Anonymous wrote:Have you been involved in hiring for diversity expansion? Are there quotas and how do those candidates typically fare after they've been at your company?

No quotas, but recruiting is definitely carefully done to get minorities in. I know our company has gone to job fairs and such at traditionally black schools, for example.

Have you been involved in hiring for diversity expansion? Are there quotas and how do those candidates typically fare after they've been at your company?

Anonymous wrote:

I don't understand your first question fully.

Basically, what makes an applicant an automatic rejection.

I recently got to hire half the summer interns. I hired one kid who has almost nothing impressive resume-wise, but he wrote a really impassioned cover letter and I like his drive, and that he puts in effort. Recently I got feedback that on his third day he was told that when someone calls you into their office (and you're their assistant) you should always show up with pen and paper prepared to take notes, and ever since then he always does. He always says hello to the receptionist. I like his social skills. Did he bring tons of work skills to the table? No. But he's got great drive and great attitude, and is open to learning the work. It's a great combination.

He sounds like a great kid. We've had a few who walk around with an entitled air, thinking they're big shots because they answer phones at XYZ firm. One kid is like the one you mentioned; always watching training videos and trying to improve his knowledge base.

So many things. When someone's applied and it's certain they didn't read the job description and you think "Maybe they meant to apply for a different job and this was an accident." Typos in resume or cover letter. When too many things about the person seem like a stretch - they'd be commuting two hours each way AND they are planning to get yet don't have the qualification you say is needed AND they're looking for the top of your salary range? No. When someone's clearly sent me the wrong resume (they're a teacher looking to switch to marketing and accidentally sent in their teacher resume).

Anonymous wrote:How do the problem employees manage to be hired in the first place? Are they good at making false first impressions? What about people who are terrible interviewers but make great employees? How can you spot the hidden gems and those who seem (superficially) great fits?

Nepotism! Some people interview really well but it turns out, are awful in ways you just can't predict. Like the older lady my coworker hired. On paper she was great - solid work history, solid skills, bi-lingual, great first impression. Then she started and the complaints were rolling in - she constantly talked way too loudly, wasn't a team player, talked way too much without enough substance, drank soda at her desk all day long and spilled it every other day.

There are certain things that are giveaways of nervousness. I watch body language and sometimes if I think someone has potential but came across poorly we'll bring them back for a second interview. Normally if someone is even the tiniest bit late, I throw out their resume. But when someone just moved to the area three days ago, it's pouring rain, they tripped and fell on the sidewalk and have a bloody knee and show up 20 minutes late ... well sometimes you have to be open to breaking your own rules, you know? (That is a real example that happened to someone who, it turns out, is a great asset.)

I don't understand your first question fully.

Basically, what makes an applicant an automatic rejection.

I recently got to hire half the summer interns. I hired one kid who has almost nothing impressive resume-wise, but he wrote a really impassioned cover letter and I like his drive, and that he puts in effort. Recently I got feedback that on his third day he was told that when someone calls you into their office (and you're their assistant) you should always show up with pen and paper prepared to take notes, and ever since then he always does. He always says hello to the receptionist. I like his social skills. Did he bring tons of work skills to the table? No. But he's got great drive and great attitude, and is open to learning the work. It's a great combination.

He sounds like a great kid. We've had a few who walk around with an entitled air, thinking they're big shots because they answer phones at XYZ firm. One kid is like the one you mentioned; always watching training videos and trying to improve his knowledge base.

How do the problem employees manage to be hired in the first place? Are they good at making false first impressions? What about people who are terrible interviewers but make great employees? How can you spot the hidden gems and those who seem (superficially) great fits?

Anonymous wrote:1) What makes an applicant an auto-ding?
2) How do you, personally, determine if someone is qualified, especially if you're dealing with college kids who don't really have any tangible skills?

I don't understand your first question fully. I think the answer is keywords.
For the second, I firstly judge everyone on whether they have typos in their resume and cover letter. Also, you'd be surprised by some college kids - many of them have really done some awesome things. I look at leadership skills, community building, how they communicate. If they can't say a sentence without "like"? Problem. If they can't maintain eye contact? Problem. If they check their phone during an interview? Problem.

I recently got to hire half the summer interns. I hired one kid who has almost nothing impressive resume-wise, but he wrote a really impassioned cover letter and I like his drive, and that he puts in effort. Recently I got feedback that on his third day he was told that when someone calls you into their office (and you're their assistant) you should always show up with pen and paper prepared to take notes, and ever since then he always does. He always says hello to the receptionist. I like his social skills. Did he bring tons of work skills to the table? No. But he's got great drive and great attitude, and is open to learning the work. It's a great combination.

1) What makes an applicant an auto-ding?
2) How do you, personally, determine if someone is qualified, especially if you're dealing with college kids who don't really have any tangible skills?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do HR people lord it over applicants like they're the ones making decisions? The person's supervisor, at every company I've worked at, made the decision and them the new hire processes paperwork etc with HR. HR does busywork and does NOT have any influence.

Not OP, but I do HR. I do lots of other things because it's a small company, but I'm our only HR person. I've never had an opportunity or a reason to "lord it over applicants" but I absolutely make the decision regarding 90+% of our applicants. Most people who apply for a position are never seen by the manager in charge of that position, because I make the first two cuts. I review all the application and ditch most of them. Then I interview the most qualified ones-- usually 6 or 7, depending on the haul of apps. Then I pass the three MOST qualified of those on to the manager who makes the final decision. You think managers have time to sort through hundreds of applications?? No. That's what HR is for.

