|
Dec 11, 2020, 09:16 AM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by seesaw
You'd have to define succeeded? Still with the company? Stayed how many years? 9 out of 10 were successes in that they did their job well, were team players, moved up in the organization, or stayed a couple years or longer then were recruited for a higher position elsewhere after gaining experience with us.
Average is successful. I don't hire every single person expecting them to be a superstar or the next Tom Zuckerberg.
It honestly doesn't matter if they were average or not or what the history is of my hires. You're talking about frustrations with the hiring process and not getting a job. I'm trying to help you navigate the game by understanding what employers want and understand why they ask what they ask.
You can argue whether it's right or wrong, it's still the way it is and those are still the questions that will be asked, and you will still have to overcome dealing with those questions to get hired.
|
The point is that the hiring process is broken, and the end result is equivalent to random selection, but employers and recruiters like to think they can select "good" candidates. The reality is they cannot by asking these questions, not even by lengthy technical interviews. Many studies show that there is zero correlation between how well you do in interviews and how well you do on the job.
I think we need to be honest with ourselves, and have an open discussion about this, instead of forcing everyone to play the game laid out by employers. Let's not forget how humans are biased, as you mentioned about introverts and extroverts. Studies show that hiring managers make a decision within 5 seconds from seeing a candidate because of "first impressions" which I believe to be one of the most common biases of human beings about others.
I think other ways of less-biased and more-objective measures are needed, like standardized tests for intelligence, personality, ... etc, and training programs, ... etc.
I understand it's not easy to change the process and the entrenched belief that recruiters and managers are hired because they are able to select based on their judgment, and the hiring process will probably be the same for years to come, but at least some questions need to be gotten rid of, like "why are you interested in our company?" and "what's your biggest weakness?" and such questions that force applicants to basically lie.
I believe employees can be loyal only after they are hired, and experienced the environment and culture, not before. This is more reasonable, and logical than expecting employees to subscribe to the company's mission before they are even hired.
Of course, I will play by the current rules of the game to the best of my ability, but I feel I am compromising my honesty and integrity to please employers to get a job, and probably it shows in my answers.
|