Interviews

[craigepo]

I am hiring a new clerk, will be doing interviews all day tomorrow. I would like to pick the brain of any folks who conduct interviews.

My questions are (in no particular order): (1) What atmosphere do you attempt to setup; (2) What questions do you find useful/not useful; (3) What type of grading system do you use, and how do you assess the people you have interviewed; (4) What weight do you give to resume's; (5) Any other tips/lessons learned.

Thank you brothers/sisters

[SLVGW360]

I have hired a number of my own employees and have helped with the hiring of our class of new officers for about 12 years. I have been fortunate with my own choices with only one that I sometimes wonder about. What we do is not perfect and is very much restricted by state law. When I can, I use whatever outside resources I am allowed.

You might find this link and others at this site useful.

http://www.reid.com/educational_info...7437082&print=[print]

My experience has been that there are many who might be able to the job, but only those who really WANT to do a good job will be inclined to do it as well as you would like. It is uncovering the true motivations that will make your decision easy.

Good luck!

RB

[akv]

Sir, I've done a fair amount of this with candidates generally all of them very bright from the best schools. In my experience, most of our successful hires have been kids from good public universities as undergrads, CAL, Virginia, UT etc. These kids had to learn to grind and adapt to survive in competitive environments with no one holding their hands, and on the whole seem to have better work ethic and less sense of entitlement than private school Stanford, Duke types. As far as resumes go we want to see people finish things they started, particularly varsity athletics or other stressful activities, and we have actually had better success with kids with B averages and social skills over 4.0 engineer types who cannot tie their shoes in public. One question we always ask is tell us about something you are passionate about or an expert at, this is generally quite revealing about capability, temperment, and attitude.

Finally, if you work long hours in close proximity, the question is this someone I want to sit next to 12 hours a day for the next 5 years factors in.

[Gypsy]

I was a headhunter for 8 years...but been out of the field for 6, did a lot of interviews to determine the value to the hiring manager.

For me I always tried to create a welcoming atmosphere, but not too comfortable that the candidate felt like he/she could just kick back and relax. So, no beer. It's a fine line but I'm sure you get the idea.

Resumes are important as long as you verify what's on them.

Ultimately I always trusted my gut when it came to how they'd fit into the client's culture, that's a most important factor. I recently talked to a former hiring manager of mine in the biomed field...he said all the guys (field service engineers in this particular situation) I sent that they hired are still there and have stellar performances. They were bought out by GE Healthcare and their management team wanted to know where he (my hiring manager) found this particular group!

I always knew I was good, but it was nice to know that all these years later that people stuck and are doing so well.

Hope this helps!

[Buffalobob]

Are you hiring a clerk as in a clerk typist/secretary or a law clerk who has graduated from a law school.

I was never very successful in determining who would or would not make a good clerk typist. One thing I think is helpful when hiring a secretary is to hire a mother who really needs the job and will work hard to keep it.

First clue of an organized individual is a really great "appearing" resume. A sloppy ugly resume means disorganized. Disorganized is not a bad thing if you wish an innovative thinker but the difference between innovative and lazy must be determined.

Most surprising experience I ever had was a guy who I could not get to talk during the interview and when he called and asked why he was not selected and I told him he would not talk to me. He replied it was because I never gave him a chance to talk. Failure to be assertive in an interview where one desires a specific outcome is fatal if I am doing the hiring although one must be very careful with women to not be domineering and to provide them the comfort to speak their mind.


One thing I did as a gov't manager was to have a typed out list of 5-10 questions that I asked every individual and I hand wrote their answers on their interview sheet. That way if anyone got disturbed about my selection I would just pull out the sheets. For a water quality scientist I would ask them a question that would be beyond what college would teach them and that would cause them to have to think beyond conventional knowledge and into the state of the art and discuss extremely technical issues. This separated the BS artists from the thinkers in a hurry. It also left thee personnel specialists unable to comprehend the answers!

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by craigepo

(1) What atmosphere do you attempt to setup

I try to put the candidate at ease as soon as possible. I want his/her guard down so I can get a better evaluation. And if they can't relax a bit, that also tells me something.

Originally Posted by craigepo

(2) What questions do you find useful/not useful

I like to let them start with questions. The questions they choose to ask often tell you a lot about their work ethic and judgment. I find it useful to ask about the most interesting matter they worked on/issue they had to address/class they took -- and why they chose that one. Usually gives some insight into analytical skills.

Originally Posted by craigepo

(3) What type of grading system do you use, and how do you assess the people you have interviewed

I don't use a grading system. I principally attempt to determine analytical skills, attention to detail, writing ability, judgment, accountability and work ethic.

Originally Posted by craigepo

(4) What weight do you give to resume's

A lot, but not the way you might think. If someone has a typo or other error on their resume, they are done. If they can't proofread and perfect a resume, which is an incredibly important document for someone seeking a job, they're not going to be able to meet my expectations. I also think you can glean a lot from the way people describe their background, like whether they can write precisely and whether they understand the legal business or not.

As for the substance, I generally won't even interview anyone who has had multiple jobs in a short time frame (which suggests they won't last here either) or who can't seem to make a decision about what they want to do with their career. Pedigree is nice to have, although we have soured on hiring from certain "elite" firms because lawyers tend to get no experience there. We increasingly want to hire scrappy candidates who are trying to climb the social ladder because of this generation's acceptance of mediocrity and complete lack of shame.

