Interviews - how many interviewers?

[barbola]

My boss (VP of Finance) is interviewing for a A/R payroll person in our company tomorrow. The last one he hired quit after a week.

Yet he insists on interviewing alone, not including the HR manager or me or anyone else from the Acctg dept. I have 15 years background in A/R and Payroll and I am mentor to that position and set up procedures and update/test all the systems.

The last guy he hired (Controller) we are still trying to figure out how he fits into the organization.

The HR manager told me she emailed him and suggested he ask me to sit in to ask some questions, since he didn't include her, and also told him that she told me she was asking him to include me.

Is it normal in this day and age to only have one interviewer? I've always seen 2-3-4 people grill me with questions!

 

[paterson]

One interviewer seems normal for an initial interview. This initial interview would mostly be to check personality, character, demenor(sp?) and other traits, as well as to check qualifications. Most of the time, unless it is a small company and the boss hires everyone, this interview sets up additional interviews. In the additional interviews there are usually others involved that have skills similar to the position that is open so that the proper questions can be asked and opinions offered.

The way you describe things, it seems that you are at a larger company. I would venture to say that the boss's procedure is not typical. Why wouldn't someone want the benefit of someone in your position? Power Trip!!



**************************************
My Biggest problem is that I almost always believe what I tell myself.

 

[lespaul]

We HAVE to have an HR representative AND someone from another division on our interview PANELS, plus 2 people from the division hiring. Each candidate is asked the same questions by the same person for EVERY interview (so if panelist 4 asks question 1 in the first interview, that person asks the first question in EVERY interview).

The interview starts with the HR person identifing the position applied for, any additional information regarding that position that the applicant may be unaware of (it's a TERM position or a TEMP position - which have different benefits that PERM employees).

Does your company have a written policy on interviews? Does your manager just disregard those policies and procedures? Is his boss aware that he's making these decisions with no input from others?

Leslie

Anything worth doing is a lot more difficult than it's worth - Unknown Induhvidual

Essential reading for anyone working with databases:
The Fundamentals of Relational Database Design
Understanding SQL Joi

 

[ThomasLafferty]

Hmmm... not including an HR manager seems like not such a bad thing to me, unless the position being applied for (and this isn't the case, apparently) is a position in HR. I have never understood why companies seem to think that non experts and persons with whom a candidate will not likely work are involved in the process at all. On one hand, I know that the HR department serves to protect against lawsuits by seeing to it that employment law is followed, but beyond that I have often thought of HR as a self-serving, unneccessary appendage.

One of the best ways to prescreen a candidate is a problem to be solved - an actual, not theoretical problem - and require candidates to submit a shell proposal of how they might go about solving it. This will weed out 9 out of 10 yahoos and will leave you with only serious candidates. The next step, of course, is to evaluate submitted proposals, select the best ones, and interview those candidates by having them demonstrate their abilities in the interview.

For what it's worth, check out

http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/basics.htm

Tom

Live once die twice; live twice die once.

 

[svanels]

Strange behaviour of the VP, does he know about Finance?

Maybe he promised the person who quit after 1 week a salary of 6 figures and after a week this person discovered that the end of the month paycheck would only have 3 figures.

I sense a total disconnection from reality in this beheaviour of the VP.
In the interviews I was envolved it was clear that the direct superior of the applicant had the highest vote. If a lunatic is selected it would be his headache. The HR input is to ensure that a janitor would not get a rocket science salary, or a director would not be doomed to starvation and pay / salaryscale is according to experience and what the company can afford, without starting a rebellion of the inmates.

Steven

 

[chiph]

No HR person involved in the interviews I've conducted. The company trusts that senior people know not to ask any of the forbidden questions.

Generally, we'll have one person do an initial contact to see if they know their stuff, or if they inflated their skills on their resume/CV. Then they'll be sent on to a team of 3 people who they'd work for/with for another interview.

The idea is to not waste the time of more people than we have to, to weed out the ones which are obvious no-hires.

Chip H.


____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first

 

[BJCooperIT]

I have an average of 2-3 interviews a year, depending on the duration of my contracts. For the past six years only one of them has been a one-on-one interview. That one was only because I had previously worked an 18-month contract there.

For me, most interviews tend to have two to six people on the other side of the table. Each person represents some facet of the skills the position entails (Forms Developer, DBA, Report Developer, etc.) and usually one representative from HR is present. However, the phone interviews do not usually include HR.

^{Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. ~George Bernard Shaw}
Consultant Developer/Analyst Oracle, Forms, Reports & PL/SQL (Windows)
My website: Emu Products Plus

 

[barbola]

Thank you for all the input. I didn't get invited to the interviews, he is doing them himself. The problem is they are in a hurry to hire someone. This is a permanent replacement for a woman going on mat leave and not returning.

They waited too long to hire someone, they didn't post the job in the paper, and just talked to three people. The first two people they offered it to turned it down. The third person wasn't qualified.

Then they finally put it in the local paper (we are rural POP 10000 and approx 45 min from major city). They got several applicants but one of the first two decided she wanted the job after all so they hired her. She quit after a week and now the maternity leave woman has to work an extra week, and is gone next week with no replacement.

So you see the VP doesn't have a very good track record. The office isn't large...40 or so people, but there are another 300 people out in "the field".

It's just so frustrating when I see over and over again that they don't recognize how they can pool the resources around them.

I have started to keep my mouth shut because I think I've been labelled as an unappreciative whiner (long story).

 

[pansophic]

Every company I've worked with of any size always has HR involved in the interview process. It has never been to make sure that people don't ask inappropriate questions, but to be available to answer any benefits related questions from the candidate. It generally keeps people from quitting after they find out that the salary or benefits that they were promised are not real.

By the same token, I've only once had HR in the interview with me, just part of the process. An incoming candidate would be with HR first, where they would get the standard HR pitch, then they would meet with hiring managers. Depending on the hiring manager, there may or may not be additional personnel involved. When there are additional personnel, they may or may not interview together.

But the only time that I have seen people interview with only one person was in very small companies, like less than 35 people.


pansophic

 

[lionelhill]

HR people seem to be getting a lot of stick in this thread. In their defence, they're really useful if any of the interviewers are either (a) inexperienced or (b) bad at interviewing.

Interviewing is a skill like any other; not everyone who can string a question together should consider themselves a top-notch interviewer!

To take a simple example, it's very easy to form an instant impression and spend the rest of the interview trying to justify it. A good HR person, during the discussion phase after the interview, should be able to make you think about whether you're relying on accurate impressions or being misled by prejudices.

Another pitfall is to power-trip and judge by standards very different to one's own.

But to answer the question, I personally think lone interviewing is stupidly dangerous, and merely a necessary evil of the one-man-company. It takes a manager of astounding vanity to think that his/her opinion, and his/hers alone, can judge accurately whether a person (assessed under pressure) will fit into a group and do a job well.

 

[jshurst]

Most interviews I've been to at least have 2 people. Sometimes it will be a one-on-one interview, but then usually move on to the next person, then after I've spoken with everyone they converse to get each other's opinions. Doesn't seem like a good idea for just one person to be there. If the inteviewer is hiring an assistant or something then I assume it would be fine, but that's just my opinion.

 

[svanels]

HR people seem to be getting a lot of stick in this thread

Because the (wo)man with the stick does not know what HR management is about.


Steven

 

[barbola]

Our HR manager does all the hiring and firing for the "field" staff and she decides what corner of the field they are to be working in, as there are alot of bi-security protocol issues.

I'm not concerned that illegal questions will be asked...I just have a very experienced background in the position being hired for, and he is an executive-type. I know much better than him if the person will "fit in".

I wouldn't want to be the only interviewer for the exact reason that if the person doesn't work out, it would reflect directly on me and my decision. I'd rather have someone else to blame it on LOL.

 

[kHz]

It isn't any of your business. If it is they would ask you. End of story.

 

[svanels]

Our HR manager does all the hiring and firing for the "field" staff and she decides

Ahum... she advises, she won't be working with the lunatic

I know much better than him if the person will "fit in".

If that was the case you would be in his place, or in the place of the HR manager.

One word of caution: don't enter in the powerplay battles of the Upper Clouds. In every war the soldiers die first, the generals are protected.

Steven

 

[LadySlinger]

In an office of a staff forty people its normal to have only 1 interviewer during the interviewing process.

No process is guaranteed to work or be flawless during the interview. You may feel like you could've helped pick a better candidate by being included, but this isn't always the case.
I've seen interview processes where there were several people/interviews, some to the point of flying them to the home office just to interview there. After a week some still quit.

More people on the interview just doesn't mean that you'll hire someone that lasts longer than a week (or two).

If HR really wants someone in the interview, she would overrule him by talking to his boss (unless he's the president in whch case she wouldn't have a say). Otherwise saying that he should have someone else in the interview may be an insult to him and you wouldn't want reprocussions from it.

 

[barbola]

It isn't any of your business. If it is they would ask you. End of story.

Of course it is my business. I am the supervisor/mentor for half the position and will be doing some of the training or at least followup training, and I will be the one who has to put out the fires when the new person screws up.

The boss is on a power trip and is excluding me to prove a point.

 

[Dollie]

The boss is on a power trip and is excluding me to prove a point.

I hope you have a CYA folder, either hard copy or soft copy. If the boss has an agenda, you should always be aware of one of the Ten Commandments of Dollie: Cover thy keister for thouest may not feel the barbed sting of the knife in thy back at first.

 

[barbola]

Don't worry...I'm covered.

 

[svanels]

I will be the one who has to put out the fires when the new person screws up

You will be this new person boss or subordinate?

What is your responsibility? The applications or entering the data? Are you accounting, HR or IT?

I think that too much people want to control the payroll, sounds definitely like powerplay.

The boss is on a power trip and is excluding me to prove a point

That is why he is the boss, if the subordinates start dictating what the boss must do, he will not like that. Be aware that you could be excluded permanently, if he wants to set an example.

Steven