How do you (try to) make certain you're hiring the right person?

[Claes Gefvenberg]

In the thread "Operator error, system, or both?" under Nonconformance and Corrective Action Systems Nonconformances and defects - Operator error, system, or both? 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

[Mike S.]

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.

[Randy Stewart]

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.

[Mike S.]

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. 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.

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.

[Bruce Wade]

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...

[Randy Stewart]

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.

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!!!!

[Nav]

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.

I can only shake me head in amazement.

[Mike S.]

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?

Any HR gurus in the Cove???