Inscrivez-vous ou connectez-vous pour rejoindre votre communauté professionnelle.
<p style="text-align:justify;">Selection through one or two interviews seems to be a fairy tale nowadays. Interviews these days have become more of a scary show. Going for an interview has become more like going for a war. Should the candidate not be comfortable while taking interview? Why do candidates feel like going through serious trauma when being interviewed. Why not make it simple for every candidate.</p> <p style="text-align:justify;"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify;">Are the HR not skilled enough to check the talent inside a candidate through1 ...2 ... or3 ... interviews?</p> <p style="text-align:justify;"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify;">Why has it become so dramatic for a candidate who is dragged through more than10 rounds of interview? </p> <p style="text-align:justify;"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify;"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify;">Do we really need to grill and fry the candidate through all those heat channels; even for a simple analyst role the interview process has become so complicated as if he is going to lead the company.</p> <p style="text-align:justify;">Why are we not focusing just on what is going to be the primary duty of the candidate? </p> <p style="text-align:justify;"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify;">It is fine if you are looking for some additional talent, but do you really need to judge the candidate so many scales. </p> <p style="text-align:justify;"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify;">These dramatic interviews and long procedures is not only wasting time of both candidate and employer but is also too much expensive and resource consuming. </p> <p style="text-align:justify;"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify;">Every organization needs good talented employees, but above all they need a great HR equipped with creativity and talent. We need to go beyond the classic ages of interviewing the candidate using the regular procedures and adapt some creative ways to handle the interviews. </p> <p style="text-align:justify;"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify;"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify;">Is this not a waste of time and resources? </p> <p style="text-align:justify;"> </p>
Unfortunately, we live in age where the recruitment of new staff is being left in the hands of the immediate manager rather than HR taking full responsibility for this. Remember, HR is about protecting the business not the employee. There is a misconception that HR is setup strictly to help employees. HR can provide advice about certain issues but they are ultimately there to protect the concerns of business, not the employee. Once an employee understands this, it helps them to focus on realizing that they are on their own and need to get this job by themselves. It is up to them to give good interviews and get through the maze of interviews and aptitude tests.
It could be that as the manager or representative will be working with the successful candidate, they want to make sure that they pick the candidate who they think will fit in with the rest of the team and whose personality and aspirations fit in with the managers.
I've heard of2 or3 interviews for a job, more than that is quite excessive.
Many businesses have suffered/are suffering from a high turnover of staff and the knock effect of this could be the large number of interviews candidates are having to attend in order to prove they are genuinely interested in the job and dedicated to the process of being recruited.
Unfortunately, it appears that many businesses are not looking into why there is a high turnover of staff and addressing issues. This could help them with recruitment of staff in the future. Instead they are looking to recruit staff without being clear about what they want or need from a candidate.
Getting interviewsis done in as few as interviews as possible leads to a more successful and satisfying process for both interviewer and interviewee.
Every company wants to hire most productive, highly motivated and most relevantly skilled person in the organization who can add more value to their system/operation and the best possible ways to hire such candidate is to scrutinize him/her by letting go through various steps of interactions.
The truth is that in many companies to make the interviews are persons not qualified to make that job.
You can find new graduates making the screening of CVs in a few minutes, or you can find people conducting interviews without any knowledge about the professionality they are looking for or without any knowledge about any operative job in a company.
Many years ago i was interviewd by a Headhunter who asked me:
"what was your preferred game when you were a little boy?"
My answer was: "the Meccano"
"Well - said the interviewer - so you NOW HAVE a motorcycle!"
"No - I said - i do not have a motorcycle now."
A little upset the interviewer told me: "so you love to cook!"
I was a little bit confused and i answered: "i do not love to cook and i do not have a motorcycle, and therefore?".
The interviewer, very proud of himself, told me:"according to a study made in USA, a child who played with the Meccano, when older will have the motorcycle if he/she is a risk taker, but will love to cook if he/she does not want to face risks!"
End of the story: I did not go forward in the selection because the interviewer was not able to classify me! He chosed another person for the position. After some years there was another selection conducted by another Headhunter for the same position and same company. I was selected and I took the job and.... I had to solve all the problems not solved by the one was selected by the previuos Headhunter with his statistics/studies that are put in place in other countries/other cultures, with a limited sample of individuals, with pre-determined schemes. The real life is different. If somebody knows her/his job must be analysed by making professional questions related to that job.
Rarely I have met interviewers able to ask me questions related to my job. And the most of them think to be clever when you are not able to answer to their silly questions that are not even linked with the daily life.
Every company wants to hire most productive, highly motivated and most relevantly skilled person in the organization who can add more value to their system/operation and the best possible ways to hire such candidate is to scrutinize him/her by letting go through various steps of interactions.
You can correlate this process to water purification (reverse osmosis) method where water is passed through various filters, membranes and even UV rays to ensure the desired output.
It depends how big is the organisation and the structure, a bureaucratic structure demands this; but once you land a job here there are lesser chances of being kicked out just like that.
