In the thread "Operator error, system, or both?" under Nonconformance and Corrective Action Systems Nonconformances and defects - Operator error, system, or both? (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=5364) we got ever so slightly off track, and discussed how to make certain you're hiring the right person?

I think that question deserves a thread of its own....

How do you do it?
What are your results? (Given a second chance a year later: Would you still hire them?)
Lessons learned?

Lets hear it...

/Claes

As I mentioned previously, I've always taken hiring my assistants/staff VERY seriously yet I'm probably only 70-80% in the "would you hire them again a year later" category. I've used some short knowledge-based tests as one factor in the hire/don't hire equation as well as input from the Receptionist (how did they act, look and treat you when dropping off the application/resume and while waiting for the interview). Resume's with any typo's or errors are very serious infractions to me and makes it unlikely you'll make it to an interview. I ask for transcripts from high school and college/tech school including attendance if possible. I call references. I spend lots of time in the interview asking questions and asking them to ask ME questions. I really want them to have a good picture of the job as well as me wanting to get a good picture of them, so I take them to the work area , explain it to them, and let them talk to some of the people they'll work with for a few minutes. I offer to let them call or e-mail me with any questions they think of after the interview in case they forget something. I or HR go over the benefits/pay stuff thoroughly. I look at their attire (is it appropriate), speaking skills/vocabulary, general demeanor, handshake, and even my Magic 8-Ball. They I pick and hope for the best.

I've used some short knowledge-based tests
We were informed by HR that we can't use these tests, some legal issue now. However, HR does do a background check, credit history check, education check, etc.. You would think you were putting in an application at the CIA or FBI. With prior employers not allowed to give "bad" references you really have to read between the lines. In the end I don't think you really know if you've hired the right person, but I will garuntee that before the 90 day trial is up, I know if I have to get rid of them or not.

Stew,

Yeah, I caught some crap from HR about my tests, which I made-up myself just to cover the basics as I've had some people come in with a recent degree in XX only to find they couldn't get a 50% on a test covering the very basics of that discipline such as a person with a EE degree who didn't seem to be familiar with the basics of Ohm's law.:rolleyes: But, HR told me I should not do that because some PC goofball applicant might say it was a biased test (relative to some protected class i.e. race, religion, etc.) if not approved by some outside organization. :rolleyes: :mad:

I have to admit I have had a few people who performed excellently thru the 90 day probation only to go to pot (literally on one occasion!) after they made it thru "probation". Maybe you're a better judge of character than me.

Randy,

Please inform your HR department that you can indeed use "knowledge-based" tests. In fact, you do just that in your interviews, if you ask about prior experience. Evaluating knowledge is particularly important when selecting personnel who will receive minimal or no additional training and must be "competent, aware and trained" to perform their functions.

What you cannot do is use personality or aptitude tests that may discriminate between members of various "protected classifications". You may, however, still use aptitude tests, filtering with "norms" for the various groups. However, you still need to demonstrate "job relevance" for the aptitudes measured. The "wild card" is to establish "bona fide occupational qualifications". For example, my company is a commercial printer. We use color vision testing to screen applicants for press positions as they are required to evaluate color to determine match to Client specifications. However, we do not use the same test to screen accounting personnel...

I let the HR guys and the legal teams get involved in all that. Even if we auditors are good at interpretations I still find myself scared to death of legalese!!!
Maybe you're a better judge of character than me.
I'm not trying to say or claim that. Doing a few tours on a submarine may have helped but you still have your few Cheech & Chongs that get by. If they have passed the initial drug test and get caught latter so be it. If it wasn't for masking or beating drug testing we wouldn't have all those politicians, pro athletes, etc. :vfunny:

We use to give potential employees 13 numbers, ranging from 2 to 5 digits with decimals, to add. You may be surprised how many degreed people couldn't do it without a calculator!!! And this was for an engineering field!!!!:bonk:

As an HR/Trainer, I can feel for all of the above comments. It has become amazingly frustrating to hire a person. We had a nationally known company in the area fined over $600,000 for discriminatory practices by the DOL. What they were doing was requiring applicants to complete the application in the HR office. They did this because in the past there were applicants who they hired and found out they could not read the orders for the products that need to be made.

