Home | Login | Recent Changes | Search | All Pages | Help

OddHiringPractices

Becky started this with noting a company required potential employees to take a lie detector test. (RequiringAnEmployeeSignature)

I worked for companies that:

• wanted only non-smokers
• required handwriting analysis tests (!)
• required drug-free employees via a urine test

The non-smoker part made sense (lower health care premiums overall, no need for a smoking room).

The handwriting analysis test was to weed out people with initiative (I didn't last long as a manager).

The drug-free-ness was a good idea, but the candidate had eaten a poppyseed bagel and taken antihistamine meds the morning before the test. The candidate explained and requested a retest. They retested, while the candidate sneezed all day through the next set of interviews. Result: 6 people came down with colds, candidate was made an offer he declined.

It seems to me that more companies screen out unnecessarily, rather than screen in.

What other good stories do you have? -- JohannaRothman 2003.03.27

Let's see:

• Finger printing.
• Hair tests for drugs - goes back longer than urine, and those miscreants are so clever these days.
• Background checks of various kinds.
• Credit checks.
• Assorted code or design based "gotcha" tests.
• Are we counting odd interviewing practices or questions, because I have several of those.

I think you're bang on that there is way too much "excluding" vs. "hiring for". You want to hire someone who can help you do something of use. All this focus on exclusion seems like avoiding the real questions:

• What are we doing that's useful?
• What will this person we hire do to contribute to that?
• How will we know when we're getting some of that, or not?
• What contributes to getting stuff done around here anyway?
• Are we actually in the "getting stuff done" business?

The whole excluding / filtering metaphor is backwards. Might be better to think in terms of fishing with a rod and reel. We're trying to attract and acquire what we do want, right? And where in this kind of discussion do we measure the payoffs we left on the table - the guy with an arrest who turned his life around, the divorcee who got out of a bad marriage and life and made herself a career, with the spine and toughness to do it the hard way.

Begin Rant

What the hell is this abundance model when it comes to talent anyway? News flash - talent is the only universal limiting resource. Talent of all the things it takes to get stuff done, is particularly un-fungible.

And BTW, I'm not so sure about the reasonableness of some of the apparently reasonable standards or conditions on hiring. I've known quite a few people who engage in various recrational substances or practices who's productivity is just fine. And way better than that of people who "just drink" or have "normal" social lives, you know with large numbers of kids, bitter divorces and so on. And god spare me from an unbridled fundamentalist. They're not just unproductive and contemptuous of others, they're self rightous about it.

I think actually that the metaphor is again backwards, this time insidiously so. Every time I read about "lost productivity" due to illness, or personal days, or phone calls on company time, or even web surfing, I go nuts. Productivity "lost" compared to what? People who don't get sick, or don't have to do stuff durning the "work day" sometimes, or don't have lives that need to be taken care of? Productivity lost compared to some kind of org-bot, maybe, but there aren't any of those, yet.

Of course, when we talk about calling to pick up your kids from day care on company time, we've got to talk about statistical populations to get the Big, Outrageous Numbers explaining why this Bad and Evil Practice will End Civilization as We Know It. Well, if you're going to use aggregate numbers to make your case, you've got to treat the population as statistical - some fraction of ill, infirm, people with kids, people pursuing degrees, people addicted to e-bay, and so on. Doing otherwise is a particularly shoddy fallacy although common.

And I'll be a lot more inclined to listen when the Cost That Is Dooming Everything is something done by the one talking. At a minimum we had better get all costs on the table, or the discussion is nonsense. So I want to hear about the cost of drinking when the swinging singles complain about the "parent tax" as their coworkers have schedule conflicts. And I want to hear about how many times a meeting had to end before it was done, or someone had to arrive late or leave early, because of a kid, as the parent types complain about the 20-somethings with hangovers.

Of course, if you pay people what they are worth, you don't have to care what their "productivity" is - you're not over paying for it. And they get to make choices about how they are going to live their life, including what they are willing to trade off or not to make more money.

But that's just me. Who am I to argue with an economy this effective, a work force this happy, industries this flexible, a way of life that contributes so well to health, and happiness and the endless expression of human potential, and so on. We get such tremendous efficiency and effectiveness from employing only org-bots - or wishing that this were so - and treating them like machines that the payoff makes up for the overhead, and the difficulty, and even the creaky, inexact mechanism of selecting out vs. selecting in when hiring.

Or are we not getting so much of that other stuff either?

End Rant

What baffles me is how a system so profoundly flawed has remained so ingrained, and seems so entrenched.

- JimBullock, 2003.02.27

I had an interviewer ask if I would shave my beard.

I asked what possible safety hazzard this could be in favor of?

"But we'd like you to."

(UGH!) BobLee 2003.02.27

I'll agree with Bob that this is an odd (rare) request. I have never been in a interview where they asked if I would shave Bob's beard. -DaveLiebreich 2003.02.28

Recently, a Shaper described a urine test that's given upon application, before they even consider whether to interview you or not. It seems to me that whether you approve of urine testing or not, it's a poor strategy for hiring. Chances are the 99% of people taking a urine test are going to pass (esp. if they can opt out in advance, so those who know they won't pass will not take the test), So if you have 100 applicants, you have to give 100 urine tests to maybe eliminate one person. If you check first to see who you want to interview, then do the interview, you may have to make only one urine test. Lots less trouble and expense for lots of people, including your company - unless you just like putting people through degrading procedures. - JerryWeinberg 2003.03.27

This one is not a hiring practice, but it goes to Jim's rant. I once worked for a company which dictated objectives for bonuses (OK, twice). One year, to reduce sick time, we were told that one of our objectives was to reduce our individual use of sick days by 25%. Two of us objected that we had not had any sick time the previous year. We were told that our bonuses would still be partly dependant on meeting that objective! SherryHeinze 2003.2.27

Still, an openness between interviewer and interviewee would make the matching process much, much easier. I'm hoping Johanna's book will shed some light on how this would be accomplished.

MikeMelendez 2003.02.28

- BeckyWinant 2-28-03

A colleague later explained to me that at EDS, where he worked for a short while, there was an edict on no facial hair except mustaches.

That reminded me of a local amusement park (part of a national chain) where 10 years ago they had a rule that noone could wear their hair in cornrows. I think that is gone, but it was such an obvious filter.

I'm surprised by Johanna's mention of handwriting analysis and equally that anyone would want to rule out people with initiative. I'd love to hear how that happened to become policy. Is the company still around?

- BeckyWinant 2-28-03

Yes, some of the beard thing got into the Roundtable on Technical Leadership. I think we cut most of Dann Starr's rather interesting description of his appearance. At least I'll have a pretty good bet which one's Dan at a technical conference or in an office building. These days I wear what I feel like wearing to an interview, and let them form the conclusions they will. If someone wants me to wear a suit, or worse a tie, I'll ask why. I may do it. I may not.

Some off the wall interview questions I've heard:

• "Do you own a suit?". "How many suits do you own?", and the "telling" variations: "This is not a shirtsleeves environment." and similar.
• Where did you get that tie? Let me see your shoes.
• You live alone? Really? Why is that? (I managed to stop myself from saying: "Because you haven't moved in yet, hot stuff. Now, back that thing on up over here." Nearly gave myself a stroke, though.)
• Where do your parents live? Are they still together?
• Do you tango? (Really.)
• Is that all you do when you're not at work?

A few where someone's trying to do something of use, I think, but ineptly:

• How do you feel about working collaboratively? (This time I couldn't stop myself, so out came: "Collaboration is overrated. I believe in isolating myself and others as a matter of policy, enforced through retribution . . . " then I asked if they were serious about that question.)
• What's your management style? ("Argentine. Although it is more difficult, and easier to mess up, it is more dramatic and interesing when done well." - A Tango reference, not in the same interview as the "tango" question above. My mind was wandering in this one, so I was having flashbacks. At least the Tango question was entertaining.)
• How do you manage people? ("How long have you got?")
• I don't want you to tell me how you managed to get by on 4 or 5 hours sleep a night while you were in college. (So of course, I did.)

Some tactics I've seen:

• The team ambush, dragging someone (me) cold into a room full of people at the end of a full day interviewing, and saying: "Teach us something." (This is actually a fair qualifying test for a job there - ad-hoc and reactive is how they do business for everything. So this one is a "do I want to work here?" test.)
• The "bring me a rock" game, where what they're hiring for changes every time you get past a round of screening, whatever that round might be.
• Making someone wait, on purpose while they are observed.
• Ending an interview early, again as a tactic.
• Offering a drink of coffee or tea or ect. then bringing them something else.

More will come to me, I am sure.

You know, I can think of a circumstance when any one of these tactics of questions would be of use, and even a good choice. They're strange to me because they seemed to be off of a checklist somewhere, vs. relevant to the job of the problem at hand.

-- JimBullock, 2003.02.28

This thought is timely, because I have been thinking about good & bad "team interviewing" practices lately. I'm curious what anyone has to say about that.

-- JimBullock, 2003.02.28

All these stories remind me of some of the reasons why I left the ranks of traditional company employment. I have forgotten how abusive some hiring practices are to potential employees.

--JohnSuzuki, 2003.02.28

Eerie lack of "Wanna" when it came to closing the deal!

--BobLee 2003.02.28

Jim, there are good ways to use a team while interviewing:

1. Create an interview team for first and second interviews. The first team screens people and runs the first audition. The second team probes in more detail. Still one-on-one interviews.
   
   
2. 2-person interviews where the senior person trains and/or coaches the junior person on how to ask questions. Gotta tell the candidate what's happening.
   
   
3. 2-3 person long-lunch interviews, where the people talk about things in general. There can be a problem with these false social situations - if you ask about things not relevant to work (i.e. politics) and you don't like the answer, you can't use that to rule the person out.

I have not yet seen a multiple-on-one interview that was worthwhile. -- JohannaRothman 2003.03.01

Well, I *think* I have seen a multiple-on-one interview that was worthwhile. When I was building a QA team at Harris, I setup a series of three interviews: HR, me and another manager, and the team.

• HR did the screen for sanity, history, some presumed culture fit, soft skills, and basic on paper stuff.
• The other manager and I interviewed the candidate together. This gives each of us an opportunity to watch how the candidate responds, and actually lets the two managers talk together. I think testing and QA are very collaborative roles, more so even than engineering, so how someone works with groups is a big deal.
• The team interviewed the candidate all together.

This seemed to work pretty well. I think part of it's use came from the way it was done:

• Each step was an immediate decision. "As soon as we're done talking, we're going to make a call, yes or no." Thus, if they got to this step, the people who went before have already said "yes."
• Each step had a job. Sanity check. Add to the organization. And fit with the team, respectively.
• I coached everyone involved in what I wanted, and explained the process to everyone involved, especially the "candidates."
• I was responsible for the process - the quality of the results, the payoff from the investment, the quality of the experience for the people doing the process, and the quality of the experience for the people who went through it. Lots of "hiring processes" aren't processes that someone owns as in is responsible for how they work.

I have seen some team interviews where the agenda of the "interview team" - the role of the team in the organization, the intended future direction, the skills to hire for - didn't match the agenda of the the organization or of the hiring manager. In my case above, I never had that problem. I have also seen team interviews where the "team" is constructed to impose some hiring controls on the manager, forcing something that should be a requirement imposed on the hiring manager or not at all. In my case, organization level policy was taken care of by HR (This was their job, as I told them.) My boss never wanted to impose any constraints on this selection process.

As for the utility of multiple-on-1 interviews, they worked for me and quite well. Each of the "other" parties involved, HR, the other manager(s), the team, kept me out of trouble more than once. I was told that stuff came out in the team interviews that wouldn't have one on one (And the team got to work together another way, so this was quite the "team building" opportunity. I'm sneaky that way.) I know stuff came out in the interviews with me and another manager that I suspect I would have missed otherwise.

I'm asking about "team" interview things, and even multiple interviews because they seem to have gone very wrong a lot of times I have seen them. One mistake, I think, is for the hiring manager to believe that they are making a decision on their own behalf. Another, I think is to believe that the organization is making a decision that is somehow spread among different people. Reality, I think, is that the hiring manager is making a decision on behalf of several groups of stakeholders. So, I got help in understanding what the stakeholders needs and concerns were. And I set up a process to keep myself honest, in a decision that remained my responsibility regardless of how I went about it.

-- JimBullock, 2003.03.01 (2003.03.02 - edits)

My current desire is to remain local ( no more freq. flyer pts right now please!) due to my need to oversee my mother's life (as she moves in with me). Anything is possible and welcome. But,...

I have interviewed with some local firms. While I draw a line at lie detectors, hair samples and writing analysis, I am looking for companies who can provide opportunities that consulting may not be able to provide - the opportunity to carry through a program of change. Cool, right?

I am tired of working with teams where there is second guessing, no accountability. "It is never our fault". Time to ask who is willing to be accountable.

When interviewing others I was always impressed by people who would step up and offer both complaints AND recommendations. I can't tell you how rare that is! Searching for that kind of courage is one of my hiring practices.

- BeckyWinant 3-3-3

Becky,

The job issues you are talking about resonate with me. I think there would be great value in "how to look for the right kind of job." We are asking similar questions from somewhat similar points of view, and different enough experiences that there's something there. I am hearing similar concerns and considerations from several (many?) people.

At the moment, I can offer being a sporadic correspondent here or via e-mail. That's what I've got. Should my chaos level go down a bit I may propose something a bit more organized, like writing an article or handbook. Something like "Getting hired in the right job when you _do_ have a clue." If anyone else wants to pick this up and run with it, that's more than fine with me.

I don't have a solution or a formular for the accountability or the followthrough problems. I think there are some ways to approach this.

-- JimBullock, 2003.03.04

"Getting hired in the right job when you _do_ have a clue." I like it.

I was pleasantly surprised that the interviewing process with this group made me very comfortable. I enjoyed the discussion. The right amount of humor and rapport building, and people seemed to say the right things about what I cared about.

By the way, I did get the job, so I will have lots of SHAPE and AYE people to help me if I am stymied. Right now I actually feel stoked.

BeckyWinant 2003-3-6

I have been hired myself by audition and also used that as a technique. I think it works well for anyone who needs to have poise in the midst of working with clients, speaking in public or beforecolleagues and similar skills. Tells you how people think.

My favorite story of the person I didn't hire was the guy who when asked "how do you conduct your classes", answered straightfaced: First I take off my jacket to show them I'm one of them. I fold it this way over the back of my chair. Then, ..." it went on like that. And yes this was an applicant who apparently had been doing this for a competitor of mine. I thought, Let him stay there!

- BeckyWinant 2003-3-6