Author Topic: "Training out the stupid"  (Read 13867 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9821
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #25 on: December 15, 2020, 02:10:28 pm »
To paraphrase someone else, certificates exist because HR departments do and most don't know their arse from their elbow. They're a convenient shortcut when all else fails. Plus it's a great money making scheme as many feel forced to pay along. The truth is obviously less absolute and there are a few caveats but I don't think that position is entirely untrue.
 
The following users thanked this post: CJay

Offline CJay

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4136
  • Country: gb
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #26 on: December 15, 2020, 02:33:32 pm »
I would dearly love to be able to tell you but I still work with a couple who would be identifiable from the stories.
 

Offline CerebusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10576
  • Country: gb
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2020, 02:45:31 pm »
Quite understandable. We all know that I've been skirting about one person's identity.  :)
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21225
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #28 on: December 15, 2020, 02:53:13 pm »
Since that experience I have deliberately set up future interviews for just before lunch and done the same thing. Do the interview, make it clear that the interview is over and that we're "off the clock" and then offer a pub lunch. It's worked fantastically well over the years. I've had people who performed terribly during the interview who've come over great once the pressure is off, and I've had people who appeared great during the interview who quickly became obvious non-candidates once they were talking away from their "prepared for interview" topics. It's got me some great staff over the years, and it's helped me dodge a few stinkers. Anyone subjected to this little subterfuge got told about it after they were hired.

I don't disagree even though I haven't used tactic that specifically. I've always done as much as I can to put the candidates at ease during the interview, often explaining why I'm asking some questions and that I'm not looking for any specific answers.

OTOH, I've always liked people that want their answers to be probed in order to find the limits of what they are claiming or stating. But that doesn't have to be confrontational, it can be "let's explore this together".

Fortunately I've never had any form of "pressure interview".

The only time I can remember being asked a "why is a manhole round" question (actuallly "you are an overseer building the pyramids, how do you know when the shift is over?"), I played around with the interviewer by giving many "inventive" answers before asking if he was interested in sandtimers :) I was offered the job, but declined it.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10031
  • Country: gb
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #29 on: December 15, 2020, 03:03:21 pm »
I remember a time when anyone who had been certified found it difficult to get any kind of employment. :)
 

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21225
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #30 on: December 15, 2020, 03:26:58 pm »
Cue the possibly apochryphal story of a UK driver being pulled over in the US by a cop, who was impressed that his (paper!) driving licence had endorsements on it.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 
The following users thanked this post: bd139

Offline CJay

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4136
  • Country: gb
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #31 on: December 15, 2020, 03:36:30 pm »
I remember a time when anyone who had been certified found it difficult to get any kind of employment. :)

I seem to remember an anecdote of a man at Speaker's corner who asked how any man could say they were sane only for a heckler to offer up his release papers from an institution.
 
The following users thanked this post: SilverSolder, bd139, duckduck

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10031
  • Country: gb
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #32 on: December 15, 2020, 04:05:25 pm »
I remember a time when anyone who had been certified found it difficult to get any kind of employment. :)
I seem to remember an anecdote of a man at Speaker's corner who asked how any man could say they were sane only for a heckler to offer up his release papers from an institution.
It used to be a common meme that the only people who can show they are sane are those with the paperwork from when they were not.
 
The following users thanked this post: SilverSolder, CJay, bd139

Offline CerebusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10576
  • Country: gb
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #33 on: December 15, 2020, 05:06:31 pm »
Fortunately I've never had any form of "pressure interview".

The problem is that for some people, no matter how competent they are, or how comfortable they are day-to-day on the job, any interview, no matter how laid back it is in fact, is a highly stressful experience for them. Getting them into a situation where the pressure is off completely - "We're just a couple of lads having a pie and a pint*" - gives them an opportunity to be their regular selves (for good or bad).

*On the, unfortunately, rare occasions that I was interviewing a woman for a technical post I'd also take one of the lasses from the office along as chaperone, just to avoid any "misunderstandings".

Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 
The following users thanked this post: bd139

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #34 on: December 15, 2020, 07:43:16 pm »
I remember interviewing a gal once who was so nervous she could barely hold the pen to write on the whiteboard, and she was sweating profusely. It was kind of awkward for me, I was trying to be friendly and relaxed but she was definitely under stress.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10031
  • Country: gb
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #35 on: December 15, 2020, 08:21:45 pm »
I remember interviewing a gal once who was so nervous she could barely hold the pen to write on the whiteboard, and she was sweating profusely. It was kind of awkward for me, I was trying to be friendly and relaxed but she was definitely under stress.
I've interviewed people with a stutter, who had no stutter outside the interview. I've interviewed second language speakers of English, whose English seemed poor in the interview, but who spoke it just fine outside the interview.
 

