Fairness
Why are companies, companies, and companies still using the individual meeting as a testing device in the Twenty-first century?
Is the individual meeting being used nowadays to see if the job applicant is high, slim, short, fat, old, eye-catching, or unattractive? If so, then the individual meeting is being used as a device of elegance for reduction. Seriously, because of its very characteristics, the individual meeting is very subjective rather than purpose. It is designed to "show" how well a job applicant can "act" during an meeting period. It is not a efficient signal of how well a job applicant will perform on the job. So, why is it being used as the last testing device before a choosing decision is made?
Frankly, I don't understand why a choosing power uses a individual meeting when there are excellent technical testing tools available that provide testing stability and credibility. Engineering does not differentiate badly. It is unemotional, cold, and purpose.
Effectiveness
Why not use a phone meeting to display job applicants? Why not use e-mail to send job "qualifying" surveys to the job applicant to be able to screen? Remember e-mail options are available for "free" and access to the Internet is nearly worldwide. As a point in fact, many tasks nowadays are only available if an application is loaded out on the website of a given company, company, or company. So why not stick with technology?
Once the job applicant has efficiently approved the specific testing questions to be able to be considered certified, a complete papers distribution ask for would be created. The job applicant would then publish a continue cover page, continue, higher education transcripts, and job sources. After examining these records and finding them "qualifying", the choosing power would contact and validate all appropriate details posted by the job applicant before the phone meeting.
Efficiency
Why make verification phone calls before the phone interview? By verifying that all details is correct as posted, the choosing power is confident that he or she will speak with a job applicant who can be prolonged a job offer if the phone meeting is identified to the fulfillment of the interview panel member. As opposed to the current individual process, the above process will avoid asking a job applicant to take off work for one or two times, spend cash to fly to the job meeting site, and be questioned by one, two, or more hiring managers only to receive an e-mail or page several times later showing that gainful career will not be provided because the job sources or transcripts were not appropriate. The job applicant could have prevented spending cash if the choosing power had simply examined the job sources and higher education transcripts before the meeting - regardless of the type of meeting utilized
Therefore, a more effective and more affordable choosing process is to use e-mailed surveys or a phone set of questions to display possible job candidates. Second, the choosing power would ask for that all appropriate bona-fide work-related determining records be posted for evaluation, testing, and verification. Third, an e-mail can be sent to certified candidates organizing a date and here we are at a phone meeting, that could also be a business contact, including all choosing government bodies simultaneously. How effective would this be - right?
I know that there will be critics to these recommended choosing techniques because change and new concepts are difficult to take. However, before you move against these concepts, you should keep in mind that you can use the 90-day job performance test offer as your greatest filtration device to eliminate someone who has been identified unsuitable for the specified job.
Why are companies, companies, and companies still using the individual meeting as a testing device in the Twenty-first century?
Is the individual meeting being used nowadays to see if the job applicant is high, slim, short, fat, old, eye-catching, or unattractive? If so, then the individual meeting is being used as a device of elegance for reduction. Seriously, because of its very characteristics, the individual meeting is very subjective rather than purpose. It is designed to "show" how well a job applicant can "act" during an meeting period. It is not a efficient signal of how well a job applicant will perform on the job. So, why is it being used as the last testing device before a choosing decision is made?
Frankly, I don't understand why a choosing power uses a individual meeting when there are excellent technical testing tools available that provide testing stability and credibility. Engineering does not differentiate badly. It is unemotional, cold, and purpose.
Effectiveness
Why not use a phone meeting to display job applicants? Why not use e-mail to send job "qualifying" surveys to the job applicant to be able to screen? Remember e-mail options are available for "free" and access to the Internet is nearly worldwide. As a point in fact, many tasks nowadays are only available if an application is loaded out on the website of a given company, company, or company. So why not stick with technology?
Once the job applicant has efficiently approved the specific testing questions to be able to be considered certified, a complete papers distribution ask for would be created. The job applicant would then publish a continue cover page, continue, higher education transcripts, and job sources. After examining these records and finding them "qualifying", the choosing power would contact and validate all appropriate details posted by the job applicant before the phone meeting.
Efficiency
Why make verification phone calls before the phone interview? By verifying that all details is correct as posted, the choosing power is confident that he or she will speak with a job applicant who can be prolonged a job offer if the phone meeting is identified to the fulfillment of the interview panel member. As opposed to the current individual process, the above process will avoid asking a job applicant to take off work for one or two times, spend cash to fly to the job meeting site, and be questioned by one, two, or more hiring managers only to receive an e-mail or page several times later showing that gainful career will not be provided because the job sources or transcripts were not appropriate. The job applicant could have prevented spending cash if the choosing power had simply examined the job sources and higher education transcripts before the meeting - regardless of the type of meeting utilized
Therefore, a more effective and more affordable choosing process is to use e-mailed surveys or a phone set of questions to display possible job candidates. Second, the choosing power would ask for that all appropriate bona-fide work-related determining records be posted for evaluation, testing, and verification. Third, an e-mail can be sent to certified candidates organizing a date and here we are at a phone meeting, that could also be a business contact, including all choosing government bodies simultaneously. How effective would this be - right?
I know that there will be critics to these recommended choosing techniques because change and new concepts are difficult to take. However, before you move against these concepts, you should keep in mind that you can use the 90-day job performance test offer as your greatest filtration device to eliminate someone who has been identified unsuitable for the specified job.
No comments:
Post a Comment