So if you feel as if an HR manager has lorded something over you, my guess is that you're in the bottom tier of applicants, that you called and emailed incessantly until you were finally told "I'm sorry, this position requires a specific skill set that is not evident in your application materials", and thus decided that some dumb bitch in HR has it in for you because you're so awesome and she's so lame and obviously bitter about her life of busywork.

Wow, you sound a bit angry.

Not in the least! I might have responded in kind to a poster (whose ilk I totally recognize ) who said that everyone in my profession has no influence and only does busywork and is inclined to petty personal bad behavior... But nope, pretty happy with my spot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do HR people lord it over applicants like they're the ones making decisions? The person's supervisor, at every company I've worked at, made the decision and them the new hire processes paperwork etc with HR. HR does busywork and does NOT have any influence.

Not OP, but I do HR. I do lots of other things because it's a small company, but I'm our only HR person. I've never had an opportunity or a reason to "lord it over applicants" but I absolutely make the decision regarding 90+% of our applicants. Most people who apply for a position are never seen by the manager in charge of that position, because I make the first two cuts. I review all the application and ditch most of them. Then I interview the most qualified ones-- usually 6 or 7, depending on the haul of apps. Then I pass the three MOST qualified of those on to the manager who makes the final decision. You think managers have time to sort through hundreds of applications?? No. That's what HR is for.

So if you feel as if an HR manager has lorded something over you, my guess is that you're in the bottom tier of applicants, that you called and emailed incessantly until you were finally told "I'm sorry, this position requires a specific skill set that is not evident in your application materials", and thus decided that some dumb bitch in HR has it in for you because you're so awesome and she's so lame and obviously bitter about her life of busywork.

Wow, you sound a bit angry.

Anonymous wrote:Why do HR people lord it over applicants like they're the ones making decisions? The person's supervisor, at every company I've worked at, made the decision and them the new hire processes paperwork etc with HR. HR does busywork and does NOT have any influence.

Not OP, but I do HR. I do lots of other things because it's a small company, but I'm our only HR person. I've never had an opportunity or a reason to "lord it over applicants" but I absolutely make the decision regarding 90+% of our applicants. Most people who apply for a position are never seen by the manager in charge of that position, because I make the first two cuts. I review all the application and ditch most of them. Then I interview the most qualified ones-- usually 6 or 7, depending on the haul of apps. Then I pass the three MOST qualified of those on to the manager who makes the final decision. You think managers have time to sort through hundreds of applications?? No. That's what HR is for.

So if you feel as if an HR manager has lorded something over you, my guess is that you're in the bottom tier of applicants, that you called and emailed incessantly until you were finally told "I'm sorry, this position requires a specific skill set that is not evident in your application materials", and thus decided that some dumb bitch in HR has it in for you because you're so awesome and she's so lame and obviously bitter about her life of busywork.

Anonymous wrote:I worked in HR for a couple of years but I got so sick of screams of discrimination by minorities and pregnant/nursing women constantly complaining that company wasn't following law and hheir veiled threats of suing and I am a female. I got out of HR.

Me too. I couldn't stand this and felt like many of the people on both sides of the conflict had terrible interpersonal skills and, in some cases, were pretty crazy. I used to tell myself that these people needed a shrink more than HR or a lawyer. Eventually I changed careers and now I am a shrink. So much better (for me at least).

*tip their hand ^

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do job postings ask for salary requirements? Is your application overlooked if you do not answer?

Yes, and here's why. Let's say you are the main breadwinner of your family. You are the husband/father, and yes, your wife works, but her money goes towards vacation and camp and the cleaning lady, rather than towards the tuition and mortgage. You are out of work and looking for a new job. Your savings is dwindling, and you're feeling more and more pressure. Then you spot a job you'd be great at! At your last job you were earning $120k. This job is posted for $95-$110k depending on applicant. You JUST want to get some money coming in, so you apply. You figure, "you'll look for another job while working this one."

The most expensive time to have someone working for you is in the beginning, while they're just starting out. The company is losing money during this time - as in, they are not getting their money's wort out of you as you're ramping up.

The other reason is, if you are highly qualified for the position and based on our criteria we find we'd have to pay you $110k, we have no room in our budget for you to get raises. You're stuck.

I understand your reasoning, but there's an easy way to remedy this -- just have the company post their salary range. Then applicants can decide if they are okay with it and avoid wasting everyone's time. Why don't companies do this more often? I think it's because they don't want to top their hand and bargain against themselves in salary negotiations. I think they should just be up front and disclose the range of pay from the start. Problem is then solved.

Anonymous wrote:Why do job postings ask for salary requirements? Is your application overlooked if you do not answer?

Yes, and here's why. Let's say you are the main breadwinner of your family. You are the husband/father, and yes, your wife works, but her money goes towards vacation and camp and the cleaning lady, rather than towards the tuition and mortgage. You are out of work and looking for a new job. Your savings is dwindling, and you're feeling more and more pressure. Then you spot a job you'd be great at! At your last job you were earning $120k. This job is posted for $95-$110k depending on applicant. You JUST want to get some money coming in, so you apply. You figure, "you'll look for another job while working this one."

The most expensive time to have someone working for you is in the beginning, while they're just starting out. The company is losing money during this time - as in, they are not getting their money's wort out of you as you're ramping up.

The other reason is, if you are highly qualified for the position and based on our criteria we find we'd have to pay you $110k, we have no room in our budget for you to get raises. You're stuck.