I always enjoyed standardized tests. I did well on my SATs and my GREs. Don’t ask for numbers, I’m not getting into a pissing contest.
On the other hand, many of my friends hated these exams. They didn’t “test well.”
One of my clients uses standardized testing for all new hires, including the most senior positions in the firm. They believe so strongly in this method, that they have failed many excellent candidates based on the results.
Despite my own track record and the belief of my one client, I recommend against personality testing in favor of a less rigid approach. I trust a well-constructed interview process, more than I trust an exam. I also think it sends a negative impression to senior executive candidates.
Have you ever undergone a personality test as part of an interview process? How did it work out?
Contact Jason Sanders
Monday, June 30, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Race and Sex
While I have seen many instances of benign age discrimination, I have rarely seen race, gender or sexual orientation used as qualifiers.
There have been exceptions. I can think of a search where a company was looking to differentiate its onshore outsourcing offering, from similar offshore offerings. In this case, the client did not want to hire Indian or Chinese salespeople because the whole the firm competed specifically with companies based in those countries.
I was a bit hesitant about taking the search. I had a conversation with one of my Indian partners, and beat around the bush a bit, in the same way the client did with me. My new partner said, ”Ok, so you don't want an Indian, you are looking for an American, right?” Despite my discomfort, he seemed completely unphased by the conversation.
I have had clients tell me it would be great to have a woman or a minority as a new employee. From what I can tell, though, I have never had a client use race or gender as a deciding factor to hire, or not to hire a candidate.
As far as sexual orientation goes, I can only think of two times where candidates made me aware that they were gay. They shared this with the client. One got the job, one didn’t. Again, I do not believe sexual orientation was a deciding factor in either case.
I hear so much about division in our country, but I just haven’t seen it, have you?
Monday, June 16, 2008
So You Think You're Too Old?
Ageism is expressly forbidden by our legal system. So that means it doesn’t exist, right?
In my early days as a cub recruiter, I learned to use age as a qualifier right along with skills, compensation and career progression. We discussed age only in hushed tones, and were suprised to see date of birth emblazoned so prominently on foreign resumes. Age is most important as a component of career progression.
The fact is that accomplishment over time reveals a person’s career trajectory. This trajectory much more important than age, but they typically translate into the same thing. If someone becomes CIO at 40, that person’s ability to accomplish more during their career is greater than the CIO at 55. It also indicates a record of achievement at an earlier age, and hence, better prospects for the future.
It stands to reason, that if you have a search that requires a CIO with five years experience, you will choose the 45-year-old, who now has five years on the job, over the 60 year old, who has the same experience in that role.
Shouldn’t we just be honest about the way we use age as a qualifier?
Contact Jason Sanders
In my early days as a cub recruiter, I learned to use age as a qualifier right along with skills, compensation and career progression. We discussed age only in hushed tones, and were suprised to see date of birth emblazoned so prominently on foreign resumes. Age is most important as a component of career progression.
The fact is that accomplishment over time reveals a person’s career trajectory. This trajectory much more important than age, but they typically translate into the same thing. If someone becomes CIO at 40, that person’s ability to accomplish more during their career is greater than the CIO at 55. It also indicates a record of achievement at an earlier age, and hence, better prospects for the future.
It stands to reason, that if you have a search that requires a CIO with five years experience, you will choose the 45-year-old, who now has five years on the job, over the 60 year old, who has the same experience in that role.
Shouldn’t we just be honest about the way we use age as a qualifier?
Contact Jason Sanders
Monday, June 9, 2008
Habitual Job Hopping
Job hoppers are great for recruiters. Every time they make a change there is a fee to be made. But is job hopping good for you?
Surprisingly, it may be. But there are qualifiers.
If you are a programmer or an architect and you want to build your skills, job hop.
If you are a sales person trying to stay ahead of new technologies, job hop.
If you are an aspiring CIO, job hop, but do it smartly.
Most executives resumes that I review have between five and ten different employers, depending on age. This is a good thing. You build skills and open new opportunities when you change jobs.
If you want to advance in your career, you will probably want to change jobs every three to seven years. Leave a number of positions sooner than three years and you will show lack of commitment. At seven years, you may find it difficult to leave, and many recruiters shy away from recruiting candidates with more than ten years at one company; especially larger companies. We used to call these people, “company men.” Their skill sets may be too specific to that company, and their work style may be difficult to change.
What do you think, job hoppers? What do you think company men and women?
Contact Jason Sanders
Surprisingly, it may be. But there are qualifiers.
If you are a programmer or an architect and you want to build your skills, job hop.
If you are a sales person trying to stay ahead of new technologies, job hop.
If you are an aspiring CIO, job hop, but do it smartly.
Most executives resumes that I review have between five and ten different employers, depending on age. This is a good thing. You build skills and open new opportunities when you change jobs.
If you want to advance in your career, you will probably want to change jobs every three to seven years. Leave a number of positions sooner than three years and you will show lack of commitment. At seven years, you may find it difficult to leave, and many recruiters shy away from recruiting candidates with more than ten years at one company; especially larger companies. We used to call these people, “company men.” Their skill sets may be too specific to that company, and their work style may be difficult to change.
What do you think, job hoppers? What do you think company men and women?
Contact Jason Sanders
Monday, June 2, 2008
Euphemisms
As I mentioned in the previous post, no one wants to admit to ba firing. The hiring manager doesn’t want to because your failure is his failure. HR doesn’t want to because it can bring up legal issues. Recruiters don’t want to because it affects their ability to earn money by placing you. And you surely don’t want to.
The common interest in not admitting to a firing creates language that you can use to get around a direct discussion of the event. Here are some phrases used to blur the lines:
What are some creative explanations that you have heard from job seekers?
Contact Jason Sanders
The common interest in not admitting to a firing creates language that you can use to get around a direct discussion of the event. Here are some phrases used to blur the lines:
- We both agreed that I had completed the job.
- There was no more room for growth at that company.
- There was a change that made it difficult to remain with the company.
- The company made promises when I joined that they did not keep.
- I made a mistake by joining that company.
What are some creative explanations that you have heard from job seekers?
Contact Jason Sanders
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)