them. My husband has owned his own restaraunt before and he did not feel like a "formal" interview was necessary. He had the potential employee answer a few simple questions, such as "what hours are you available" and "do you have your own transportation". Those were the two main concerns for him. He found that most of the time he would end up training them to suit his needs even if they had worked at other restaraunts before.
Your husband probably had the best approach to interviewing for lots of types of jobs, Stephanie. The application or resume gives us a preview of who the person is, and a couple of simple questions lets us know if we should give the person a try.
DeleteI'm thinking about making a scaled instrument for interviews. For example:
On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being not at all likely and 5 being very likely, how likely are you to stay in this job for more than 6 months?
As a manager, I would invite a small group of employees to interview an applicant after I had done the initial interview. I would never let them interview someone that I wasn't willing to hire, though. I would take the applicant into a small meeting room and introduce him/her to the other employees and then tell them to chat and get to know each other. I would tell the applicant to ask the employees any questions about what it was like to work at our hotel. I would leave the room and let them talk. The applicant would be more relaxed around peers and would often reveal things to them that I didn't know. After the applicant left, I would get the team's input. If they were glad to make the applicant part of the team, then I'd hire him/her. If they didn't feel the applicant would be a good fit, I'd keep looking. Because they were included in the hiring decision, they were more committed to helping the new hire become successful. It was a win-win.
ReplyDeleteOne other thing.....Once I hired someone with a master's degree to wash dishes because he was writing a novel and wanted a job where he didn't have to expend a lot of mental energy. It worked out great. So there can be some exceptions to hiring over-qualified people.
ReplyDeleteI love this story! There certainly are exceptions to hiring the overqualified.
ReplyDelete