Irritating Habits of HR People

[Torm]

Warning: This is something of a rant, but it contains a couple of serious questions. I know there are some HR and other hiring types on the board, and I'd really like to know.

1. Why don't potential employers read resumes?

And I'm not talking about every resume sent to them. I understand that could get tedious. But I've noticed that in virtually every interview I've done so far, the interviewer has not read my resume with any sort of thoroughness. I would think that if they were going to give someone face time they would want to be as prepared as possible for it, but every time, I find myself giving details that tell me, "I didn't read anything other than the top couple of lines, and I don't really care about your training, skill, or experience, I just want to know whether or not you can shmooze me."

The most irritating ones are the ones who call for a "pre-qualification" phone interview, waste my time, and then ask whether I have specific certifications or major abilities (whole programming languages or OSes, for example) that are not listed on my resume and are required for the position. Duh. If I had a skill or certificate that could make me more money, or get me a job more quickly, would it not be listed on my resume?

2. Why in the eitch-ee-double-hockey-sticks do they ask why I am the superior choice over the other candidates?

This is something that must be in some HR playbook somewhere, but it is completely stupid, and I can't help but politely point out how little sense it makes when I'm asked it. (Which probably hasn't helped me get a job, but....) Ask what I feel my most important feature is for filling the position - that's fine. But the other question asks me to compare myself to people whose skill sets I'm unaware of. "I am your most experienced candidate with 10 years in the computer field .... oh, one of the other resumes is Woz? Oh, um, well, nevermind. " See? Completely stupid.

And 3. Why all the shopping around?

I don't understand why these people feel the need to play shopping games. If they would hire the first person they get who is qualified, answered their questions more or less right, and passed the screening stuff (drug test, criminal background check, etc.) they would fill the position quicker, and just as reliably if not more so. Instead, the person they ultimately hire is the person who is best at playing the HR game, rather than necessarily best at the actual position, and the process just drags on and on.

So how about it, folks? Answers? Insights? Similar experiences? Shoot.

 

[Psionicist]

Speaking of resumees, here's a good article: Getting Your Résumé Read.

2. Why in the eitch-ee-double-hockey-sticks do they ask why I am the superior choice over the other candidates?

Because it's the "in" thing to ask. Either that, or because they are morons. (Feel better now? )

 

[IronWolf]

I am not HR, but I have interviewed folks for a fair number of IT positions, so read with the grain of salt.

1. Why don't potential employers read resumes?

If you made it to the interview process, I read your resume. In fact you are apt to get some rather pointed questions about either the certs you may hold or pieces of experience you have had.

2. Why in the eitch-ee-double-hockey-sticks do they ask why I am the superior choice over the other candidates?

This is something that must be in some HR playbook somewhere, but it is completely stupid, and I can't help but politely point out how little sense it makes when I'm asked it. (Which probably hasn't helped me get a job, but....)

I would recommend using this choice to sell yourself and not debate the reasonableness of the question. Who cares how much experience the others interviewing for the position? Sell yourself to the interviewer. Why should they hire you? Let them know how good you are, how you go above and beyond and how you will help their company in the end. Answering this question well could really help tip the scales to your side for getting hired. This is a flat out moment for you to brag. Recovered a failed production server in less than an hour? Tell me about it. Wrote a script that automated some process for free? Tell me about it.

And 3. Why all the shopping around?

How do I know you are the best if I haven't looked at the others? I have to see some of the field before I can determine who the *most* qualified and which will fit best personality wise with the existing team.

Just my takes on it....

 

[MaxKaladin]

Oh good grief, don't get me started on the whole hiring process. It seems tailor made to ensure one of the schmoozers will get the job no matter how qualified (or not) they are while folks like me (who aren't any good at the people games but who happen to be really good at our work) get shut out again and again. It feels like a bleeping high school popularity contest all over again.

In my field, IT, I think much of the problem is that so many of the people doing the hiring don't know enough about the job and the technology to ask many meaningful technical questions so they fall back on the social stuff and stuff like that to screen candidates before they decide which resumes to forward on to someone who can actually do a technical interview.

What's funny is I don't have any trouble getting along with my co-workers and everyone I've worked for has loved my work. I do great IF I can get past the bleeping HR people and actually get a job.

 

[Zappo]

All the hardest projects I've worked on involved a whole bunch of dealing with other people. Sometimes, that's exactly where the hard part was. The projects I do alone are the easy, small ones, or those where I happen to have a good, detailed and reliable specification (never happens). For all the rest, I have to deal with people.

I'm not saying that the prevalence of personality over technical skill is justified, but at least some social skill is in fact very helpful in many IT jobs. And lack of it can be a problem. No matter how good you are at C++, you are not going to make the right program out of the wrong specs.

 

[Psionicist]

I'm not saying that the prevalence of personality over technical skill is justified, but at least some social skill is in fact very helpful in many IT jobs.

Are you asking me out on a date?

 

[BOZ]

2. Why in the eitch-ee-double-hockey-sticks do they ask why I am the superior choice over the other candidates?

i'm quite certain that this is a psychological test.

 

[drothgery]

In my field, IT, I think much of the problem is that so many of the people doing the hiring don't know enough about the job and the technology to ask many meaningful technical questions so they fall back on the social stuff and stuff like that to screen candidates before they decide which resumes to forward on to someone who can actually do a technical interview.

As I've recently been interviewing people in IT...

It's really hard (at least for me) to come up with a good set of questions that lets me know "this guy really knows his stuff, not just how to write a resume". And this is when I'm interviewing for someone who's going to pretty much be doing the same things I'm doing (only there's more stuff to do than one person can manage).

And the social stuff matters -- if someone doesn't fit in well with the people he's working with, then he's not going to stick around. If you've got a lot of small, neatly packaged and self-contained projects (hah!), that's fine. But if someone bails after a month without getting anything done, well, that kind of sucks.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I interview people, and I read the resumes. That said.....

1. I read your resume, but I want to see how much of that was something someone else wrote for you, or was boilerplate you copied, or was pure BS. You'd be surprised the number of times I've asked someone to recap their job history and have it not jibe with their written resume (whether on dates, or responsibilities, or whatever). Or, you seem nervous, so maybe letting you talk for a few minutes about something that you should be pretty familiar with will give you a chance to settle down and become more comfortable with the process.

2. This is a personality question more than a skills question. If you respond 'I'm a better candidate because I am really detail-oriented' when I'm looking for a big-picture guy (or vice-versa), I'd like to know that. (Though I usually frame this question less competitively -- eg 'Why are you the right person for this job?' for example) It's also a chance to differentiate yourself. Everyone says 'I'm a hard worker' or 'I'm good at following directions'. In one interview I had, though, I responded 'I'm the better candidate because I'm interested in how IT interacts with the rest of the business and not just someone who's going to sit in the back and fix things'. They offered me the job based on that response. I didn't take it....I sometimes go on interviews even when I know I won't take the job -- being able to practice your interview skills in a safe environment never hurts.

And you never know -- I went on one a year out of college where it was for a rinky-dink junior helpdesk position, and after the interview they said they also had a net admin position opening that they hadn't advertised yet, would I be interested? Ended up working there for 10 years and climbing almost to the top.

3. The military has the concept of the 'force multiplier' -- eg if I have air support for my tanks, it makes them 10x as effective. The right person works the same way -- the perfect complement to the team makes the whole much more than the sum of its parts. And the reverse is even more true -- I've been stuck with 'force divisors' -- people whose work habits or personality or skills so conflicted with the rest that we actually accomplished less with more people. It can be really hard to get rid of someone, even in 'at-will' states, especially if you have a paranoid HR department. So I'd much rather wait and get the right person when I can. 'Good enough' isn't good enough for me, sometimes.

So, you want advice?

* Go on as many interviews as you can get. The more you do, the easier it gets.
* Interview the potential employer while they are interviewing you. Ask questions about the company, about their needs, projects, areas of concern, and explain how you can help them, as concretely as possible. (I had another interview where I showed them how I'd solve a network problem they were having. They couldn't pay enough to get me to take the job, but they asked if they could hire me as a consultant to implement that solution, and that turned into some periodic extra income).
* Research the place before-hand. Know what they do. If they've been in the news lately (in a positive way ) mention it -- 'That article on you in InfoWorld was really intriguing'. Sure, it's sucking up a little, but it demonstrates that you've done your homework and came to the interview prepared with more than your resume.
* References. If you are looking for work in a specialized field (as opposed to general office work or such) get two sets of references. Get one set that can speak to the technical skills you possess. Nothing hurts more than when I call someone's reference and that person demonstrates that they have no idea of what you do. If you are applying for a computer job and list someone as your reference that doesn't know the difference between Windows and Office, find someone else. Then get another set of former supervisors, if you can, that can speak to your work habits and other personal qualities.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Some of the questions I typically ask during interviews and why:

1. Can you recap your job experience for me? (To catch inaccuracies in their resume, or outright lies. HR gets pissed if you ask someone if they were fired, but if they volunteer it, that's their problem).

2. What are your strong points and weak points? (This is kind of a red-herring -- I'm more interested in the latter part of the question. Someone that says 'I don't really have any weak points' is lying. Someone that says 'I sometimes have a problem with remembering things, so I'm extra careful to write things down' is golden. It's not the weakness, its demonstrating that you are aware of places where you need work and that you are taking steps to counteract them).

3. What steps would you take to solve problem XYZ (eg, user says 'I can't print'). Again, the process is more important than a specific response. I'm not testing your ability to remember individual windows or menus or commands, I'm testing your ability to think logically, to troubleshoot, and to work through a problem.

4. How do you prefer to work? Do you prefer someone to assign tasks, or to set your own schedule? No wrong answer, sometimes, but it lets me know how you'll slot into the position. Someone that likes to set their own schedule is going to get frustrated with helpdesk, but might be perfect in a different position.

5. (My favorite ) You've got four items in the helpdesk queue -- A VP can't print an email, an admin assistant is having trouble printing, the mail room guy says IE crashes when he brings up the shipping web page, and the web developer is having trouble because a recent patch broke something. What order do you do these in? (The individual problems change depending on the position and work site). (The correct answer, for those interested, is 3,2,1,4 -- know why?). Bonus points if you ask pointed questions before deciding.