Hiring

[MarvB]

All good advice... I’ve hired people over multiple disciplines for 30 years. Two things that always stood out/worked for me as well is:

Second interviews, use a panel that includes the potential peers of the prospective employee. Just because someone is deemed “qualified” doesn’t always mean they play well with others. I made mistake early on of bringing in very bright people who really lacked in social skills needed for making up a “team”. In other positions I have hired lone wolves who excelled at getting the job done but weren’t that pleasant to be around but the job didn’t require it so they excelled anyway.

Don’t be afraid to shit can them all,
Recruitment is expensive as is in initial training but both can pale in comparison to “settling” for a potential nightmare. The impact reaches far deeper than just their “own” job and can be especially detrimental to a team based position.

Good luck!!

 

[RobertD]

OP, I have no experience hiring anyone, only a little experience being hired myself, but I want to commend you for taking time to do a little research on what your responsibility entails. That alone indicates you're likely to do a good job with the process.

For everyone else sharing their advice, it's great and useful to read for someone that's almost done with school entirely and navigating the job market in earnest for the first time. Thanks to all contributors.

 

[brokfut]

I have never been the person that actually does the hiring but have been involved in the process. When I was the IT specialist in a state government division I was always ask to review resumes for the HR/Admin. My approach was to analyze the job description and assign a numerical value to each element in order of importance to performing the job. Each resume was reviewed and contrasted to the job description and values entered in my matrix. For instance; if a large part of the job was data management, I would want someone with a high level of competence in Microsoft Access or SQL. My recommendations would be based on the numerical scores for that job's matrix. It was then up to the interviewer to determine personnel suitability for the position. The interview team was almost always at least 3 persons.

 

[Bob-WY]

Over the last 10ish years I have interviewed A TON of people. I run a software development group that spans multiple technology stacks. I have multiple people interview each candidate. For resume review I look at a few things:
- Do the skills they claim, match what I need. In SW languages are key, as are tech stacks, not really tools. Heck even languages can be learned so that depends on the level I am looking for.

- Gaps and time at positions. I don't want someone with a history of jumping every 18 months. Heck it will take me 4-6 to get you fully functional.

- Degree. Not an elimination thing, but if your degree is in history and I am hiring SW developers, but your job history matches, then it's a good topic of conversation "how'd you end up in SW when your degree is xxxx"

During the interview, which will last 2-4 hours, each person has a mission to explore, be it technical skills, leadership, personality. I don't want the same exact interview 3-4 times. Waste of everyone's time. Most often we will have them write a little bit of code, ESPECIALLY if they are more junior. Simple problem, but code it on the board and talk us through the thought process. By company policy we can't give them access to our laptops, so hands on keyboard is out.

As the department manager I tend to leave the technical stuff to my team. I focus on "Will they fit in with my teams?". Personality fit is key to a strong and growing team. An asshole who is a genius that nobody wants to work with, is, bottom line, an asshole.

I do tend to ask about a big mistake they made, then focus on what they learned and how they handled it. Don't care what the mistake was, we all make them, but how they moved forward and learned.

I do ask why they are leaving and why they want to come here.

After they leave, we all get together and talk about them, compare answers for consistency, BS, lies and decide.

Sometimes I grab the first person because it's a good fit, sometimes it takes a bunch to find the right one. EVERY SINGLE TIME I've gone against a gut feel that they weren't right, I've been burned. Bad hires are very hard to deal with and get rid of.

One thing that will get someone eliminated IMMEDIATELY is a lie about what they know. I used to be the "technical" guy in the interview and would grill them on a specific programming language they said they knew and we wanted. I'd ask them how long they've been programming in that language, how comfortable etc. Then start asking questions that got harder until we hit the limit. One guy, who I was on the fence on, told me how comfortable he was, then we started and he ran out of knowledge exactly where he said he would, the clincher, cause I hired him, was when I asked him a question he didn't know, he went home, read up on it and sent me the answer.

 

[jejack26]

I assume you mean Crucial Conversations? I’ve read that several times and we even offer a class based on that book. Definitely on my top 10 all time list. I have not read Radical Candor, but if you’re putting it in the same league, I will be downloading it today! Thanks!

 

[jejack26]

One thing I have learned is be honest with yourself what skills your looking in the position. I've seen people hired and/ or passed over for stupid reasons.

I read years ago a study done by a respected school of business that quantified how successful hiring process were in getting the right person. I think it was about 50%. Bleak at best.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Not reacting to hilljack personally, but more generally to the topic - Being able to attract, hire, on-board, train, grow and retain talent is what differentiates between successful leaders and mediocre middle managers. It is great ChrisC is reaching out for perspective - a good sign of future leaders is a "learner" mindset.

Agreed 100% on this. At the beginning its important to sell the company vision to the employee to get them on board or to see if their willing to even get on board. This will weed people out.

So to answer the OP when I do bring someone in for an interview I explain the company, company history, company future, and the job to them in detail before I even get into any kind of questions. If they interact and ask questions about those things I can tell they probably care and are interested. If they just nod their way thru that introduction red flags fly for me. Other than that I would echo what others have said about employment gaps and length of time at an employer. I also like to find out why an applicant left certain jobs a lot of times this will open the person up a little bit as they explain a situation that didn't sit well with them at a former job or whatever the case might of been and you can gain some perspective on the applicant that way.
Also I like what was said about passion. If you ask a person what they like to do in there free time and they don't answer enthusiastically to an extent its another red flag to me. Cause if you can't get pumped about your skiing, camping, bull riding, or whatever it is you love to do I doubt your gonna be pumped about work every morning.

 

[Fire_9]

I assume you mean Crucial Conversations? I’ve read that several times and we even offer a class based on that book. Definitely on my top 10 all time list. I have not read Radical Candor, but if you’re putting it in the same league, I will be downloading it today! Thanks!

Yes! Thank you for the correction. I wish I could have read that book 15 years ago. I would have been much more productive at work and life in general

 

[Djfan]

I was on the most recent panel for a hire for our state. We only had two applicants. Probably because we are in remote Wyoming. Still, it was time to hire.

One guy had an amazing resume. Perfect fit. The other guy's was ok. The interviews were over the phone due to covid. We really liked the guy with the perfect fit resume, but he was moving out from NYC for a change of scenery. The other guy was from Wyoming. In this case there was really only one choice.

He's not experienced in this part of his field, but capable. He will do fine, and we are committed to help him grow in it.

Not sure if this helps, but it's all I've got.

 

[TwistedSage]

I manage a group of about 10 contractors and Im involved in hiring more support at the request of the customer. I think it is very important to understand the position you are hiring for. This way when you are looking at the resume you may be able to see where some past experience may cross over into the new position. That said resumes don't mean much and are really just the first step to getting the call. Resumes are also the easiest to bullchit. I've learned to stay away from over qualified applicants for various reasons.

Once I have a few resumes picked out that look promising, I will email and set up a phone interview first. You can generally get a feel for if it's worth it to pursue an in person interview after that. Since the hire will be working on my team I like to include one more member on the call to ask some questions I might not have thought of and just to have another opinion. Then in person..

Of the 2 hires I've made that I had to fire, one was an over qualified retired engineer that said he was looking to work and didn't mind that this position was more of an intermediate role and was more logistical support and not engineering. Since the engineering or tech data drives our work the customer was just thrilled to have him. Once he started it became very apparent that felt the work was beneath him. He started doing dumb shit on purpose it seemed and then he started really talking down to a younger employee. He gone.

Another was a guy who was applying for the same type of position. This position can easily be taught to someone who wants to learn it, being a self starter and just put and effort into figuring chit out and you got what it takes. On his resume he had a continuous work experience and was currently assistant teaching during the day and working the grocery store at night. Looked like the person was hungry and willing to work. He came on and showed up like he was big time now and made it. Rubbed the customer the wrong way. Never paid any attention, went through day one of training for about 3 weeks and never brought his notes back the next day so he would know what to do. Asked about overtime and if he could come in super early to leave early multiple times(we do have flex time but you need to know what you doing, cant come in early untrained and just sit there). He had absolutely no interest in actually doing the job. He gone.

 

[MTGomer]

Dont let perfect get in the way of pretty darn good.

Your competitor is making an offer while you are trying to get your team together for a 2nd or 3rd interview two weeks from now.

 

[CPAjeff]

Non-hunting related question...

It appears I am being put in a position at the company I work for to hire a new employee. I'm having resumes passed over to me and will likely be involved in the interview process as well. Not having any experience with this sort of thing, I find myself overanalyzing the resumes I'm getting. I was wondering if any of you have been put in this position and have any useful feedback about your experience: red flags, what not to get caught up with, etc. This isn't a high-level position but we've had bad luck in the past (I wasn't part of that but trying to figure out what was missed) and I'd like to get it as right as one can at this stage. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thank you,
Chris

Chris,

In the quote above, you noted there has been some bad luck in the past. Can you elaborate?

I've been in on the hiring process of entry level folks and up through executive level folks. In this process, I have found the employer must have a clear understanding of what they want in the person filling the position . . . like what they REALLY WANT. Do you want a hard-charging-self-starter? If so, can you handle the attitude most hard-charging-self-starters possess?

For instance, I was helping in on the interviewing process for an entry level position and one of the managers said, "I'd like to find someone without too much motivation as I don't want them looking for another job in the near future." Spoiler alert - the manager made a hiring decision on an individual who lacked motivation . . . this individual also lacked the motivation to show up to work after about the third week. Sometimes we get exactly what we ask for.

