Evaluation of candidates for employment is one of the most arbitrary forms of a gamble every company has played for long. With technology and research, the risks have decreased but still, it remains pretty much inconsistent because: one, there are currently no well-defined matrices to work on; two, Digital Technology has made the availability of information disadvantageous towards recruiters; three, recruitment industry has standardized itself in a world with constantly evolving standards. Of course, exceptions are there to all, and to create these exceptions, many small steps are taken to make it in the long run.
Recruitment Revamped is a series of such little steps we are proposing to better an organization’s hiring process and employee management. And it begins with a series of most common (and clichéd) questions that need to change for the greater good. And why they need to change the way they are; how they would provide information for more informed decision; and exactly how to use them and what to expect; everything is taken into consideration with guidelines to do the same (in the end).
But first, let us elaborate on the thought process that went into the analysis.
- An interview, what we understand, is a method to extract information to make a decision.
- Questions are used to focus the flow of information to/through targeted points.
- Answers are segregated/broken-down for data to be considered.
- The whole process involves the use of reactionary mechanism of an individual’s psyche to extract unbiased (or less biased) information.
- Abstraction is used more often to decrease the biases further.
Using the above understanding, we reframed the questions to make the filtering focused on the required information directly. So, without further ado, let’s get to our first candidate:
With several variations of the question out there, it is one of the best questions to evaluate individuals. But often, the vagueness of the question itself leaves answers lacking crucial information and presentation of it. But with tips to frame it properly, it is also one of the most manipulated as well. So, what does a recruiter needs out of it? To check communication skills, focus towards information flow and filtering? Possibly, even approach to work and personal life too. Well, here are a few variations that solve the problem:
Tell me one interesting story from your past!
Tell me the one event in your life that got you this far, and how?
If your life is a movie, give me its plot/synopsis!
We have a tradition of giving 1-2 word nicknames here, so suggest one for yourselves and why that?
These variations confine the answer to limited information, leaving room for choice of better content and also, describe the progressions.
What are your weaknesses?
Since the content itself is seeking negative traits, a diplomatic manipulation is what we are asking for. And that is what we are bound to get. Changing the negativity to positivity will bring out more unbiased opinions of an individual about themselves. Thus, the variations go as:
What are the five most important strengths you need in your teammates individually to create a flawless team?
What five strong traits you need in your teammates to be invincible/unbeatable?
What are the only strong points you need in other people to win every team event?
It eases off the candidate and gives them a chance to redemption from their weaknesses described as strength in others. Also, one is compelled to present an analysis of past experience with other teams keeping things practical.
Notable Mention: “What are your strengths?” can be modified to “How do you keep your team from going down/failing?” to add the practicality in the information being asked.
Where do you see yourself in five years?
Most answers to the question will have a conflict with the level of ambitiousness and practicality to be shown, and also, may point towards a short-term stay, overall inviting diplomacy in information. And this question comes with one of the best variation so far:
What would make you stay with us for five years from now at least?
Expanding to one’s analysis of the organization or the job at least, it takes an individual’s ambition in account with an organization’s growth; it is the more important thought process that needs to be evaluated.
Notable Variation: “Where do you see the organization in five years with you?”
Notable Mention: “Why do you want to leave your current job?” to “What would make you join us?”
Why should we hire you?
This is one question that should have been eliminated long back. Isn’t it, one, the interviewer’s job to determine that, two, with all the things in their right places, a candidate can still be incompatible and vice versa, three, too offensive to ask in an open-ended deal! Anyway, the answer will have high biases and monotony. The variations proposed (with the recommendation to drop the question altogether):
What is important for you to decide on joining us?
Describe a time when you disagreed with a decision and what did you do?
While it doesn’t really contain negative, it is still an attacking question due to its framing. Just changing the voice can get better information with ease on either side. Thus, the variation suggested:
Did you ever help make a decision better, give a brief account of how?
Because it’s not about disagreeing but about why the difference and how could that be an advantage or channelized.
I would like to conclude by saying that the questions here are rephrased to meet the purpose of the interview. And in the limited time as well. And from an analytical point of view, recruitment for a job is to place a person to make it happen. And if that is evaluated with more precision, human resources can create resources that no other can, as is evident throughout the history. Further are the guidelines, as promised. And some Tips, on the house. Until next time!
Guidelines to Modify Questions (for future references and unstated questions):
- Analyze the question for elements, breaking it down to: Entities Involved, Information Involved, Relevance of Information, Distractions Involved, Tone, Approach, and Connection.
- Entities, if includes anything less than three of: the Candidate, Organization (the one being recruited for) and/or Team(Mates), Job/Workplace, and Time Frames, then it needs revamping with inclusion.
- Information Involved should contain experience, skills, learning, and/or analysis - with respect to - work, experience, approach, application, observation, and so, to keep a check on its relevance. A question must be so that at least two factors from the former set must be targeted with respect to two from the latter set to maintain the efficiency of Information Flow.
- Distractions are the premises that the question covers, willingly, in order to impart meaning to the Information Extracted. It is a form of Residual Information which is quintessential to define the frame of references. Since it is obvious to reduce them, thus, keep the frame of references in check by limiting them through connections, time periods, and scenarios.
- Tone and Approach are, on a basic level, the same factors, only tone (positive, negative, passive-aggressive, etc) is identified sub-consciously and approach (aggressive, invasive, interested, etc.) is identified consciously. Modifying them to be neutral or positively aligned is the best way. Also, two extremes can be used (with care) together to maintain the general neutrality of the tone and/or approach.
- Connection is the inter-reliability of the different information sets/types which ‘weaves’ together the response to a question. For an efficient flow of information, a connection between the elements, including the distractions, is necessary.
Tips and Tricks:
- While working to modify the questions, try to ask yourself or get a current employee to help in the exchange, asking and being asked.
- Recording interviews on voice channels for post-interview analysis is also a good method. However, do not let the latter analysis to manipulate the initially developed perspective nor the action based on it. Interviewing is much more of an intrinsic evaluation than we think.
- Its best to keep technical questions untouched and maintain their complications, these are only for the general personality testing questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment