1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Business or Entrepreneurial questions? BizWarriors is completely FREE - paid for by advertisers and donations. Click here to join today! You can now use your Facebook or Twitter account to regsiter or login. If you're new to the BizWarriors Forum, we highly recommend that you visit our Guide for New Members.

Talent based hiring

Discussion in 'Employees and Human Resources' started by remnant, Feb 26, 2016.

Share This Page

  1. remnant

    remnant Member

    Most companies hire on the basis of paper qualifications. Interviews are not foolproof. They tend to hire the best actors not performers. Some people take courses and careers based on their market and monetary outlook but rarely on their abilities. I think it is time for a rethink. Many star performers never took courses in their field of study. Not that a good education will not do. Education is alright. Don't you think it is time for a paradigm shift?
    Brittney and setupdisc like this.
  2. Corazon

    Corazon Member

    Over here, the labor law on probationary period is the answer to that - to know the performance of an applicant vis-a-vis his resume. I agree that there are ideal resumes but the owner is not a good performer. In my position, interviewing an applicant for my section is part of my duty and I believe that interviews only provide the surface of the iceberg. There is more to learn about a worker like his working style, his social idiosyncrasy, etc. After working with him for a month, that's the only time you will see his real character and personality.

    And if he doesn't fit the bill then the recourse is to give him 1 month notice to look for another job because he will not be hired permanently.
    setupdisc likes this.
  3. setupdisc

    setupdisc Member

    You're both right. From what I have seen, often times there is a strange relationship between the probationary period, and how well the person may conform to the talent or acting position within a corporate profile even more than their performance and abilities to complete the job well. It's like the "professional adult version" of...gym class kickball!

    The boss is the coach. Who will they choose for their team? The people who can play...or...the people who "look" like they can play who may or may not...or worse, the ones they "want" on the team who can't, while keeping just the minimum staff on-hand that they will overwork and expect the most from while they kick back and let their buddies slide?

    There are times and positions in which the probationary period still does let the candidate examplify whether they have the adequate qualifications needed to do the job they were hired for satisfactorily, but I've witnessed numerous occasions where the one who played a role or acted the best for the social status of the role were hired instead. The person who was more qualified? They didn't make it, and it was usually a kangaroo-court of a reason as to why on the determination.

    I say this completely from witnessing it, and not from being the recipient. There are times I have been, but only very few in contrast to the many times I have seen this happen to others if they were newly hired.

    Usually those who are newly hired, are younger, or are seen as expendable are not always given a fair shake in their new associations. Sometimes it isn't a good fit, but often times they would have fit just fine and did an excellent job if not for politics in the workplace prohibiting their acceptance and rightful opportunity to be able to perform and prove their worth to them.

    You see, there may be equal opportunity employment and hiring to where no race, sex, or creed may be discriminated against...but there are so many ways that people in groups or workplace environments are able to get around this. Some will sabotage the efforts of another, or give recognition to colleagues who participate in "getting rid of the new guy".

    If you don't participate, there are even managers in some companies who give you a lower priority for working and hours if you don't! Companies like these are surely ones to be avoided, but sadly you're going to find that type of behavior and conduct being done in nearly every kind of major company or corporation that is established now. It doesn't happen that often in medium or small business, but it still can if there is a bad egg who comes along from one of those places and tries to make it like that.

    The very best work and employment without being a contractor that I had ever seen were in environments where people treated each other well regardless of their status or job position, recognizing each as a valuable and quality human being, and giving them respect and due regard as they earn and deserve. When you have a job with a place like that, you tend to tolerate the long hours and extra work put in without as much pay a lot more because you can appreciate being able to go there and be glad that you have the coworkers and situation that you do.

    Again, I have been fortunate during the times that I did work within a corporate environment and not as a contractor to very rarely be on that end of the stick directly. The few times when it did happen, I was able to put an end to it quickly on my own terms. Since I had seen it done to others elsewhere, I was able to put my foot down on it quickly before they were able to get away with it. So having to see that happen to others and not be able to do anything about it was not entirely invain.:oops:

    There are others who are well-versed in what is going on and perceptive in this way to be able to do so, too. Unfortunately, newcomers to certain types of jobs and hiring practices and workplace politics may not see it until it's too late or at all...and they'll end up getting hurt emotionally, financially, or both because of it.

    One of the things I love about being self-employed and as a contractor is that I don't have to endure such things any longer. I can set the terms of a job and the acceptance for it, and if the person doesn't follow through with their end of the agreement, then they lose the first part of their investment and my time is compensated for. If for some reason there is something on my end such as a health issue, personal delay, or Act of God type of event to where a natural disaster or something else happens...then I can reimburse them if I am the one that wasn't able to adhere to the terms for some reason.

    In either case, it is a much better arrangement, because people don't treat you like mud by being given a status quo over you in a workplace environment, and also you don't have to follow their rules or they yours. As long as you are respectful of your obligation and job title to be a decent human being while you do your job, everything is right as rain. :)

    I would suppose that being a contractor relieves you of most of the red tape and absurdities that are dealt with by employees on probationary periods and hiring policies. I understand that not everyone wants to be a contractor or work for themselves...but if it is an option, I highly recommend it over the alternative.
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2016
    T J Tutor and Federico.Gimeno like this.
  4. Federico.Gimeno

    Federico.Gimeno Member

    I'm one of the filters in my current job when it comes to talent acquisition for my project. I feel we don't have enough tools / time to assess the talent of the applicants accurately... So we must come up with some quick veredict based on the papers, the experience they say they have and the interview results. I'm sure we have missed some valuable resources because of this, and as well, we have let in some real deceivers whose talent is nonexistent (but have tons of paper certifications), having to fire them after a month or two.
  5. ruener79

    ruener79 Member

    In the company that I used to work for, we actually did that: talent-based hiring. My former boss reiterated not to consider the resume or the diploma as the deciding factor for recruitment. His instruction has always been hire people who are smarter than you. Don't look at which school they come from, but rather test on whether they can actually do the job that they are required to do. In his years in the business, he's learned that the person's skills and right attitude will make him/her a good employee. The good scholastic credentials is but a bonus.
  6. Jessica Danes

    Jessica Danes MVP Member

    As a small kitchen store, I look for employees who can think quickly on their feet, retain knowledge, and have a goodness about them that radiates to the customers. For me, the degree doesn't matter. I would much rather take the time to get to know my employees, their goals and aspirations, than judge them based on the college they chose to attend. I do look at their resume and where they attended, but I use it more as a talking point. I grew up in the town where I now have my business, so I often went to the same school as my employees. It acts as a connection we share, and I think it's great to have a reliable worker whom you can connect to.
  7. Brittney

    Brittney Member

    Yes... I conduct interviews, afterwhich, if I hire, at the end of the on-boarding process, I assign the new hire a new hire project, that is relevant and demonstrative of their job functions. They complete it well, they stay on board. They don't complete things well, immediate termination.

Share This Page