My tips for looking at a candidate:
1) How do they fit on the team?
2) Are they motivated?
3) Are they qualified?
4) Will they raise the tide of the company or lower it? (A rising tide lifts all boats.)
5) What are they really worth, in terms of compensation? Then, give them 10% more. When a person has to ask for a raise, the employer is at risk of losing that employee.

 

[Gary]

All the above are great ideas/techniques for the interview/hiring process. I believe the OP mentioned he was working on a hire for a manual labor/unskilled worker type position. For a number of years I was responsible for hiring warehouse and delivery personnel for a large furniture store, here in AK. One of the things I did before setting up an interview was to check the state court system for legal problems. This step unqualified quite a few prospective employees. Another thing I would do (today) would be to check their social media footprint - FB, Twitter, Instagram, etc.

 

[schmalts]

I do some interviews and screening of resumes. Look for gaps in employment and a solid job history. Then for interviews have a good standard list of questions and ask the same questions to all the people. You can add questions as conversations form but make a good list of questions that involve what the person's job duties might be on a daily basis. Add a few questions like "tell me about a time that you were given a tight deadline on a project and what you did to meet that deadline" Something of that nature. Unless this is of course a job that is so low level you just want a workhorse that doesn't need to think much.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Reference deleted to prevent the awkward . . .

It will be awkward if he is a HT follower and read this

 

[mplane72]

I hire and fire what most would consider unskilled or low skill labor. Being able to show up, count and put in an honest days work carrying your weight is about all it takes to get in the door. I'm big on being a team player and getting along with fellow employees. I don't want any cancers. That being said and the difficulties faced finding people that want/need to work I now hire exclusively through a staffing agency. I hated doing it when I first came on and tried to hire direct but learned my lesson quick. It cost's a little more up front but it's totally worth it if it's a high turnover position.

I will add that it took some work with the agency to get them to try and send me the right kind of people instead of any warm body.

 

[Djfan]

It will be awkward if he is a HT follower and read this

He's not. I know this for sure.

 

[thomas89]

As a current stay at home dad for 4+ years, the hole left in my resume has got me even more nervous now.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I've been involved in hiring several people over the years. One of the first things I look for in a resume is their job history. I like to see two thing.

The first is length at previous jobs. It doesn't have to be years, but I like to see that they have at least spent enough time in a job to give it a fair chance. I guess this has to do with the fact that they will need to be in the job for at least a year to attempt licensure in my field.

The second thing I like to see is small or no gaps between employment. Understandably, people can go a few months trying to find something, so you just have to use some judgment before deciding to interview them. This shows me that they at least want to work.

This usually gets rid of about half the resumes. Hope it helps.

Having been one of those guys with some significant gaps, I would never rule out a candidate on that basis. In many places, particularly the US govt, there's a tenure period during which an employee can be discharged for any or no reason. Some employers will get rid of staff before they get tenure to avoid paying benefits or step increases in wages (very common in some school districts). Usually not very effective for productivity but many managers (especially in govt) only look at the bottom line $$$. I would be more concerned about education and training. And for those who are educated, scrutinize their transcripts carefully. I just scratch out any courses that are pass/fail (exception being some special PhD level stuff [e.g. comp exams and thesis] that's been pass/fail for a thousand years - literally). And I'm never overawed by big institution diplomas. I worked with a guy at Yosemite who had a masters degree in historical architecture from Columbia but couldn't write a complete sentence. No kidding. Total waste of money. Everyone had to clean up after him. But he had the right ethnic background and he was a nice guy. I have a PhD and my late wife was on staff at the university. The pressure to market degrees instead of provide educational OPPORTUNITY is the way things have gone.

I am wary of synchophants. A candidate who feels the need to get under the desk during an interview is usually trying to deflect from his incompetence. I would rather hire someone who's cranky and good at his job than some chummy guy who is incompetent.

 

[RobertD]

Another thing I would do (today) would be to check their social media footprint - FB, Twitter, Instagram, etc.

Great idea.

People tend to use social media as if it's MORE anonymous than it is, not less. The internet creates a disconnect that many people don't consider, forgetting that the "profile" is connected to a real human being. Thus, I don't think you're looking for specific activities or ideas to disqualify potential hires - more like checking the level of self and social awareness they exhibit and using that to understand how they might approach tasks and relationships on the job.

I wouldn't hire people who post details about their private lives that are better left as just that... private. Example, if you have a big fight with a loved one and use Facebook as a sounding board to tell the world about it, you probably lack the discretion and tact needed to work collaboratively with others in stressful situations.

Another example, I wouldn't hire anyone who's excessively or aggressively political. I don't mind a variety of views and opinions - diversity beats a monolith. But if your page is just a stream of BS and hostility towards "outsiders" or "the other side" then I might see this as an impediment to your ability to work with others, or worse, your ability to think for yourself.

Just some thoughts I had reading Gary's comment, wanted to expound on them. Keep the great answers and opinions flowing everybody.