At my company, we had to stop giving a simple tape measure test. It was a 10 question test for our one plant that had a requirement to be able to read the tape measure to the 1/16th of an inch. In the last group of applicants (15 people), there were 8 people who scored less than 50 %. On one person got one right, 2". Now if we were to hire any of these eight people the potential for the quality of our products to be bad would be very high.

I think the sadist note about all of this is that of the 8 people, 6 had graduated from high school. :confused:

I can only shake me head in amazement. :confused:

Nav,

Can you give any details on either one as to WHY? WHY is it discriminatory to require the application be filled-out in the HR office? WHY is your tape measure test considered a no-no?

It seems to me the only thing "discriminatory" about them is they "discriminate" against those who can't read, write, or measure, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, sex, or anything else that might be "protected", which is what we want to do. Isn't it?

Can someone please educate me as to how either scenerio is unfair/discriminatory?:confused:

Any HR gurus in the Cove???

Mike,

The attachment is a copy of what was put out by a local company about this whole testing issue. The latter part of the article talks about some options the company can provide to help organizations with coming up with good testing criteria. It's not that it can't be done, but things do tend to get pretty challenging.

So don't blame the HR department completely. They are on a very tight wire and many times it seems to be really high above the ground. :frust: And it seems to raise up higher every once in a while. :vfunny:

We love standards so much in down under land, that we have a whole series of them on adequate HR practices associated with recruitment.

They're actually pretty thorough, asnd following a recognised standard gives you a great legal out if you prove you're just following the standard.

Below (next paragraph) is a section from the article Nav posted a link to. I guess it is just another example of the "I'm never at fault" mentality that has permeated our country and it sickens me. This is insane -- if the job was for a medical doctor and most medical doctors are men or white, is this discriminating against women or non-whites? Maybe someone here at the Cove can explain the "logic" of this to me, because I just don't get it!

"For example, a manufacturer was recently fined over $600,000 for discriminating against minorities. Several years ago this company implemented a requirement that all new hires must have a high school degree or equivalency certificate. Sounds like a good thing, right? Wrong! By requiring a high school education as a condition of employment, a disproportionate number of minorities were disqualified. Why? Because Blacks and Hispanics have a higher dropout rate than Whites. Many of the jobs required minimum reading levels to follow the instructions and read the blueprints and schematics. In order to find people who could read, the company had to discriminate. But discrimination is illegal according to the government and so this company was fined. What happens now is the company lowered their hiring standard and the next round of new hires didn’t complete high school and can’t read. If they can’t read, they likely will make more mistakes and have more accidents. If they make mistakes, it costs the company money, lots of money in re-makes and lost orders. If they have more accidents, they likely will be fined by OSHA for safety violations, not counting the lost work-time and increased insurances, but at least they won’t get fined for discrimination."

David Mullins said:

We love standards so much in down under land, that we have a whole series of them on adequate HR practices associated with recruitment.

They're actually pretty thorough, asnd following a recognised standard gives you a great legal out if you prove you're just following the standard.

Bloke,

Are these government standards or international standards or what? Can you post them or references to them, etc. I'm curious as to what they say.

Try this good tip...........

http://www.bbc.co.uk - Link was: /comedy/theoffice/wisdom/wisdom3_6.shtml

A few months ago I was told to attend a training seminar for the CIDS program (pronounced Kids). CIDS = Chronological In-Depth Structured - it is an Interview Guide. I have now used the process during at least a dozen interviews.

CIDS method is OK, but requires far more time to cover all the material than one is given for an interview. It does however provide several good questions, and you can be selective and create an "interview plan" tailored to your needs. The program teaches you about hiring 'A' and 'B' players, and avoiding the 'C' player.

If you are ever offered an opportunity to be trained in the CIDS program, I think it is worth the time.

- D_Wood -

Mike S. said:

What happens now is the company lowered their hiring standard and the next round of new hires didn’t complete high school and can’t read. If they can’t read, they likely will make more mistakes and have more accidents. If they make mistakes, it costs the company money, lots of money in re-makes and lost orders. If they have more accidents, they likely will be fined by OSHA for safety violations, not counting the lost work-time and increased insurances, but at least they won’t get fined for discrimination."

A HR Person in the making? An auditor? Not the MR?
:vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

Looks like that guy in the picture was speaking from experience!



:bonk:

Root cause. Duh?:frust: :ko: :smokin:

Now, on both of those pictures, who is at fault, the system or the person? Oh sorry, wrong thread! :biglaugh: