Gee, all I really wanted to know was...
Dec 01 '00
I'm sure that most of us here at Epinions have been on many job interviews and I'm sure at some point in time, we've all encountered some sort of pre-employment screening. As a former Human Resources Recruiter and Assistant, I'd just like to give you my take on these so called "screenings."
When someone would apply for a store manager or district manager position, I would do a preliminary phone interview. If I felt that the person might make a good fit with our company, I forwarded a copy of the manager psychological evaluation to the candidate. Once the evaluation was completed, it was returned to me and I submitted it to the psychological advisor that was contracted by the company to interpret the evaluation. Once he had interpreted the evaluation, he would then submit to me a detailed report on the findings based on how the candidate answered the questions. At the end of the report was his recommendation on whether or not this person would make a good store manager or district manager.
*NOTE: The perimeters of the evaluation were determined by the company and was rarely, if ever, changed. The psychological advisor was also made aware of the position in which this person was being considered.
In other instances, one of the Reginal Vice President's would interview someone and then request that this person be evaluated. If the evaluation came back with any type of negative remarks and with a low recommendation, then the person would either be offered a position as an Assistant Manager or would be told that the position had already been filled. In these type of instances, this person would be put on a fast-track program with the company and be trained to be a good manager, so that when a position became available, this person would be offered a Store Manager position.
Prior to my leaving the company, they had begun to screen potential hourly associates. The information that was gathered from this screening would indicate whether or not a person was perceived as a drug abuser, shoplifter, etc. If the results from the screening indicated some sort of undesirable trait, based on the way the person answered the questions, then the person would not be offered employment with the company.
NOTE: The funny thing about this screening was when several of the store set-up team employees were asked to complete the screening, so that we could check the perimeters of the screening. Several of these employees (many that had been employed with us for over 5 years) were flagged as potential shoplifters or drug or alcohol abusers. Many of these employees answered several of the questions in the same manner, but the way in which the answer was interpreted put up a red flag.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the "tests" that I've described above, I found that the screening of hourly employees was really a waste of time and money. When a company moves into a tough hiring market, and workers are hard to find, then the chances of someone being discarded due to the results of a "test" are much higher. Most of the time, especially when you interview lots of candidates, you can get a feel for whether or not someone would be a good fit.
While at times, employment screenings are important, it shouldn't be the sole deciding factor of whether or not someone is hired. Attempt to check references and try to gain as much information from the reference checks as possible. If left unsure about a candidate, have a colleague interview the candidate and then compare notes.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
pictureperfect
|
|
Location: Tennessee
Reviews written: 128
Trusted by: 51 members
About Me:
I'm a SAHM with 2 boys, ages 12 and 5 years old.
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.