Recruitment processes

Emmzi

Wakey2008 wrote: »

The best way to recruit is by solely matching skills against requirements and making a judgement.

Wouldn't I have to interview you to do that?

Or maybe ask you to take a test?

Or should I just believe every candidate I see who tells me they are fab?

Jomo

Emmzi wrote: »

You are entitled to your opinion. I would suggest its academic research by occupational psychologists doing "real" scientific studies that comes up with the methodologies. But, hey, ignore the universities and assume they're plucked out of people's backsides if it makes you feel better.

I've seen a lot of bad hires cause a lot of grief over the years. Prevention is better than cure.

If you don't like the system., don't play it, go self employed where you may be as maverick as you wish.

Over the years most recruitment techniques have refined to where they usually tell you something useful (eg no handwriting analysis any more!!)

By the way most HR departments have had large staff reductions as well as everywhere else. Not sure where the 'spare time' is coming from.

I get what you are saying and do agree to an extent but some people are particularly good in interviews and not much else.

Emmzi

Jomo wrote: »

I get what you are saying and do agree to an extent but some people are particularly good in interviews and not much else.

Very true!

Wakey2008

Emmzi wrote: »

Wouldn't I have to interview you to do that?

Or maybe ask you to take a test?

Or should I just believe every candidate I see who tells me they are fab?

The ones that claim they are fab are exactly the ones you should avoid as they are the ones that will pass your little test by lying and cheating and everything else that people do to knacker your imperfect little system.

In the interview a good hr person should get a feel for the persons skills and what they can do.

Lets face it, if an interviewer needs a computer to tell them who they should take on, then maybe they shouldn't be an interviewer.

Emmzi

Wakey2008 wrote: »

The ones that claim they are fab are exactly the ones you should avoid as they are the ones that will pass your little test by lying and cheating and everything else that people do to knacker your imperfect little system.

In the interview a good hr person should get a feel for the persons skills and what they can do.

Lets face it, if an interviewer needs a computer to tell them who they should take on, then maybe they shouldn't be an interviewer.

You are entirely right. I shall resign immediately!

Jomo

Wakey2008 wrote: »

The ones that claim they are fab are exactly the ones you should avoid as they are the ones that will pass your little test by lying and cheating and everything else that people do to knacker your imperfect little system.

In the interview a good hr person should get a feel for the persons skills and what they can do.

Lets face it, if an interviewer needs a computer to tell them who they should take on, then maybe they shouldn't be an interviewer.

I think the proof is in the pudding - which is why probationary periods were invented....

bristol_pilot

probationary periods have no statutory standing in the UK

Jomo

bristol_pilot wrote: »

probationary periods have no statutory standing in the UK

Oh right, that's why I completed a 6 month probationary period (for a rather large bank) :rolleyes:

bristol_pilot

probationary periods are common in employment contracts, but they still have no statutory standing

Jomo

bristol_pilot wrote: »

probationary periods are common in employment contracts, but they still have no statutory standing

Well all I can say is a few heads have rolled due to unsatisfactory performance....