One can evaluate a person's candor and personality profile in more objective manners than "gut instincts."
By what? Myers Briggs? Anything that actual working people in an imperfect work environment can realistically apply to the process, and real psychologists won't laugh at?
The interview process is indeed intended to get to know the applicant as a person-- but is not carte blanc to strike a person because you dont like something about their person.
I never condoned and I do not condone making decisions based on how you personally like someone. When I talk about personality, I'm talking in terms of how they will effect the work atmosphere. Even if a manager is completely effective at eliminating their own personal biases towards a person they interview and do not allow any consideration for their personal feelings of likability, they still need to worry about whether the team they will be working with will like them. Hiring someone into a team who will not like that team and will not be liked by that team is irresponsible, self-destructive behavior, and frankly not fair to the candidate, either. You're purposefully putting them into a situation where they will be miserable. And they may appreciate it temporarily out of desperation for a job, but once that desperation wears off, they will come around to hating you for putting them there and either set about finding another job as soon as possible and/or sabotaging the one you gave them.
And yeah, it's impossible for personal bias not to be a part of this. It's a subjective thing. No matter how you justify these factors in the decision making process, they can be construed as bias. And if that means it shouldn't be a factor, then tell me again what is the point of the interview?
Last I checked, the 90 day probationary period was intended to weed out the malactors that cant get along with co-workers, and the job references given were intended to help screen out the liars and cheats.
Not relevant to interviews
How well a person works with others is indeed an objective measure, and can be measured. Again, this is what the 90 day probation is for.
See above
You're addressing how you think interviews should operate by referring to stuff that would happen outside of an interview. I'm increasingly convinced that you just think interviews shouldn't be a part of a hiring process.
And hiring somebody only to fire them within the 90 day window is incredibly painful. If you're not allowed by the interview process to select for people who you think are likely to be a "good fit", then you are increasing the likelihood that you will spend a year hiring shitty person after shitty person and firing them two months later, just creating more instability for both the bad candidates and for the organization. Let the person you don't think will work out just go ahead and apply somewhere else, instead of spending two months re-organizing their lives around a new job just to lose it.
The police are tasked with keeping disorderly persons out of society
Yeah, but they are not tasked with determining who the disorderly persons are. That part is left up to the court process, where they are put in front of a bunch of people who ask them questions. That's your interview analogue. Police using gut instinct to determine guilt are doing a bad thing because it's not their job.
It is literally the job of someone interviewing candidates, on the other hand, to gauge the character of the person they're interviewing.
Edit:
Um, Wierd, do you really think SG works for some big shot multinational greedy corporation? What I've heard from him is that he works for an average company that acts as a middleman with trade (well, in customs and getting things to places), not some big greedy archcorp.
Possibly.. I have worked for 3 fortune 500s. Their HR staff... has left me... bitter.
Anymore, if I consider putting in an application, and I have to go through some mother fucking "employment portal", I say "fuck that." I would rather mop floors, or wipe asses. Literally. That latter is EXACTLY what I did. From my observations of discussions at places like Slashdot, I am not alone.
It takes *A LOT* of soft skill to be a good CNA. I do great. My residents love me. Unlike my prior fortune 500 employers, the residents actually appreciate care and consideration in the work I do for them, and dont demand ever greater wonders. Wiping asses is a lot more fulfilling, and if that alone is not a damingly scathing thing to say about the subject, I dont know what is.
I get very heated under the collar about the two-faced statements of "We cant find qualified applicants!" and "Use our Hiring portal!" Either you want humans, or you dont.
Yeah, the process where I work is there is an online application, but it's very basic. Fill out some basic name/contact info and upload your resume type of thing. Or if you know somebody within the company, just forward your resume directly to them to forward on to a manager to forward on to HR and skip the online component completely. "Talent acquisition" calls and does a basic screening interview over the phone, which basically amounts to the ability to speak coherently and not say anything illegal or something. And if he thinks the candidate is ok, he'll forward the resume on to the managers overseeing the position and ask if they want to set up an interview. Interview is done, and it's completely up to the managers when they decide to make a decision and how. There are no further processes or tools provided by the company. It's literally just "HR gets application. Makes sure they're basically suitable to be employed. Sets up interview if manager wants it. Manager decides based on interview if that's the person they want." Most other places I've interviewed, it felt like the same sort of thing. You're expecting a hell of a lot of people like me who are just thrown into the decision making process and expected to just do their best.
I've also worked at the Fortune 500 where it was more like what you're thinking. Although there's still basically a normal guy at some point in the process sitting in a room with someone with a short amount of time to ask them questions and figure them out. And it's even more difficult for them, when they need to consider the dynamics of a 30 person team, instead of 6 people (the most I've managed). You're really shitting on people like me with what you're projecting at the larger corporate machine. And I'd be ok with that if I thought it would actually mean something constructive in the big picture, but I don't think it would.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4461653 times)