My husband is in IT and he’s looking for a Network Administrator in his office. We frequently talk about the resumes he gets in and how his interviews go. I like it when he’s hiring because I get to listen to the other side of the fence, the hiring manager. And being the giant nerd that is, it’s one of the many reasons I love him, he likes to listen to tech related podcasts. One of the most recent podcasts, StackOverflow, had a programmer on discussing the methods many companies use when hiring Programmers.
According to the guest, many hiring managers will send a potential new hire home with a problem to solve. The idea is to see if they can solve a complex problem or some every day problem the company runs into.
Immediately I’m shaking my head. Crazy talk, way too many avenues for cheaters; I’m not sure what that says about me, that I’m a cynic I guess.
Thankfully the guest on the podcast shared his dislike for such methods. He, like me and my husband prefer to see how you got to the end result. What did the Programmer do to reach that solution? How did he handle roadblocks or dead end results? Did he have to ask for help? And most importantly, how long did it take?
I personally have never sent a candidate home with homework, other than the usual pre-employment “can you add 2+2” tests. Odds are I never will unless a company just completely ignores my advice. I can see too many things going wrong such as cheating and having your way smarter neighbor do the work for you.
Has anyone used this method of screening? Do you think it’s a good idea or crap? Talk to me people.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
I gave candidates for a Sr. Detailer/Detailing Mgr position a real, easy example of construction drawings to complete. Our position was not the typical detailing position (we used 3-D, most people use 2-D), so we wanted the candidate to experience the problem and come back with a solution. I’d call it more job sampling than testing. But, the SME reviewed the results with the candidate, asking about process and problems. There was a real solution, which was compared to the candidate’s solution. There was a big difference between a candidate who was hired and ended up not being a high performer and a candidate who was hired after the first candidate and was a high performer.
It’s not cynical to think they might cheat. I’ve had candidates try to cheat when they were taking pre-employment tests in the office. People do desperate and stupid things.
The ex-H (IT brainiac) had to endure several coding tests when he was searching for a position. Remembering back there were various ways the companies prevented any ability to cheat.
With the orange box we administered pre-employment tests on the computer in the application process. Most times the applicants a) didn’t realize they were taking a test or b)were shocked when we told them (when they called or knocked on the door to ask) that they hadn’t passed the test. My interview process was even more rugged, having to take a HR skills test and “In-basket exercise”. Later administering these, I’m not certain how we actually got better candidates out of the process.
I’m not a huge fan of testing like that, but I do see the validity of basic coding skills for programmers and math sills for cashiers. There are ways to get the information in an interview without subjecting people to the long path that can be the testing process. (development, benchmarking, tracking, discriminatory problems…)
The ‘what got you there’ is more effective, I think. Yes, people can be blow away that they’re being tested, but that allows you to see how flexible they are.
Knowing that the candidate actually can use a basic skill set is important to getting results.
I’ve used the tests for programmers. Asking all kinds of technical questions. I’ve had people test well. But just did not work out and I have had people test ok and they become pillars in the company. One interesting thing I have come across recently is a service called trialbyhire.com. They say it’s a “Pre-Employment Test Drive”. Based on the home page they say employers “try out” a Job Applicant prior to offering a permanent position with their company.
Maybe something like this is the solution.