Things I’ve heard from companies and Corporate Recruiters.
- We hire for cultural fit.
- We hire for motivation.
- We hire based on education.
- We hire using panel interviews.
- We hire from our internship programs.
- We hire using behavioral-based interviewing.
- We hire candidates from our rotational program.
- We hire according to our strategic workforce plan.
Why do some people get hired and not others? Who the hell knows. There is no magic answer because the whole damn process is so subjective.
Show up for your interview on time, make eye contact, and give a good handshake. Provide concise & interesting answers. Do the best you can, and then let it go.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
I couldn’t agree more. There are some basics that you can do (like know who the company is….) but in the main part its a lottery. Recruiters out there will argue that its a science, but its no more a science than I am a giraffe.
Personally I hire on looks and sense of humour…….
Laurie-
I agree, each employer has their own method to their madness, the question is, Do you fit in with their ideal ? A job I am interviewing for currently had me email a resume/cover letter, Complete an Online application, and then take a 100 question Compatibility Personality test. It was after all of that I was invited for a first interview, and Then led to believe a second was in my future. I am doing my due diligence and then some to show uo early, give a firm handshake, and Provide Honest, Consicse and intelligent answers, then Let it go……………… To be continued…………
As a computer programmer, I have to chime in here about the thing I am starting to hate the most – the tech quiz interview. At first these started out as a way to demonstrate critical thinking or problem solving skills. Now they are turning into a joke. I can look the answers all up on Google, and the real programming questions involve esoteric things no one uses on a day-to-day basis, things I can learn or relearn quickly.
Ask me about leadership, how I managed myself, how I understand the principles of software engineering, and that I’ve proven that I can write software, not that I can answer a brain teaser or the difference between and inner and outer join. You can teach me the latter in a day, you may not be able to teach me the former in a lifetime.
Isn’t this virtually the same methodology we use in all decision making? There’s no scientific way to choose your spouse, your house, your car, etc. The only criteria we really operate on is what we won’t tolerate in the equation.
Most hiring criteria is designed for exclusion, making the hiring process a process of elimination. In my opinion, not the best method for identifying and energizing the best people to come to you.
Also, I have strong evidence that the HRD is in fact a gazelle.
I hire by smell.
And sometimes I’ll take an extra look at a resume with the word a-hole in it, but I digress…
Kidding aside, fit fit fit. If you’re a good fit strategically, culturally, or humorlessly (see first comment), you’ll probably be given a shot at the job. It is like picking a mate @HRPufnstuf, but the whore that is the firm needs lots of lovers; so you just have to be a good fit on some level. And remember, size. prize. ocean. motion. Be likable, and you’ll have the motion down pat.
As always, IMHO.
Sid.
You forgot to add my favorite two:
We hire because you’re related to an executive
We hire because you golf with an executive
Nepotism & Cronyism. *rolls eyes*
You forgot “We only hire round pegs for a round hole jobs.” Many HR folks can’t think outside the title and see the qualifications another title may have that fits nicely, too. I’ve always been a square peg.
I hire the person I think is going to be most likely to be successful in the job. I use the tools that have helped me do that well in the past.
I love the idea of hiring by smell though. WAY better than those personality tests.
We hire on a complementary basis. Fit is important, but we also look at the roles the position interacts with the most, and try to figure out what skill set will best complement the other employees in the work group. Often, that means they are not a natural fit, but we are looking for diversity of thought as part of the equation.
I was passed for a job because I didn’t have a pen. I am an HR Manager and I would never pass over someone for something so petty. I was running a bit behind schedule for this interview because I had to handle a last minute employee relations issue that could not wait at my current employer. I got to the interview on time, but realized when I sat down that I forgot to bring a pen; I had paper, but no writing device. So, instead of drawing attention to the matter, I put my pad away and when the interviewer came in we proceeded with the interview. It went so well. He high-fived me twice, and told me at the end of the interview that he rated this interview a 10 out of 10; the best he had ever done. Then, I hear that he felt that the fact that I didn’t have a pen sent a HUGE red flag as to my future performance. He’s an ass!
Some left off the list:
We hire employee referrals
We hire only people who are currently employed
Up until a couple years ago when everything came to a screeching halt, we hired anybody who could put their shirt on the right way ’round (despite my objections) since candidates were so scarce. Never fear, job seekers, that time will come again. And in the meantime, really know the companies you’re interviewing with. I know it seems like a no-brainer, but look at our website and tell us something about us when you come in. It’s like dating. Tell us how pretty we are without sounding phony about it. And pretend you’re outgoing, even if you’re painfully shy.
Frankly, if a candidate comes in with the right skill set combined with great wit, and no visible signs of dysfunction, I’d hire them. The problem is that the actual hiring managers seem to be dazzled by visible signs of dysfunction. I’ve yet to figure this one out.
I hire people that I think will be easy to manage. Flexible, personable, good under pressure. Yada, yada.
And I said in a previous post that I discriminate against smokers, so yeah, @ Sid – I hire by smell.
Another one…
We hire because you’re the goof-ball son of an important customer.
I had to tell a candidate that my client chose another candidate because there was a better chemistry fit. When two candidates have matched skills, perceived fit after the interview process is sometimes all you have to go on.
This candidate went on a huge rant, I mean HUGE, about how he always has gotten along well with every team he’s ever worked with. He was sure that if the interviews were longer, he’d have convinced them and would have become a better fit than the other candidate.
You can’t force fit. You either gel with the team through the interview process or you don’t.
That said, I agree with H Aria. Some hiring managers get dazzled by the oddest things and ignore the more important issues. For candidates, it can be perplexing.
