Joe wrote:


So...... after the Face to Face you use the test....then what do you
use the results for?

HR are reccomendors and gate keepers...nothing else. If I were to ever
need to interview with a company..... I would not be interviewing with
HR Katy.

BTW job hunters don't schedule interviews, employers do. While it's
the smart job candidate's challenge to take control of an interview,
it's the employer who sets the tone. If that tone isn't one of clear
mutual respect, all is lost.

A respectful meeting with a job candidate should be a challenging but
appropriate engagement of two professionals.

If I interview I'm not there "at your pleasure." I've come to your
office to conduct business and to derive some gain for myself. Your
company should treat me as if he were a prospective customer coming to
visit your facility.

Don't be presumptuous. Don't ask me to open my kimono until you've
opened yours. Don't poke and prod too soon. Imagine going on a first
date and asking a person you barely know about the facts and figures of
her life: "Who are your parents? How were you raised? Why is it you're
attracted to me? How many kids do you want to have?" Don't laugh. The
analogy is very apt. Nothing upsets me like a presumptuous interviewer,
and rightly so.

Cut to the chase. If you want to show a candidate true professional
respect, don't interview him. Instead, have a working meeting. In what
I call "the New Interview," the subject of your meeting isn't the
candidate, your company or even the job. The subject is the work.
That's the great equalizer. That's the subject that opens up all the
other hidden doors to a candidate's personality, character and
background.

When you're sizing up someone you might want to marry, you don't ask
them to tell you all about themselves, or even to demonstrate how
wonderful they are. Instead, you spend time with them in real-life
situations where you can do things together so you can see first-hand
how they perform and how the two of you get along. The less contrived
the situation, the more valid the data you'll get.

The same goes for an interview. Why ask a candidate "interview
questions" when the career counseling industry publishes crib sheets of
the most clever, most "right" answers? Forget about quizzing the
candidate. Work with him. Watch. Talk. Listen. This is where you learn
whether he's "marrying material".

Put the work first. Work with the candidate, right there in the
interview, or you learn next to nothing about the candidate and he
learns nothing about you.

Don't waste everyone's time. Address the work first because it's the
first deal-breaker. Deal with personality, philosophy and even
credentials later.

A job candidate is an invited guest to be shown hospitality and
respect.
IBM's old adage still holds in the business world, even if everyone has
forgotten it: THINK.
Recruiting and interviewing are not an administrative process. This is
a highly social art: the art of tactful influence. You're guiding
professionals into your fold. Do it gently. Do it responsibly. You must
constantly keep your eyes on the state of the candidate. Is he warming
up? Is he glowing? Is he confused? Is he smiling? Is he disgusted?
What he thinks when he leaves the interview is your responsibility. And
it could be your downfall.

If I chose to interview I better have the companys respect. If I don't
get it, I would walk.


Joe





katy wrote:
Joe wrote:
katy wrote:
Joe wrote:
katy wrote:
jlrogers±³© wrote:
http://similarminds.com/myers-briggs-jung.html

INTJ

ESTJ-Administrator

I used the Jungian Personality test when I was still in HR for hiring
executive staff...
It's one of the best HR tools out there and is fairly accurate as long
as the testee is honest and has some slef-perception...problems arise,
though, when people have convinced themselves they are something they
are not...
As a caindate for any position you research company policy's, ethics,
workstyle, culture, ect... before you go and get grilled by the HR
wennie. That makes filling out any personality test a simple process
that you taylor to fit the companies want's and desires to a T.

They are useless unless your testing ditch diggers or bed pan washers,
looking to screen out a physco.

HR tool....Bwahahahahahahahahaha

Joe

Yes, some tests can be messed with, but most testing companies have
built-ins (that's why the professional versions of that same test have
over 200 questions...) The questions are posed over and over again in
diferent frameworks...if you mess about too much, it triggers that there
is something wrong and the score indicates that....it is a tool, not the
end-all be-all for hiring...it is only used after a decision has been
made to proceed and is not used AS the decision.
So it's hocus pocus that has the ability to override a face to face
decision?

They are not good tools.
Did you make canidates stick a finger in a bowl of water and look for
ripples?

HR needs no tools other than paper clips, and maybe rubber finger boots
to protect from shuffeling paper, HR people are not decision makers at
most companies.

The only test that should be given are ones that relate to what value
that canidate has to offer your company. Infact he should be working
for you in an interview, making you money. If he can not do that...who
want's him or her anyway?

Joe

I get it...mo one will hire you, eh? Read, Joe. I said the test is
used after everything else...after the face-to-face....must be tedious
for you having to stand in the unemployment line...no wonder you;ve
become the yard sale tinkerman...

So what magazine did you copy that from? Forbes? Money? Joe, you're
the ultimate sham...and aside from Ms Terro, I doubt anyone else is
interested in what resides behind your kimona....