10 Mistakes Employers Make in Hiring

Reader Comments
Back to blog

The most common problem is employers will hire a qualified person that needs very little input and then the employer doesn't give them the most basic information to begin their job. Then the employee feels self-conscious about asking a question, because they are suppose to be "self-sufficient."
Examples would be: teachers, engineers, out-side sales people, etc...
Every employer is better off giving: 1) a three part interview. Part 1 is where the employer asks questions, then hands the interviewee a Survival Handbook. Part 2 is where the interviewee has 30 minutes to read the Handbook, Part 3 is where the interviewee asks questions. Then the employee can accurately ask important questions.
Often Employers will ask, "Do you have any questions" and the interviewee is clueless. Viewing a Survival Guide and developing questions - allows the employer to evaluate the interviewee's ability to synthesize information, form hypothesis and effectively ask questions. This is something you want EVERY employee to do - even if they work at 7-11.
I've seen a 26 year old Mechanical Engineer, with a PhD, walk around for 6 months and not produce anything of value - he had been in school so long, that he had never actually started and completed a professional project. The Silicon Valley company had to mentor him with a 68 year old engineer so he could produce effectively ideas that made it to the production line.
A Survival Handbook would have given the 26 year old a basis on which to start or the company would have recognized that he didn't have work skills only academic skills and needed to mentor him from the beginning.
It would have save the company 40K plus benefits in 1989 as the recession of the 1990's slid in to view. And it might have given them a brand new product that helpped them survive.
How an Emloyer handles their interviews is critical!

Heidi-Daryl Von Dunker of CA 12:36PM October 15, 2008

I've been working since I turned sixteen, and in that time I have worked for several employers and applied to many more positions than that.
During that time, I have noticed a distressing and progressive trend amongst todays employers. Specifically in regards #7 & #8, these companies have in at least one case had a response time well in excess of the maximum unemployment duration available. In that instance I had applied for a position at a major phone company, then six months later I was hired by another employer. At this point, I still hadn't received any response beyond the automated response that my resume had been received. After another four months, I received a form email stating that another candidate had been selected for the position.
While, overall this response time is abysmal, there are far more companies that aren't even providing that much responsiveness. Many of these companies have managed to provide an automated response that the initial submission has been received, but become incommunicado when it comes to telling the candidates where they stand. In fairness, very few companies would be able to reasonably commit the resources to call every single candidate back to let them know that they weren't selected. That does not mean these companies couldn't have sent an email at regular intervals during the course of the hiring process or at the time of another candidate's selection and acceptance of the position.
I come to this conclusion after looking at a most unlikely source, spammers. If a single spammer can manage to send millions of emails over the course of a single day, with as little as a single server, then there is absolutely no reason why a legitimate company can't send an email response to the non-selected applicants.

Highly Skilled but without a job of SC 10:59PM July 27, 2008

Of all the above, #3 is my pet peeve. A smart person with initiative can learn anything, short of nuclear physics, maybe, but certainly doesn't need experience with say, working on a mainframe computer. Even bringing that up as an issue is just stupid. Business is business, whether you're manufacturing widgets or running a county government. It comes down to one's ability to learn, get things done efficiently, manage people well, and have the basic skill set needed to accomplish those objectives. Over the course of my career, I've transitioned smoothly between widely different industries, and it always boils down to those basics. Everything else is teachable.

Linda of CA 10:24AM July 22, 2008

Having been through the job search endurance test within the past couple of years, I can verify that some of these mistakes happen quite frequently. Examples:
#2 - The interview is essentially a sales presentation, and the extrovert will get the offer over the more qualified introvert the large majority of the time. This distinction has absolutely no bearing on how someone would perform in my line of work.
#8 - I had one hiring manager at a very large company tell me that I would be offered the job pending reference checks, which I knew he did because my references told me that he'd called. Then came a few weeks of no response from him to my messages. He finally called back when I let him know that I had another job offer. He said that while I'd been his first choice, he'd been forced by his management to offer the job to someone else internally, but basically didn't want to cut me loose until he was sure the other guy was going to accept the offer. Nice! Needless to say, I wished him luck and accepted the other job.

CC Hall of NC 8:29PM July 21, 2008

Glad to see someone is pointing out the faults of the employer, instead of telling the employee what they are doing wrong. I have been on both sides of this article and it simply comes down to respect in any position...employee or employer.

of NV 4:33PM July 21, 2008