PDA

View Full Version : Hiring Based on Personality



KristineS
03-24-2009, 12:47 PM
Whenever I read a book on hiring it seems they talk about hiring for certain skill sets. No one ever seems to talk about hiring based on personality types. I think personality may be more important than having a particular skill set. Most skills can be taught or improved. Personality traits are much harder to change.

I've worked in places where my personality meshed perfectly with the corporate culture, and the job was a good experience. I've also worked in places where I didn't fit as well, and the jobs usually didn't last long.

I think having an awareness of your corporate culture and what personalities would thrive in it is important when you're hiring. I also think knowing yourself and the culture in which you thrive is important when looking for a job.

What do you guys think?

vangogh
03-24-2009, 03:54 PM
I'm with you. I'm not looking to hire someone at the moment, but if I were one of my biggest criteria would be if our personalities could mesh. Skills are important of course, though more important is an ability to learn new skills, a desire to learn them, being passionate about the work, and yes the personality of the individual.

As an analogy I firmly believe in team chemistry when it comes to sports. The most talented team doesn't usually win. The team that plays the best as a team usually does.

Dan Furman
03-24-2009, 04:16 PM
skills / credentials play a big part in getting you the interview. But personality probably wins from there out.

Evan
03-25-2009, 10:24 PM
A lot of people I have heard have interviews that never ended up being a "real" interview. They met with the interviewer and were asked a question based on where they went to school (or some other minor thing), and ended up spending the whole time talking about something complete not related to their credentials for the job. Not only did they get the job, they were a perfect fit for it.

While you should inevitably be prepared to talk about yourself, sometimes being yourself is all you need to really win yourself over at a job.

KristineS
03-26-2009, 12:38 PM
I'd have to agree with that Evan. The best interviews I ever did, which ultimately led to the best work experiences were ones where the interviews often went long because we talked so much.

One thing I have learned, if the atmosphere feels wrong or you just don't feel like you've clicked in the interview, you're better off not taking the job. Pay attention to those feelings.

Dan Furman
03-26-2009, 02:14 PM
I'd have to agree with that Evan. The best interviews I ever did, which ultimately led to the best work experiences were ones where the interviews often went long because we talked so much.

One thing I have learned, if the atmosphere feels wrong or you just don't feel like you've clicked in the interview, you're better off not taking the job. Pay attention to those feelings.


It's like dating :)

KristineS
03-26-2009, 03:26 PM
I think you're right about that Dan.

Jagella
03-29-2009, 10:53 PM
I've worked in places where my personality meshed perfectly with the corporate culture, and the job was a good experience. I've also worked in places where I didn't fit as well, and the jobs usually didn't last long.

Yes, not fitting in can definitely be a problem on the job. Employment, for most people, is a social function. It is by no means entirely economically based. I believe that many minorities have trouble finding and maintaining employment for these reasons. If a person doesn't feel welcome on the job, then that job may not last long.

Jagella

Blacktalon
04-01-2009, 08:53 PM
Kristine,

I'm actually writing about that now. I'm actually glad you brought it up.

It's part of my HR 3.0 series and should be ready before the end of spring.

Selecting candidates based on their personalities in addition to their qualifications is an excellent way to know if a candidate is a) competent, b) being honest and c) able to mesh with their colleagues.

One of the things my organization promotes is the interactiveness of candidates with their potential colleagues.

Most interviews are so rudimentary and predictable that the responses are pretty much pre-programmed. So essentially, when you're engrossed in an interview, you're only hearing the responses you want to hear and are not having a true look into what this person can do; This is dangerous and costly.

A person can have all the qualifications in the world, however if they cannot mesh well with their colleagues, then those qualifications mean nothing.

In this case, it's best to do the following, which I call the 'Interactive Interview:'

• Let the candidate interact with their would-be colleagues. You'll see a pre-emptive view of how they would essentially get along with your fellow staff and the degree of their relations.
• Have staff ask questions. Since the candidate is more expectant of questions from the interviewer, they won't be expectant of the questions from staff. You'll get a more natural response and a very good indication of their ability - both in knowledge and in practice - and the interviewer can silently make notes while the casual interrogation is being conducted.
• Allow staff to formulate opinions silently and use them in the post-interview analysis. This provides a more accurate assessment of the candidate and lets your staff be involved in the process more directly.

This is a perfect way to improve the success of your recruitment campaigns and involve staff at the same time, improving job satisfaction and retention at the same time.

My experience has been that if candidates are exposed to a "raw" environment with unexpected questions from an unexpected source, they chances of them getting the job nearly double, and stay nearly half as long or longer than those who went through the typical interview process.

You can read about it in more detail on my website (http://http://www.blacktalonsolutions.com/hr30/articles/interactiverecruitment.htm). Scroll to the bottom to The Bulletin Board in the Recruitment section, click on "Going Beyond the Interview" and you'll see it there.

That article was actually published in the HRPAD's quarterly newsletter.

Sean

Marcomguy
04-02-2009, 01:50 PM
Skills are more important in specialized functions and at lower levels. For example, if you're hiring for a C++ programming position you will want to check out your candidate's skills in that language.

On the other hand, if you're hiring a CIO, you don't really care about the candidate's programming abilities.

Apart from skills, the two things I used to look for were intelligence and attitude. And of the two, I prized attitude more.

KristineS
04-02-2009, 03:47 PM
Sean, I've participated in the sort of interviews which you describe, both as an interviewee and an interviewer and it does make a difference. I think you get a much better of idea of the place and the people with that sort of interview set up.

Marcomguy, I agree, attitude is very important. A bad attitude can do a lot to poison an office.