Author: Karen Alpard

During week 8 the topic of job interviews and the ways they differ from each other was presented. In learning about the five different styles, I had not realized there were names for anything other than the Panel interview and the One-on-One interview. Of the other three, I felt that the Group interview would be the most harrowing for me since I prefer to compete against myself.

I was familiar with all four mediums; however, I have never used the Written interview via email as it seems a bit removed and “cold” in the ability to translate any human qualities. I would probably use it for clarifications from one of the three other interview types.

The biggest takeaway for me was the differences possible outcomes and biases in the Unstructured and Structured interview. Though I have been on the receiving end of both types, the interviewers using the unstructured approach were not really prepared to conduct the interview. They seemed to be “winging it” with questions and situations that came to mind. Additionally, there would be instances where they would be leading me down a path for an answer they wanted to hear, or they would ask things that were inappropriate or illegal.

Structured interviews seem the fairest to job candidates sing the three criteria they are based on keeps the interviewers on track with asking the same questions of all job candidates. Additionally, sourcing the questions from the job analysis ensures that the questions are specific to the job and helps to avoid “off script” or biased questions. The outcomes of the interviews being evaluated on standardized scoring tool still allows for some subjectivity, but it certainly makes the decision-making processes go faster and fairer. There is a much greater chance that the tool would show validity and reliability.

1. What am I good at?
I am good at helping others to learn by leaning into their learning styles to take advantage resources that help people learn at their maximal potential.

2. What do I value?
More than anything, I value kindness to one’s self and others. This comes through at work with the ability to be congenial, collegial, and collaborative.

3. How did I get here?
To quote Robert Frost, I took the path less chosen. I learned to work with my reading disability to work in a field that required hours of writing and research. I moved that learning into helping to educate learners to be better researchers and programmers. Finally, I moved to psychometrics and assessment.

4. Where am I going?

My next move is to take all I have learned on my winding road and help others to be the best they can be.

I was somewhat surprised by my overall score for Extroversion. I scored above 60 in all facets except Assertiveness which was 80 and Activity level which was 31 (which I expected). I thought I would score more in the 30 to 45 range in all facets. My Agreeableness domain showed that I am tough, critical, and uncompromising. I would say that is very accurate. I scored extremely high in all facets and agree with the descriptors. My scores on Neuroticism all extremely low “indicating that . . . [I am] exceptionally calm, composed and unflappable.” I don’t have intense emotions and don’t get stressed out easily. This is true. My Openness to Experience was extremely high which I expected.

A potential employer, would probably be happy to see that I am an Extrovert with assertive facets if they want me to deal well with clients and close deals. I am truly more energized when I am around people, and that facet of my personality has garnered me much success. I am also much more likely to walk around and meet others in large business or social settings. My Agreeableness scores are high in morality, cooperation, and sympathy, but I feel trust is earned.

A potential employer would like that I am highly Conscientiousness since the facets making up this domain can be tied to business and the outcomes are measurable. I am effective in my work and am extremely productive. I am very organized, but I don’t live by lists. I set goals that are high and reach them whether the tasks are difficult or unpleasant. More than anything, I think things though and am never jump to conclusions or act brashly.

A potential employer would most like be happy that I have extremely low scores in Neuroticism. I am not an anxious person, I am not angered easily, and I am stay emotional leveled at all times. My score shows the I am “exceptionally calm, composed, and unflappable.” An I am not a person who reacts to events with strong emotions or to situations others find taxing.

I do not think that a potential employer would be offput by my my Openness to Experience scores other than I am open to new ways of understanding, thinking, and doing things. If I am looing for a job in a puzzle factory, a travel agency, or an art studio a potential employer might be excited by many of the facets of my personality.

In the real world, I would be looking for someone who is good at “crunch time” and can be counted on to be consistent. However, I would hire Avery since my greater need would be for someone with maximal performance. My business would need the person I hired to have a considerable capacity to learn new skills rapidly and complete complex tasks very quickly at the end of each development cycle. The job has self-motivating factors built into it, but as a team member, Avery would need to contribute continually and show skill in a sprint.

It would be better to hire Avery for a job that required high ability or potential and short, sustained burst of exemplary work would be a key determinant to success. Avery would fit with some development teams where there is a “Sprint” at the end of a cycle. The cycle requires intellect and ability, but there is lot of talking and thinking about tight code and programming problems to solve to build up to the “Sprint” for delivery. With a low performance ceiling, Jamie could not be able to perform complex algorithms no matter how much hard work and time was devoted to trying to the job. Avery would be more valuable because the ability needed to do well is innate.

Jamie would be well-suited for a job where “typical performance” or the best effort is put forth every day. A job that Jamie may excel in could be customer service. Hard work and a positive attitude can have as much pay back as potential in the right position. There are many jobs were the “The Tortoise” in Aesop’s fable “The Tortoise and the Hare” is going to be highly successful. Stick-with-it-ness, working hard, and never giving up would be traits I would want in my salespeople or any number of jobs where high potential is great, but getting the work done day in and day out wins the prize.

My brand in about collaboration, cooperation, and being collegial. I call those my three “Cs,” and I make certain that I stand by all three in how I work with others to create outcomes or products, in how I ensure my work with others is balanced and a combination of efforts, and in how I make sure that everyone is respected and has autonomy and authority over themselves.

Potential employers are going to be presented with someone who is positive, open, and confident. I have a “can do it” attitude that employers will note from their observations of my demeanor and the way that I great them and genuinely answer their questions. My strength is a combination of dedication, respect, and patience. There is not one word for it, but it is who I am. My greatest weakness is that I have no patience when projects run beyond deadlines (ruling out Mother Nature and technology).

I think one of the most unique things about me is that I can shift from the creative to logical/analytical easily which makes me a superior problem solver. The payoff in my work is that I will find more than one solution to present to other in solving issues which gives people options in providing needed resources.

Hire me:

I am ambidextrous and that means I do can use my left hand and right hand equally in all I do, but what that also mean is that I can access and apply information rapidly from both sides of my brain. If you require someone who can solve complex or simple problems efficiently and effectively, look no further. With my experience, education, and work background, hiring me will be like paying one person for the work of two people.

I must admit, when I applied for my last job, I knew nothing about the organization or the type of work that I was going to perform for several years, so the job description played almost no part in why I applied for the position. I just knew I would be doing something very different from anything I had done before—and the recruiter told me that I was a great fit for the job. At the time, it was also hard to research the job because of the tight security involving large-scale assessments. Additionally, only two organizations were part of a massive contract overseen by a gigantic consortium of states. The two organizations kept a “tight lid” on all their “proprietary” knowledge, skills, and abilities concerning the actual job I would be doing. It is a bit embarrassing now; I just blindly jumped into a job without any solid information about the job or the organization’s expectations of the position.

The actual job description included some the following language: Review of items for large-scale assessments; evaluation of passages for use in large-scale assessments; interpretation of blueprints, and the construction of operational and field tests across multiple contracts. I did not even know what most the description meant in context to my experience, training, and education. As I learned the job, I found that a small part of what the job description outlined was a small part of what I did on a daily basis. The job description was about a 20% match to the work I performed.

I do not think the organization completed a job analysis as outlined in this week’s mini lectures. Not only was the job description vague, the details of what the job entailed seemed to change constantly as the contract grew, so we were always in a state or “training up.” This was not an enjoyable job, but I was promoted to a new position in the organization very quickly.

Organizations that allot more money, time, and people to marketing and product design mistakenly think that just the product(s) and how it/they are marketed increase customer interaction, revenues, and profits. These organization taut that they are customer centric. In attempting to thwart competitors in the market, organizations become myopic and place the company’s products before its people. These companies build attempt to build their business through brand identityto drive conversion rates that will eventually deliver a high/improved ROI.

The “human side,” or what business owners and executives consider the “soft side” of business, is harder to quantify. They may believe that syphoning off resources to build less tangible outcomes is a waste.  Managers who do not invest in their people tend to believe that putting more effort, money, and time into people for “improved morale” has little payoff. As explained in the lecture, organizations that do not invest in people, increase “. . . costs due to lost business, costly employee mistakes, and employee disengagement.”

The strengths in not prioritizing recruitment and selection allows an organization to spend more time and money on building the business through time spent on research, analytics and metrics, and technology. Increasing efforts to improve products by understanding the market and its constituents supplies the data to make more business improvements. Investing in new technologies with new CRMs can give more insight to client’s buying behaviors.

The potential weaknesses in companies not prioritizing recruitment and selection can result in a weak business and a loss of customers and revenue. Poor employees (those who were not adequately vetted or not appropriately educated or trained) can cause an organization to lose money and clients. If constant rework is needed to fix issues caused by “weak” hires, the organization is doubling expenses through time and effort.

My last experience as a job applicant was over 14 years ago; however, I remember most the process well. I was working for the New York Times where I wrote a couple of op-ed (opposite the editorial page) pieces. One article piqued the interest of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), so I was asked to coauthor and present a paper at AERA.

After the presentation, a VP from Pearson started recruiting me. Initially, there were several meetings and phone calls. The company wanted me to do something very new with high-stakes assessments. It was an exciting prospect, so I decided to give the job a “go.”

First—the interview process. 8 different people interviewed me. They “seemed” to have behavioral questions to ask, but a few interviewers went off script with trick questions. I would give the interview process a solid C-; I was not impressed.

I received an offer; it was okay, but it was not in line with the rest of the recruitment process. I countered their offer, and they were surprised. I was ready to back out of the process because the benefits package that didn’t align with the recruitment process. I would give this part of the hiring process a D-!

There was a disconnect between what HR offered and what the hiring manager had told me would be the expected offer. I was not happy, so I started negotiating for a better benefits package.

In the end, my benefits package lived up to the initial information I had been given. Before this job opportunity, I had never been recruited. I had only applied for jobs and hoped for an interview. Though I scored the hiring processes low, the actual job and organization are awesome–regardless of the initial bumps.