Online Electro Fan

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3316
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #36 on: December 15, 2020, 08:36:52 pm »
The resume is to help determine if a candidate is worthy of an interview.  The interview process is still important (critical to making a good hire), of course.

On a resume you might see the following for each position held:
1) Job Title - somewhat indicative of the work performed
2) Job Responsibilities - at least indicates the candidate knew what they were responsible for; if these line up with what the new position requires it's possible the candidate could be a good fit; but just because someone had responsibilities doesn't mean they delivered or delivered well on any of them.
3) Achievements
    a) those that are qualitative - if these are along the lines of what you need done and are confirmed to be real you are getting close
    b) those that are quantitative - if these are are along the lines of what you need done and are confirmed to be real you probably have a qualified candidate

During the interview Q&A you should be able to determine if the candidate just happened to be in the vicinity of the achievements or if they were a really a contributor to the achievements by finding out if the candidate can explain how the achievements were made.  This should reveal the extent to which the candidate was more than an observer and was actually an individual contributor, a team player, and/or a team leader.

It is of course possible that someone who doesn't have some or all of the desired experience could learn and grow into the position, but if someone can show quantitative achievements similar to what you want done what are the chances they are going to forget how they did it?

Possibly last but not least there are the soft skills (communications, attitude, etc.) that are often important to enabling a person to fit with your culture.


Edit:  PS, these are good things to look for when interviewing a candidate - and also very useful things to consider for your own resume when you are the candidate.  To make this effective a candidate should read the job description and then tune the resume so that their prior experience highlights the most relevant prior achievements that best align with the requirements for the new opportunity.  Too many candidates just launch the last draft of their resume rather than carefully reading the job description and/or without specifically addressing the specs in the job description.  This is akin to sending a boilerplate engineering or business proposal and it will generally lose to an engineering or business proposal that actually addresses the customer's specific decision-making criteria and priorities.  A better mapping between the resume and job description will help the right candidates surface to the interview stage and also make for better Q&A during the interview.  Finally, it's useful for the interviewer to remember that any candidate good enough to possibly earn the job might have some other opportunities so it's important to not only qualify candidates but also sell to them about why the position and the company represent a good career opportunity just in case they turn out to be the winner.  You want the candidate to not only be qualified but also enthusiastic enough to accept your offer.  Even if a candidate doesn't win an offer you want them walking away admiring your company in case they show up later as a potential customer, partner, or consultant/recommender.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2020, 09:09:45 pm by Electro Fan »
 

Offline thm_w

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7521
  • Country: ca
  • Non-expert
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #37 on: December 15, 2020, 09:26:31 pm »
A long time ago, I applied for the position of head of the call center. I was asked: "what task do you consider the main one", I answered: "tell the customer to go to hell so he doesn't call again." I was denied a position... People don't like the truth in the face.  :)

Thats not the truth though. Generally the task is to get the customer off the phone as fast as possible while still having a high feedback rating.
Maybe things work differently in Russia, or, maybe the issue was your personality.
Profile -> Modify profile -> Look and Layout ->  Don't show users' signatures
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8995
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #38 on: December 15, 2020, 09:39:16 pm »
Cue the possibly apochryphal story of a UK driver being pulled over in the US by a cop, who was impressed that his (paper!) driving licence had endorsements on it.

I believe the officer issued a "citation" to the driver.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #39 on: December 15, 2020, 11:08:57 pm »
US drivers licences have endorsements on them too, though they're not paper. You need an endorsement to ride a motorcycle, not sure what others there are. Personally I think an endorsement should be required to drive a 4WD vehicle due to all the idiots who think 4WD makes them invincible in snow but that's another matter.
 

Offline CerebusTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10576
  • Country: gb
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #40 on: December 15, 2020, 11:29:36 pm »
On a UK driving licence one gets endorsements for speeding, driving without due care and attention, and so on. Yes, they're both endorsements in the sense of "an annotation on a document" but the UK ones are generally annotating "naughty boy points" not additional privileges (those are covered by the list of permitted vehicle classes). There are more neutral endorsements on UK driving licences too, I have one stating that I'm only permitted to drive while wearing suitable vision correction (i.e. I wear glasses for shortsightedness).
Anybody got a syringe I can use to squeeze the magic smoke back into this?
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5569
  • Country: us
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #41 on: December 16, 2020, 01:19:03 am »
I tend to have as much disdain for HR as anyone, but have to admit they have a purpose and a method that works to some degree.  Everyone knows that most of the work gets done by a few of the most capable people (most in this thread would quickly elect themselves to that group - perhaps correctly).  But everyone also knows that there aren't enough of that category to get everything done, and there are mundane jobs that don't require the superstars and quickly bore them to tears.  So how do you quickly sort the rest of the herd to get a someone richer mix of spear carriers.  That is what HR does and they aren't totally incompetent at it.  Their biggest crime is that they really suck at finding the top group, often sending people you really want packing before you ever find out about them.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #42 on: December 16, 2020, 03:04:21 am »
On a UK driving licence one gets endorsements for speeding, driving without due care and attention, and so on. Yes, they're both endorsements in the sense of "an annotation on a document" but the UK ones are generally annotating "naughty boy points" not additional privileges (those are covered by the list of permitted vehicle classes). There are more neutral endorsements on UK driving licences too, I have one stating that I'm only permitted to drive while wearing suitable vision correction (i.e. I wear glasses for shortsightedness).

