Mike Haberman | , , ,| By
I came across an article in Entrepreneur Magazine written by Gwen Moran, where she described 3 Unique Hiring Techniques to Find the Right Person for the Job. You often come across articles that describe these kinds of methods of finding people that are out of the “ordinary” way of interviewing. While these are interesting you just need to be careful about using these creative interviewing methods.
The three methods
Ms. Moran’s methods might appeal to many, that is why they are in Entrepreneur Magazine. Her suggestions include:
Challenge them before you say hello. Her first described unique method is based on Quixey, a California based software company that has a game on its website for potential hires, called Quixey Challenge. The candidates can register for one of the site’s challenges, which are created and run by job recruitment platform Readyforce. According to Moran “If they can fix the challenge’s programming bug in less than a minute, they win $100 and a chance to interview with the company.” A creative way for certain.
Get past the polish. Moran’s second method comes from a company that “began interviewing prospective candidates using a “rapid-fire challenge,” where four company representatives ask unusual questions in quick succession, such as: If you were a hot dog, would you eat yourself for food? What’s your favorite fish? If you were a color, what color would you be and why?” My first thought was “Really? Would you eat yourself?” However, the company president said “the unexpected rapid-fire questions have been more effective in finding good candidates than more conversational interview techniques used in the past.” Apparently they have a very quirky culture and want quirky candidates.
Play games to break the ice. The same company that asks the questions above also has the candidates play a game of Jenga with company employees. The have written interview questions on each block that are asked as the game proceeds. Supposedly it breaks the ice for that section of the interview.
A long history
There is a long history of companies that ask quirky questions. Everyone has heard of questions such as “Why are manhole covers round?” and Barbara Walters’ favorite “What kind of tree would you be?” The problem with these things is that they may not meet the standards of being both valid and reliable indicators of success and may not have the documentation to show they are job related.
Uniform Guidelines on Selection Procedures
The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures require that all tests used for selection be statistically proven to be both valid and reliable instruments. As the EEOC says,
“Use of tests and other selection procedures can also violate the federal anti-discrimination laws if they disproportionately exclude people in a particular group by race, sex, or another covered basis, unless the employer can justify the test or procedure under the law.”
This discrimination is called ADVERSE IMPACT. The EEOC says further “The challenged policy or practice should therefore be associated with the skills needed to perform the job successfully. In contrast to a general measurement of applicants’ or employees’ skills, the challenged policy or practice must evaluate an individual’s skills as related to the particular job in question.”
Unfortunately the methods of selection and interviewing described above often don’t have the documentation that meets the standard required by the EEOC.
“Employers should ensure that employment tests and other selection procedures are properly validated for the positions and purposes for which they are used. The test or selection procedure must be job-related and its results appropriate for the employer’s purpose. While a test vendor’s documentation supporting the validity of a test may be helpful, the employer is still responsible for ensuring that its tests are valid under UGESP.”
Be Careful about using “Creative” Interviewing Methods
So before you decide to establish and use a “unique” method of employee selection make sure you are doing all the justification to show that the resulting candidates are indeed successful and that the “test” does not result in any discrimination.