After an intensive I-9 audit, I’m inclined to say that we will hire someone who can verify that they are eligible to work in the United States…..or at least have “good” documentation….
If we hired by smell half our work force would not be here. Hopefully Amy you work in a state where smoker discrimination is not illegal. For my part, I can think of a whole binch of smokers I’ve known who were outstanding employees. I worked for one guy who used to ask to see the interior of the candidate’s car. The assumption was that there was some mystical insight to be gained from the tidiness of the vehicle. Again, I’ve known brilliant, engaged, dedicated people whose cars would be turned down by homeless people looking for shelter. And some down right scumbags who detailed their rides with tweezers. But there it was.
@nelking – I so agree with you on this. We staffed a new location and people invited to interview from within always assumed they were automatically in. I was the primary communicator when it was time for them to learn they were not selected.
I would never know I was short-sighted except for the constant reminders I got from rejected candidates/employees. Their rants frequently reinforced the decision.
@TheHRD I always hired based on who wouldn’t be a pain in my ass.
@Shennee Just let it go… do the best you can… that’s all you can do.
@Jeff I hate it when one dude tries out out-geek and out-tech another dude. It’s such a stupid competition.
@Puf You are so right. We guess throughout our lives — some guesses are more informed than others. I guessed that Ken would be a pretty good husband because he cooks bacon. So far, I’m right.
@Sid Some smells are so offensive — and I’m pretty sure ’smell’ influences our hiring decisions. I’ll bet money on it.
@HRPuter OMG, nepotism & cronyism = lame.
@Leanne I don’t blame HR because we very rarely make hiring decisions unless we’re hiring for ourselves. I blame managers who hire the round pegs/round holes because they’re not being given good guidance by anyone — leaders, executives, or HR!
@Kerry I hire for looks, too. You can’t be too skinny and work for me. I’m biased against those who don’t want to snack in the middle of the afternoon.
@TimG I’m wary about HR and leaders who think they can socially engineer a workforce based on ‘fit.’ What does fit mean?
@WCNYC Fuck that company. Do you want to work for those assholes? You’re lucky you didn’t have a pen. Best thing that ever happened to you.
@allison Good catch on both. Very accurate.
@HARia When I hired at the candy company, we hired anyone who could pass a drug test. Show up, pee in a cup, get an ID badge. That was our motto.
@Amy2 You better not out yourself. The smokers on the internet will come after you!
@Michelle We also hired some of those goofball daughters — one of whom did heroin and wanted to model. Sheesh.
@Nelking I still struggle with ‘fit’ because sometimes it’s used as a code for sexism, racism, and ageism. I know what you mean about chemistry, but sometimes chemistry gets in the way of business and progress. What do you think?
@LatinaHR Holy smokes, please people, do not falsify your documents. Yikes.
@HRCrout Shoot, my car is FILTHY right now. I would not be hired.
You know you make a good point… in this case it really did come down to likability. Both had good skills and track records. Candidate A was just the more likable. How do you fell about likable? I have a searches where the company chose to hire an unlikable person just because they so badly needed to get a certain result. The right person doesn’t always have to be likable to be successful.
@Nelking I’m conflicted about ‘likable’. I’m thinking of bloggers out there who are excellent writers, great thought-leaders, and totally un-likable in real life. I also think about people with Asperger’s or others who fall on the autism spectrum. They don’t socialize, they don’t smile, but they know how to work. Likability in the office might be overrated.
So how would you describe that thing that makes the decision on the rare occasion that you have two candidates that seemingly could do the job equally well?
I’m thinking that fit is the most neutral way to describe it.
It’s 107 outside right now and 80 with the A/C on in my office. This is going to take more thinking than I can give right now.
Thanks for making me dig a little more on this:) I feel a blog post coming on.
@nelking I can’t wait to read your post. If anything, I don’t know how I feel about likability.
Here’s my unscientific take on this one: We hire the same way we date.
The recruiter/ manager/ idiot/ genius on the other side of the table is either into you or not into you. From there, they make up a ton of rationalization about why or why not they were into you or not into you.
Sometimes, they are not that into you but hire you anyway, because their first pick turned them down and they can’t go to the prom alone. Lucky you.
@really HR — I agree
@reallyHR Totally.
@roolvoel It’s sad that the process is so subjective, isn’t it???
THANK YOU for mentioning Asperger’s. I have it, and it has caused problems with work. Not because I wasn’t competent, (that’s never been an issue as objective measurements of my work have shown) but because women apparently just aren’t allowed to be as socially dysfunctional as men are. Plus, AS is thought of as something males have not females… and woe to the gal who doesn’t understand small-talk!
I suppose ranking people according to subjective means is okay — but too much of this is done in the belief/pretense that it is scientific and objective. Most of the workplace-type personality tests are an excellent example — along with the belief in the “free” market’s Invisible Hand, as though it were a divine and omnipotent force. Gah!
Thanks for your page and for posting (and answering on) this subject.
@Karen I think you’re right — neurodiversity is tolerated much more among men than women. I’m glad you commented on this because you are exactly the kind of employee who gets the shaft with all this talk of ‘likability.’
We hire because we are tired of sifting through hundreds of resumes and the candidate that does the best that day is the big winner!!!! J/k
We hire because we are tired of the process and the managers that want the diamond in the ruff that has all the bells and whistles, however they never came with all those features, however they do not want to pay for those features!
I was not offered a position with a large mortgage company because I did not ask the President for enough money. They ended up going bust in the credit crunch.