I work for a small company, and after a some bad experiences, I despair when my colleagues suggest we need to find a new employee.
Someone's CV can give you a rough idea of the things the person may know about, education grades are not much help as you can get good people who are bad at the "exam game" and bad people who are good at it! And if they are "the right kind of smart" they can be taught most of that they need.
The best comment I had from a friend was that "Its not the questions you ask them, its the questions they ask you". This seems to be a good rule, though we did have one employee who was exceptionally quiet at interview, but really came out of themselves when they started working for us. They would not have gotten the position if we had not been able to try them out first as an intern. But then a trial period is not always the answer either, as they can be diligent and enthusiastic, right up until the contract is signed!
So.... how do you find them? In a small company we need someone who can think for themselves, they have to be a little pushy so they voice their opinions but able to argue logically. They need to be willing to work for everyone to prosper (not just: " I turn up to work so you shall pay me!").
I used to work on a farm, and looking back I still think it taught me more than my university education, which always promoted the idea "its ok if you cant do it, there will always be someone above you to show you how it should be done!"
Comments please!

... oh and be careful mentioning phone calls, texting, or facebook, or I may really loose my cool!!

 

You start with the resume, education, work and life experiences, hobbies and interests.
Then comes the job interview - the difficult part. That is not to test their technical and academic knowledge but, more importantly, to check out their personality, attitude, human skills, and ability to communicate.

You want the self-starter, problem solver, with strong analytical skills. I would not be impressed by the overly self-promotional, know-it-all person who thinks they know how to run your business.

As you found out, an interview does not reveal the true personality and potential in a candidate. There should be a probationary period of employment before they are fully hired.

 

hi pmd,
In addition to the technical skills the applicant may have, it is also important that he is able work alone or as a member of a project team.
Ideally someone in the same age group as the people that you typically employ in the existing work group.

E

 

Hi guys, I guess the question really is how do you find out, or at least stack the odds in your favour that you have a good'ne, before you commit to a trial period.
Everyone is likely to try and cover all bases in an interview and CV "I work well as a constructive member of a team.. and am self disciplined and motivated for working alone".. blah blah blah..
Even technical skills.. how do you actually gauge the real extent of them? Asking a vague technical question can be all to readily glossed over and answered, at too specific question could just miss the mark, making it seem like the person doenst know anything about the topic.

How do you pull the best and the worst out of someone before its too late!

 

hi,
The interviewer must have a clear idea of the type of person he wants to employ and a full understanding of the job specification.

I never employed someone based solely on his CV, I wanted to see some factual evidence of his previous experience.
Ask the interviewee to give examples of his previous work projects and base your questions on his replies, find out what he really knows and how he can explain and communicate his thoughts.

Are you going to be interviewing the applicants.?

Eric

 

Hi Eric,

Your answer makes a lot of sense, though I guess in the instances I have had to do the interviewing there has always been a large element of research in the projects so it is unlikely any candidate will have had any experience that exactly matches. I need to be able to figure out the sheep from the free thinkers.

For example: "I worked on a project to develop a new type of sensor system" - I made no real contribution to the project and everyone else did all the work... - I was the main innovator on the project and everyone else assisted...
How do you tell them apart?

The problem may resurface again soon, as one of the projects I am working on with another company, could do with some additional man power, but at the thought of going through the whole experience again with the wrong person I would just prefer to work a 26 hour day!

 

So why not look at and ask what they do in their spare time?

I don't know about other fields, but in engineering if someone does this stuff in their own time, then they're well worth speaking to, but if all they did was memorise books to pass an exam and don't really have any personal interest, then all they're going to to do is look for the fastest path to management.

When I do an interview I take along photos of projects, maybe take a couple of small projects with me, I make sure I have clear photos that inadvertently show the extent of my home workshop, as well as photos/videos of successful home projects on social media, etc etc.
One thins I avoid is ask lots of questions at an interview, I try to keep it fluid, unplanned and ask questions as they come up, but I assess the interviewer first to see whether they're technical or not, don't want to make them feel stupid...... I'm not interested in pensions or benefits or how much holiday, none of that stupid stuff matters.

 

At the interview ask them to describe what they have actually delivered and really drill down on what their exact contribution was. It's easy for people to make big claims about how they ran a project or designed a system but if they really did that they would know all the details.

 

For example: "I worked on a project to develop a new type of sensor system" - I made no real contribution to the project and everyone else did all the work... - I was the main innovator on the project and everyone else assisted...
How do you tell them apart?

Ask them to describe the biggest challenges they had to overcome while working on the project. Their answer will be packed with information: it will tell you their level of involvement in the project, how they approach problem-solving, how they deal with constraints, how well they work with a team, how mission-oriented they are, how well they communicate. Ask questions about key points in their answer and you'll be able to get a good sense of their technical proficiency.

The interview should feel like a conversation in which the candidate is doing most of the talking. Asking about project challenges is a great way to get this going, as it is a subject with which the candidate will be intimately familiar, while you'll know essentially nothing (allowing you to ask probing but sincere questions). A qualified candidate will be able to talk for hours about problem solving experiences; a dud will give canned, meaningless responses. You'll know who to hire.