Would greatly appreciate this
thanks all
Analysis of the Issue
Rather than using traditional question and answer interviews to evaluate job candidates, employers should observe candidates as they perform some of the jobs actual tasks.
Many businesses use different methods of evaluating whether a potential candidate is a good fit for their company. As it is imperative to get the right candidate and often as businesses are up against very tight deadlines they will choose one method over another, such as traditional Q/A or evaluation on the job. A close examination shows the limitations of businesses that use on the job evaluation over traditional q/a.
Firstly on the job evaluation falls down as it is too specific and fails to take into account different industries, job roles or specific specialims. Take the case of a university graduate, when they apply for a job out of college. They will enter the workplace with very little actual on the job experience, and probably very little related to their chosen field after college. It is almost impossible for this method to work as testing other skills like interpersonal, knowledge based skills, computing etc would be much more beneficial to ensuring the right candidate is selected. This method also fails to acknowledge that the employee can use training as a tool to get employees skill sets to a desired level, once they know they have the right ‘candidate fit’ for their culture and business needs.
Secondly it restricts the scope for which to judge an individual and how they may fit the specifc position. For examples you fail to take into account anything beyond how they do specific tasks and is a one-dimensional view on what a job role might entail. More important elements include; how well they might interact with other employees, what type of person they are, what drives them to succeed, what ambitions they have for the future etc. These are all key questions during a Q/A and help interviewers to filter how well the candidate may or may not fit within the culture of that particular work environment.
Finally it also creates a false environment in which to evaluate work. If workers know they are being closely watched they may excel and behave in a manner, which is unique to the situation, they are in. Conversely they may not perform to the best of their ability due to the fact the whole situation makes them feel uncomfortable and uneasy. This manufactured environment may work against the employer in finding the right candidate.
In conclusion I believe any firm that uses on the job training over traditional Q/A is seriously restricting the tools of evaluating the best candidates for their company. In an ideal world you would use Q/A interviews with other additional elements - one such element could well be on the job evaluation. But as deadlines and budgets are tight for multi faceted evaluations of candidates, the best and most trusted method of finding the right candidate will always be the traditional interview.
thanks all
Analysis of the Issue
Rather than using traditional question and answer interviews to evaluate job candidates, employers should observe candidates as they perform some of the jobs actual tasks.
Many businesses use different methods of evaluating whether a potential candidate is a good fit for their company. As it is imperative to get the right candidate and often as businesses are up against very tight deadlines they will choose one method over another, such as traditional Q/A or evaluation on the job. A close examination shows the limitations of businesses that use on the job evaluation over traditional q/a.
Firstly on the job evaluation falls down as it is too specific and fails to take into account different industries, job roles or specific specialims. Take the case of a university graduate, when they apply for a job out of college. They will enter the workplace with very little actual on the job experience, and probably very little related to their chosen field after college. It is almost impossible for this method to work as testing other skills like interpersonal, knowledge based skills, computing etc would be much more beneficial to ensuring the right candidate is selected. This method also fails to acknowledge that the employee can use training as a tool to get employees skill sets to a desired level, once they know they have the right ‘candidate fit’ for their culture and business needs.
Secondly it restricts the scope for which to judge an individual and how they may fit the specifc position. For examples you fail to take into account anything beyond how they do specific tasks and is a one-dimensional view on what a job role might entail. More important elements include; how well they might interact with other employees, what type of person they are, what drives them to succeed, what ambitions they have for the future etc. These are all key questions during a Q/A and help interviewers to filter how well the candidate may or may not fit within the culture of that particular work environment.
Finally it also creates a false environment in which to evaluate work. If workers know they are being closely watched they may excel and behave in a manner, which is unique to the situation, they are in. Conversely they may not perform to the best of their ability due to the fact the whole situation makes them feel uncomfortable and uneasy. This manufactured environment may work against the employer in finding the right candidate.
In conclusion I believe any firm that uses on the job training over traditional Q/A is seriously restricting the tools of evaluating the best candidates for their company. In an ideal world you would use Q/A interviews with other additional elements - one such element could well be on the job evaluation. But as deadlines and budgets are tight for multi faceted evaluations of candidates, the best and most trusted method of finding the right candidate will always be the traditional interview.
