5 ms·

> If you want to make a change to your interview process, give it to some of your current employees I don’t think I would respond well to this as an employee.

dx034 9y ago
Why not? I think it's a valid test for a company. If the majority of your employees wouldn't pass the hiring test, why use it for new employees (unless you're looking for someone more senior)? Employees can probably best give feedback on how to adapt it so that it mirrors the actual work.
- comstock 9y ago
  Many people seem comfortable allowing their companies to treat them as low value commodities and will do anything asked of them. In general I don’t exactly think like this. I do the work within the scope of what I’ve been hired to do. I’m lucky, at least right now, that I have this choice because my skills are somewhat rare. Want work outside the scope of what I’ve been hired to do? Pay for it, or find someone else. I don’t want to be asked to interview again, it’s not a pleasant experience for me, and critically it’s being presented as “something you have to do”. If you want to do this, offer additional compensation for doing something outside of the scope of my work.
  - dx034 9y ago
    I think a good work environment (and that includes competent coworkers) is in everyone's interest. What if you can take the test but the employer doesn't know the result? I'd trust my employer enough not to use interview questions as my performance evaluation. If you don't, the level of trust appears to be very low.
  - BeetleB 9y ago
    >Many people seem comfortable allowing their companies to treat them as low value commodities and will do anything asked of them. If that's how you feel about it, would you not agree that asking such questions in an interview is treating the candidate as "low value"?
    - comstock 9y ago
      Personally I think interviewees should be financially compensated for interviews. The typical view is that they’re being compensated with a “chance for a job”.
- fencepost 9y ago
  Maybe it's a generational thing, but I'm old enough to have experienced "we're doing interviews for existing employees." It was not because they were trying to improve the process for hiring more people.

dx034 9y ago

Why not? I think it's a valid test for a company. If the majority of your employees wouldn't pass the hiring test, why use it for new employees (unless you're looking for someone more senior)? Employees can probably best give feedback on how to adapt it so that it mirrors the actual work.

comstock 9y ago
Many people seem comfortable allowing their companies to treat them as low value commodities and will do anything asked of them. In general I don’t exactly think like this. I do the work within the scope of what I’ve been hired to do. I’m lucky, at least right now, that I have this choice because my skills are somewhat rare. Want work outside the scope of what I’ve been hired to do? Pay for it, or find someone else. I don’t want to be asked to interview again, it’s not a pleasant experience for me, and critically it’s being presented as “something you have to do”. If you want to do this, offer additional compensation for doing something outside of the scope of my work.
- dx034 9y ago
  I think a good work environment (and that includes competent coworkers) is in everyone's interest. What if you can take the test but the employer doesn't know the result? I'd trust my employer enough not to use interview questions as my performance evaluation. If you don't, the level of trust appears to be very low.
- BeetleB 9y ago
  >Many people seem comfortable allowing their companies to treat them as low value commodities and will do anything asked of them. If that's how you feel about it, would you not agree that asking such questions in an interview is treating the candidate as "low value"?
  - comstock 9y ago
    Personally I think interviewees should be financially compensated for interviews. The typical view is that they’re being compensated with a “chance for a job”.
fencepost 9y ago
Maybe it's a generational thing, but I'm old enough to have experienced "we're doing interviews for existing employees." It was not because they were trying to improve the process for hiring more people.