This is unashamedly my evolution of Lou Adler’s great piece about hiring the best performers:
An old fashioned job advert often cannot fully define what you really need, yet you want to get the best people for it. What else can you try?
How about a Challenge Project based job application: to apply, you don’t need a degree, and you don’t need (N) years of experience.
The only way to apply for our job is prove you can do it.
All you need to do is produce and present a project we set for you: a real challenge that is a direct simulation of the work we need doing.
This magically weeds out anyone who’s not able or committed enough to do it. No CV/Qualification/Keyword filters – just the project.
The act of authoring the project is likely to focus the department or company on what they really need instead of the lazy shortcut of listing requirements on a job board.
Potential candidates have to prove a lot of skills: research the project and learn the skill to do it, think logically, produce and organise the content then communicate the results. Appropriate internal practices, formatting, and rules can also be provided. Team working and other soft skills can be considered at interview or for high level jobs; a deeper challenge could be designed.
There is a downside to this approach, apart from having to organise and review projects – you have no guarantee that the best candidate has any degrees or even any *years in the job.
The best candidate may have simply proven beyond doubt, they can give you what you want.
Less CV’s to work through, less candidates to phone interview and the ones you do talk to – have already proven they can do the work within the deadline and demonstrated a number of key business skills: Organisation/Planning, research, problem solving and communication
When you interview, you get them to take you through their project in detail and find points to critique; find out how they handle disagreement, countering opinions, alternative ideas or negative feedback: if they can listen, then use or debate the feedback objectively and productively, you’ve ticked off more soft skills. In addition, you can see for yourself if you and your team would work well with them.
Some projects would be suitable for a panel discussion, making an assessment of teamwork plausible. This point could be stretched for some levels of job, if the responsibility is large enough, you may choose a 3rd stage where parts of the project are implemented using key members of staff – a real test of whether the candidate has the full stack of skills they will need. All this, before they’ve had any chance to learn on the job – so assessment of each candidate would have to reflect this.
So far, without any standard Interview Questions, you’ve found out everything important regarding communication, project planning, time keeping, research, ability to learn and more about one or more candidates. As a bonus, no-one has bleeding eyeballs from dozens of CV’s or earache from listening to endless answers to cliché questions. If you’ve chosen to involve more staff, you’ve also seen how they handle the culture in your company.
Pretty reasonable so far?
Now, you and your company have a LOT more information upon which to base your gut reaction to each candidate. Gut instinct can be very powerful – its accuracy is proportional to the quantity of quality information it’s fed.
At this point, you can decide for yourself if you really needed the answers to the Standard Interview Questions.
One last thought, if commitment is what you are looking for which of these involves more real life commitment:
1)Submit a letter and CV
2)Submit a project challenge representing the real work you want done?
The two case studies on the following pages are biased towards technology roles and are based around one or more simple questions: