"In fact, other studies have shown that once the number of people in the interviewing and hiring process exceeds three, the probability of a bad hire is greater."
Passing from two or more interviews for one job position you will realize how hard and difficult is to have the job even if you have the qualifications that needed. The most common mistake that a lot of recruiters do in hiring process is that they are trying to find the "perfect" one and as nobody is perfect when you have three or more people responsible for hiring makes the hiring process too difficult.
In a conclusion, give to people the opportunity to prove that they have a value and they are suitable forthe position.
I quite agree with you NEMOS, this isreally a big challenge in most of the developing countries, companies are always looking for finished products with so many years of experience.
While i,m not against opt for people with many years of experience, companies need to realise that they did not attain the height in a day. Opportunities are suppose to be given to young hands that still have more time to learn, grow and server the companies too.
I concur with both Carla and Nemos. Finding and keeping suitable good candiate is fairly complex task. I may like to add following to it.
HR Department - I have faced few interviews at MNC. In these organizations technical interview were all good, but at the end HR person ask you typical questions. As engineer, you may reply it little differently and dissapointed HR person immediately disqualify you. HR department has little understanding and much more power as compare to technical requirement. It was little difficult for me to comprehend it.
Over Qualifications, differernt qualifications - I had many new projects and needed new engineers to finish them on time. Work was mainly PCB design and cable assembly. They approved two new engineer posts for it. I just wanted average engineer who is interested in PCB design and also enjoy making complex wire harness. However, my HR department forwards me all resumes with engineers with FPGA design experience. I tried to explain them need. But it was very difficult for them.
There is urgent need to enhance the recruitment process.
Agreed. Finding a good recruiter, one that knows your industry and understands the function of the position you are looking for, helps "screen in" only the individuals in that stack of resumes that are truly qualified and for whom you might be looking.
Carla, I think you nailed key points in your post. It all makes perfect sense to me. I'm just wondering about your figure of only 4% unemployment for people with degrees. My impression is that the figure is quite a bit higher than that. Do you mean specifically for engineers?
Ariella - Generally, we tend to kick around 4-5% for degrees. Masters degrees are certainly closer to the 4% figure, standard 4 year degrees 5% or slightly higher. Figures do vary by region and also industry. I don't have figures specifically for electronic/electrical engineers.
I see. In trying to find clear percentage figures, I came across a New York Times article entitled "Many With New College Degree Find the Job Market Humbling." It drew neary 500 comments; many feel ripped off by the false promise of college degree that saddled them with tens of thousands in student loan debt.
It is indeed sad to spend that much money and time to pursue a college degree to find yourself jobless or trying so hard to get one. But my question is: How many of college graduates would have started working if they were offered a job just after they had finished high school? We have been living in a society where the bar is already set so high that parents have no other choice than to continue to push their children accademic acheivements. The trend will aleays be let us get the degree first and hope for the best.
@Hospice_Houngbo, you asked, "How many of college graduates would have started working if they were offered a job just after they had finished high school?" and I think I can answer that one because that's what happened in my case.
I was offered a job doing exactly what I wanted to be doing right out of High School (I was freelancing during High School, which was very unusual but not impossible). Despite that, there was incredible pressure to go to college, so I went. But I only lasted a year: I ended up working most of the time anyways. And I got right to work and never thought about going back. At this point I have more than a decade of professional experience, so the lack of a formal education matters a lot less.
I agree that it seems like college is the only option in this society, but perhaps you might be interested to read this article: "If not college, then what?"
Caria, through different rounds of interview, companies are trying to evaluate the candidate thoroughly. Most of the recruitments are happening in urgent mode and they don’t want to take any risk at last moment. Through such drastic interviews this they are making sure that they won’t repent later.
From candidature point of view, such interviews are teasing and mental torture, but for an employer they want to make sure that the candidate is apt for the post or project.
I have also encountered few good interviews. What I have marked is more learnerd the person, better interview he conducts. I generally liked following apporach for technical part of interview. First conduct basic written test for MCQ of about 100 questions of general electronics. This helps screen out above average candiadate.
Next, after initial introductions, aks candiate to give two projects of interest he has done in recent past and he likes most. We discuss these two projects in depth for about 30 to 60 minutes.
After that, asked him to give two topics of his choice, e.g. siganl processing, high speed, analog, FPGA IP cores ADC/DCA, sensors, control etc. Again we discuss these two topics in depth for about 30 to 60 minutes.
This whole process is very friendly. All question are provided with multiple clues to reach to final answer. The basic quest is to find out what candidates knows and not about what he does not know.
Again, both interesting and not so interesting part of work is briefed to candidate. So he is not dissapointed when recruited. Most engineers are capable of quickly learning and adepting to requirement, and I generally give them few weeks to come at par with all other and give them assignmnet slowly in increasing difficulty.
We reevaluate their performance with higher management after six months and once year. And always they do very good job for company and management is happy for enhancing their future.
Yes, Candidate's approach to solve problem is very important. This is what we do when interview person for embedded software. We give them problem and lot many clue to get final reply which is pseudo code. This is also true for FPGA designer for IP Core. However, many other hardware person, we ask topics of interest they like most or what they worked on. Here also we do provide many clues to get close to final answer.
Hiring embedded software/hardware personnel can be very tricky. And i think, that has induced a habit of hand out small test (task) to candidates during the first interview process stages. Though, that is now becoming a common recruitment practise in embedded job roles. Conversely to IT, where most recruiters solely or partly based criteria of selection for best candidates' on certification qualifications they might have acquired aside the working experiences and degree qualifications.
Do you think professional certifications should also be introduced in embedded job roles in high -tech sector?
Idea of professional certifications may not be effective from employer point of view and it will be frustration for engineers and add futile hurdles.
Embedded design is vast subject with very high dynamic range. Normal process is to quickly acquire new skills by on-line research and adapting to right tools. More often then not, as designer you may not work on same special skill set again or may work after number of months or few years. It is your ability to read, digest new things and novel approach which make you effective solution provider.
I may not like certifications for this creative field in Art of Electroincs.
i agree with you saranyantil, it seems much prominence has been placed on certificate, which may not be necessarily bad but people should be allowed to defend their certificate by demonstrating what they can do.
"They can also include some Practical hand on during the interview. this can make it interesting too."
If the hiring company is specialized in hiring people for a specific industry, "pratical hand-ons" during interviews might be possible as there would likely be a specific "setting/local" for that. However, it will be difficult to provide these practical hand-on settings for every kinds of jobs.
There is another interesting aspect of recruiting in enigineering inudstry. Currently, many of requirements ask for very specific skills - e.g. new type of interface or shematic design topology, familiarity with specific design tools etc. However, after recruitment with these specific skills, engineers are assigned new tasks which are not related to specific skills.
So in place of knowledge for specific skills, recruiter should stress more on education background and apptitude to solve new problems and learning many new techologies and tools. Good engineers can easily do on-line research and be at par with one with specific skills in one or two weeks time. Manager should get candidate with wider knowledge base and provide some extra time for engineer to learn new tools. These engineers are more effective in finishing projects better and quicker.
I was amused to read the phrase "rock star" associated with what are predominantly "engineering" centric companies. I personally would cringe at the thought of hiring a "rock star" to do any job that required attention to detail, judgement and clinical techincal thinking. Give me a "rocket scientist" any day ;-)
I like that, Flyingscot. Instead of applying the term "rock star" to anyone who is outstanding in his/her career, we should say "rocket scientist" because the desirable attributes really are brains and skill rather than star appeal.
I too have seen a wide range of common mistakes during the process; the biggest of which is the one that's driven by the "I have a good feeling about this one" mindset. Many people who interview candidates are often unhatted for the process. As a result, they see and hear what they want to or fail to look for key information. One way to cover this AND get a better look is to run the candidate through an proficiency/IQ/aptitude test - only if you think you want to take it to a higher level of course. The exam takes about 45 minutes and will give you an objective look at strengths, weaknesses that don't necessarily surface from below the social veneer of an interview.
Employers who do this often avoid a great deal of stress or mis-steps.
This is an interesting article and I look forward to the second part. I agree with both statements. I think many times there are way too many people involved in the hiring process and this causes chaos and sometimes scares off the potential hire. I also agree that many times companies are looking for the "superhero" that they can bring in and save the day. Many times very qualified candidates get overlooked because they don't stand out like the "superhero", even though they are just as qualified. The hiring manager needs to stop thinking like the grass is greener on the other side.
Going through a series of one-on-one's is a different experience than a panel of interviewers. In a group interview individuals interviewing tend to be more passive and let other people do the talking. It's a good opportunity for interviewees who tend to ramble, as long as the interviewee sticks to topics he or she has some mastery of. One on one's are good for the reasons outlined in the article, the responsibility for screening is well-defined. Also the interviewee can ask the same questions and get several different, role-specific answers, which can lead to a more accurate assessment of the company.
From the "bad interview" file - there's the story about the candidate who was invited to come back in to meet the "second in command." He was asked one or two questions, but then spent a good hour or more listening to what the interviewer had to say about his experience with the company. When all was said and done, the interviewer realized the time and wrapped things up, leaving the candidate wondering what the purpose of this meeting had been all about.
True story, and the point is - let's get some standard procedures in place please. There just isn't enough time available for sloppiness, not when there is standard tech available that can make the difference.
As much as standardization should be used, I don't think it is realistic. Every company is different. Heck, every person is different. People are subjective, even though they may think they are trying not to be. So there maybe someone that clicks with certain people and not others.
But I guess I can also see how standardization maybe beneficial. Recently I came across a company who initiates the salary negotiating process before they have even decided to extend the offer. That is just a waste of time for both sides.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.