Originally Posted by craigepo

(5) Any other tips/lessons learned.

I always want two writing samples that have not been edited by anyone other than the candidate. I give more weight to the writing samples than anything else.

[JMART5]

(1) What atmosphere do you attempt to setup: somewhere quiet and professional. I break the tension a little by telling them about what we do as an organization. They think I am just talking but in reality I an also watching their facial expressions and body language. For example, when I tell them we sometimes work long hours--even seven days ac. week- I look for crossed arms or legs. Once I feel like the tension has loosened up a bit, I start the questions.

(2) What questions do you find useful/not useful:

a. Tell me about yourself?
b. Would you say that you're a self starter who really doesn't need close supervision or would you feel better with more structure and supervision?
c. What was the last book you read?
d. Tell me about your most difficult on the job experience and how you handled it?

I use the resume to ask about previous experiences to see how qualified they are. Just because it is in a resume doesn't mean it actually happened. Stay away from politics, religion, and the obvious things that really aren't your business.


(3) What type of grading system do you use, and how do you assess the people you have interviewed: I setup a spreadsheet that has the most important things I am looking for across the top (Column headers) and the names of the interviewees in the rows. Important things might be oral communications, written communications, any technical requirements the position might have like math skills etc. I grade each candidate in this spreadsheet using a 1-10 scale. Specifically setup the interview questions to get enough info to be able to put a value in each cell. Before the interviews get an idea of what a great answer would look like and what a bad answer would look like. Use the same questions for all candidates. Aside from asking questions to clarify/verify experiences in the resume, I don't wander too far from my list of questions. It starts adding more subjectivity into the process. When the spreadsheet is completed for all candidates, just sum up the scores for each person. Highest score is the best candidate.

(4) What weight do you give to resume's. I use it to grade written communication skills and as a point of departure for assessing technical capabilities in the interview. I use it and the interview to grade the technically oriented important things in my spreadsheet.

(5) Any other tips/lessons learned. Nope--good luck. It can be very frustrating.

The HR folks seem satisfied with my methods above--I have a process they can see and follow if questions come up with my selection.

Mike

[JMART5]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

I try to put the candidate at ease as soon as possible. I want his/her guard down so I can get a better evaluation. And if they can't relax a bit, that also tells me something.

I like to let them start with questions. The questions they choose to ask often tell you a lot about their work ethic and judgment. I find it useful to ask about the most interesting matter they worked on/issue they had to address/class they took -- and why they chose that one. Usually gives some insight into analytical skills.

I don't use a grading system. I principally attempt to determine analytical skills, attention to detail, writing ability, judgment, accountability and work ethic.

A lot, but not the way you might think. If someone has a typo or other error on their resume, they are done. If they can't proofread and perfect a resume, which is an incredibly important document for someone seeking a job, they're not going to be able to meet my expectations. I also think you can glean a lot from the way people describe their background, like whether they can write precisely and whether they understand the legal business or not.

As for the substance, I generally won't even interview anyone who has had multiple jobs in a short time frame (which suggests they won't last here either) or who can't seem to make a decision about what they want to do with their career. Pedigree is nice to have, although we have soured on hiring from certain "elite" firms because lawyers tend to get no experience there. We increasingly want to hire scrappy candidates who are trying to climb the social ladder because of this generation's acceptance of mediocrity and complete lack of shame.


I always want two writing samples that have not been edited by anyone other than the candidate. I give more weight to the writing samples than anything else.

RL, we think alike. IMHO, your suggestions are spot on. When I find a typo or spelling/grammar error on the resume, I'm done. They don't even get an interview.

[monsterhunter]

My personal favorite questions are to ask them their greatest strength and then their biggest weakness. I then ask how these show up in their work. It's usually very insightful. I don't usually knock off points for the weakness unless it's an obvious disqualifier. Mostly, it brings out integrity in the good ones.

[Geenie]

Concerning the list of useful queries to ask candidates, I would add "Tell me something about you that would surprise me." - I think it is a question few people expect, and seeing how someone deals with it can be quite interesting.

[echoes]

When being an interviewer/ee over the years, my favorite question to ask was for the potential hire to tell me the most difficult obstacle at their last job, and how they delt with it? This question was asked after a series of mundane ones, intended to lull them into a comfortable dialouge.

This showed me two things right off the bat:

1. How quickly they could think on their feet.

2. If their response started with any kind of negitive, it was an immediate end to the Q&A, as it showed their true character.

HTH,

Holly

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by monsterhunter

My personal favorite questions are to ask them their greatest strength and then their biggest weakness.

And if they're smart, they will make that "weakness" an actual strength.

[craigepo]

Thank you for the help. I am often amazed at the width of the knowledge base on this forum.

Interviewed people all day. Some bad, some fantastic. I have come up with some rules for being interviewed.

Show up on time.
Dress like you are trying to get a job (no denim or open-toed sandals, especially in a freaking courthouse setting).
Ensure that when you list a reference, the reference won't say "he/she stole money from me".
Don't answer questions in a way that the interviewer considers drawing his pistol on you for self-defense purposes.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Gypsy

And if they're smart, they will make that "weakness" an actual strength.

"I am a workaholic."

TR

[Angry Mike]

I can only imagine someones face after that comment.