ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade Business Related Discussion How do you find a good employee?

Preparing for a job interview, years ago, I was informed that the interviewer would ask for an example of my ability to resolve conflict. I struggled preparing for that because I couldn't think of a good example.

Finally I talked to a fellow who told me he had no problem with that question. He explained that they only ask how the conflict was resolved and not who caused it in the first place. He said that he caused lots of conflict at work, so he had many examples to choose from.

Maybe they should be asking who caused the conflict, but they don't.

Do you think it's possible that companies with professional personnel managers tend to hire people who are hard to work with?

I have been either the president or vice president of our HOA for 7 years. I rest my case.

Okay, that's another way to get experience resolving conflict.

That's too easy: the ideal candidate always gives way to his superior, kicks AHJ disputes upstairs if they involve $$$ or timelines, and always resolves troubles with subordinates by talking them into conformance with company policies -- which are always prudent and reasonable.

The ideal employee never really has any policies of his own, anyway.

Foremen with lots of 'personal policies' have high turnover.

I will note here that most never hire the guy who started the business. Today Westinghouse would never hire George, US Steel would never hire Carnegie, and Boeing wouldn't let the Wright Brothers even fill out an application.

I was told recently that McDonalds wanted a college degree for their cashiers. Amazing, if true - as their founder did not have one, and two major competitors were founded by high-school dropouts.

Resolve conflicts? You got to love all these DIY-shrink interview puzzles ... when, frankly, they have no relevance to the work environment. Scott Adams has it right, casting "Catbert" as the head of HR, toying with employees and applicants for his own amusement.

Finding good employees.... now THAT'S a hot-button issue these days.

It seems that every employer/recruiter/scouter is almost deliberately asking for the wrong qualifications and hiring the wrong people, as part of some sort of morbid "game".

Almost weekly, I hear about some recently-hired employee gone bad; they robbed the place, injured/killed a fellow employee, or just turned out to be lazy and uninitiated.

A college degree isn't a sufficient qualification on its own... the person as a PERSON needs to be evaluated, too.
An ignorant but inspired and driven high school grad is better than a rude and lazy know-it-all with multiple degrees. Which one would you rather have as a co-worker?

Of course, that's where the problem is... there's no "proof" of a good person. Anybody can put on a show for an interview or two, then show their true colors once they're locked into the job.

The best people to hire, for insurance of good character, are friends... NOT family members or blood relatives. Research has shown this to be the case; crime/domestic violence is more likely within blood relations than between friends and acquaintances.

Another problem w/ finding employees is I hear a lot of prospective employees cannot pass a drug screen.When they have hot pee the employer just wasted their money, & if hair is tested it can cover a wider time span.

My wife asked one of her employers why he didn't drug test.
He said if the person was screwing up at work it was his job to figure that out. He said drugs were not the biggest problem with employees. At least if they had a drug problem, they might be able to deal with it but you can't fix stupid.

Florida is pretty much a "fire at will" state. You may have more trouble in a state where bad employees are protected (druggie or not).
Where she is now, it is the insurance company that drives drug testing. Unfortunately they don't test for alcohol and that is really the drug that causes the most trouble.

Here are some wild thoughts:

"Past performance is no predictor of future results." We've all heard this disclaimer on ads for various investment plans. Think about it for a moment.

Now, pick up the usual employment application. What does it ask? It begins with employment history, followed by school record, and closes with references. It's completely focused on your past; it doesn't even have a space to correlate your abilities with the job requirements they posted.

Let's look at the typical want-ad. It's often a series of vague (but important sounding) claims about the company, followed by a laundry list of requirements. The name of the job often has no connection with the company's actual job title, and matters of interest to you (especially pay) are often omitted completely. (This is especially interesting, as they often insist on YOUR pay history). Often, the company name is missing.

Next is the hiring process. Verifying items on the application; background check; physical exam; drug test; batteries of tests, both 'trade' and 'aptitude.'

Finally, once you get hired, the job often turns out to be something completely different from what you expected. My current employer likes to advertise for electricians, then had them a welding rod. (Is it any surprise they have an annual turnover of 130%?)

Back to my starting point ...

At no point in the above process is there the slightest attention paid to the future- yours or theirs. At no time is the actual job discussed.

I submit the the employer is the cause of his own problems.

FWIW, when I was looking for additional employees, one source was the local County Vo-Tech. The 'past experience' was usually a non-issue, and the 'future outlook' was usually to be in the electrical field, either as a 'lectrician, or as a stepping stone toward obtaining ones license and business permit.

A second source was the local supply house bulletin board.

I can say, over 27 years in business, never placed a classified ad.

Drug testing? Had to in Spring 2001 to conform to requirements of a few clients.