Ah, yeah that's different. Some of our states have a system where you get points for certain types of citations, but they're called points. An endorsement here is specifically something that grants additional privileges.
 

Offline fourfathom

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2004
  • Country: us
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #43 on: December 16, 2020, 06:47:23 am »
I tend to have as much disdain for HR as anyone, but have to admit they have a purpose and a method that works to some degree.
Also, HR comes in handy when, in spite of your best efforts, you hire a completely psychotic and useless employee.  HR can help make sure you dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s as you go through the firing process.  Otherwise you may find yourself in a time-consuming and expensive legal mess.  This happened once at my company, and there was no way in hell that we were going to let the creep keep his stock options.  HR made sure we did it all correctly.
We'll search out every place a sick, twisted, solitary misfit might run to! -- I'll start with Radio Shack.
 

Offline Moshly

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Country: au
  • What's wrong with this thing
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #44 on: December 16, 2020, 07:42:26 am »
I found this guy's take on HR very interesting

 

Offline Ed.Kloonk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4000
  • Country: au
  • Cat video aficionado
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #45 on: December 16, 2020, 08:10:14 am »
Seems funny to me the need to 'interview'.

If you need the job done, you should be able to size up the person in a three minute informal chat. Unless it's for years-long contracts, such scrutiny is just for the power trip. Hire and fire as required.

iratus parum formica
 

Offline Non-Abelian

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 36
  • Country: us
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #46 on: December 16, 2020, 08:50:57 am »
I remember interviewing someone who had a PhD in EE, I was looking forward to talking to them because they had some quite interesting stuff on their resume but they turned out to be hugely disappointing and didn't really seem to know much of anything practical. It seems there are some people who are just very skilled at taking classes and passing exams. I don't know that "stupid" is the right word for it, but some people just lack the practical ability to do things that are not part of a structured course.
We used to have a saying in the lab. You can tell who the theorists are because they read the instructions for the copy machine.
That's not right - It's not even wrong - W. Pauli
 

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21225
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #47 on: December 16, 2020, 09:18:00 am »
Seems funny to me the need to 'interview'.

If you need the job done, you should be able to size up the person in a three minute informal chat. Unless it's for years-long contracts, such scrutiny is just for the power trip. Hire and fire as required.

That's a beguiling concept, but it is equivalent to HR discarding CVs because they don't have some certification or buzzword.

If I had ever applied that concept, I would have missed several extremely good and creative people. Not recommended.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline Non-Abelian

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 36
  • Country: us
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #48 on: December 16, 2020, 09:39:30 am »
Elsewhere, Cjay said:
I wonder if Cjay has hit on an explanation for a phemomenon that I've encountered quite a lot. When I've been in a management position and hiring people I've noticed that there are a lot of people out there who, on paper, are well qualified, but in practice are useless.
Yeah, and I have a relative who is one of those. He works in IT (and has reached the level of manager), has zillions of certificates, gets paid a lot of money, but has no idea how to even use a command line or write a script that echos "Hello." I am convinced lots of companies pay by the number of content free buzzwords someone can recite by rote. To the best I can tell, the hardest thing he's ever done is install software (that he doesn't know how to use) and tell people to reboot their machines.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2020, 09:44:23 am by Non-Abelian »
That's not right - It's not even wrong - W. Pauli
 

Offline Ed.Kloonk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4000
  • Country: au
  • Cat video aficionado
Re: "Training out the stupid"
« Reply #49 on: December 16, 2020, 09:42:51 am »
Seems funny to me the need to 'interview'.

If you need the job done, you should be able to size up the person in a three minute informal chat. Unless it's for years-long contracts, such scrutiny is just for the power trip. Hire and fire as required.

That's a beguiling concept, but it is equivalent to HR discarding CVs because they don't have some certification or buzzword.

If I had ever applied that concept, I would have missed several extremely good and creative people. Not recommended.

I understand what your saying. But in my world, time is money. If your subordinate is not making you money, you know, within hours of starting, then they are costing you money. I realize corporate HR is different. What gets me is that a HR department can spend forever choosing someone who still turns out to be a dud. But is anyone in the HR department ever responsible?

iratus parum formica
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf