Elliott HR Management Blog

I’ve been a part of various types of interviews over the years and our readings this week have helped me understand those companies more and why they chose the tactics they did. In terms of utility, I recall a group interview back in 2014 with a large banking institution. I was pretty nervous about the idea of a group interview and was not excited about the idea. I understand now that due to the amount of positions that needed to be filled and the cost of time, a group interview made the most sense for that company. However, I found that a group setting is most beneficial for applicants that display more extrovert qualities. In order to stand out in a group of 15+, individuals need to speak up and get noticed. This setting set me up for success since I’m naturally apt to take part in group discussion but for people who don’t strive in that type of competitive environment, the organization may have lost out on talented hires. Over-all, this group interview choice may not cater to all personalities but in reference to utility, it makes sense. Being that the positions to be filled were going to be entry-level jobs, this company saved resources by combining multiple applicants that met certain criteria and were able to select promising candidates all at once. While this effort succeeds in hiring for positions that have a higher rate of turnover than other career opportunities within the company, it may also be a narrow choice for personality types.

When it comes to one-on-one interviews, I have had some contrasting experiences. Where one process, I did three separate one-on-one interviews with multiple managers for the same location, I’ve also experienced just one interview with the leading manager. I found interviewing with all manager types for the same company to be a great example of reliable validity. This process was able to be repeated with similar questions but multiple outlooks from management that would be involved in my day-to-day activities. That way, each manager could do their own evaluation and then they were able to come together to see if their experiences, with me, aligned. In the event that I was interviewed with only one manager before being hired, their tactics still displayed reliable validity even though he didn’t have the resources for other leaders to evaluate my behavior. Instead of having multiple outlooks, he chose to have me complete a personality test immediately before the sit down interview. This choice asked an arrangement of questions, many of which were the same idea phrased differently to be able to find solid qualities to see if I would fit in the environment for the job.

Between the different types of interviews, the utility choices made sense for each company. Although multiple variations were implemented, each experience provided reliable validity through the type of questions and tools that were used.

Citations

Lecture 2: Introduction to Selection

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Steinmetz, C. (2013). The perfect hireLinks to an external site. . Scientific American Mind , 24 (3), 42-47

Developing and updating job descriptions is a part of business that previously felt mundane to me. Our readings this week forced me to take another look at just how important they can be when it comes to finding valuable talent. In the article titled “Job Worth Doing: Update Descriptions”, it that caught my attention that a company can be potentially sued for not including a required work task in their public job description. As I say that, it sounds silly to not realize that liability but that’s a great example of how many facets there are in the business world that make a difference. The challenge of keeping descriptions up to date and accurate could be overcome by routinely surveying current employees on their day-to-day tasks. It could also be beneficial to set up a system where the responsibility to update the job descriptions goes through a review process in order to consider more than one opinion. Like the article states, even if job requirements have stayed the same, it’s important to consider how the wording and design is taken into account. If a description is dated multiple years, it may be obvious to applicants and that attention to detail could defer someone from being interested in applying. To overcome that obstacle, there should be at least an annual review of the description with research-backed data that shows updated ways to catch a potential applicant’s attention. Over-all I can see the benefit in including current employees in the process but also comparing similar role details with other companies in order to keep the description current and not relying on one specific example. Developing and maintaining job descriptions may be regularly overlooked but making it a regular part of employee reviews and not catering the description around a specific individual could make a positive impact on attracting the right kind of candidates and avoiding potential lawsuits.

Citation

Tyler, K. (2018, April 11). Job worth doing: Update descriptions. SHRM. Retrieved October 22, 2021, from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/Pages/0113-job-descriptions.aspx.

How to see HR in successful companies

Citations

Breitfelder, M. D., & Dowling, D. W. (2008). Why Did We Ever Go Into HR?.Links to an external site. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 39-43.

Buckingham, M. & Coffman, C. 2016. First, Break All the Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently.Links to an external site. page 14 (2016 print)

Garvin, D. A. (2013). How Google Sold Its Engineers on Management (Links to an external site.). Harvard Business Review, 91(12), 74-82.

Welcome to blogs.oregonstate.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!