I’ll give you my answer, and that is no. There have been all these attempts to make hiring a science, and other than skills tests, none of them as far as I know or read work. Companies have tried everything, Google is famous for their interview process, asking all kinds of devious questions, companies have used Meyers Briggs and other such personality tests, others do (stupid and should be illegal) things like Graphology (might as well do phrenology or read tea leaves). Google has dropped a lot of their stuff, because they figured out that often what they were getting were people good at their tests, not people who could do what they want. The person who taught my OB classes in grad school was a Phd in industrial psychology, and she said that despite all the attempts to parameterize the process, it still was very much a gut feel kind of thing.
Given the nature of the position you have, it is very hard to figure out the things that make that work, like work ethic and so forth,or how they work with other people. I realize this may be a clerical position (if I read your description right), but one of the things I try to do in interviewing for my group is I think about what makes our group different, and the kind of things that make people do well in it. For example, one of the things that makes my group (software test) is in the demands of it, we often have to get things done in a very short period of time, far shorter than what we would normally want given the scope of the release, or we often don’t have detailed specs, so we have to understand the business side of it and pick up new ideas fast, to turn them around. A lot of software testing on the other hand is done rote, where there is an almost mechanical process of grinding down the specs, writing test cases, reviewing them, running them, write up problems, retest the fixes, then regression test, all with schedules rigidly defined and so forth. What I do in interviews is give an idea of what we are against, and ask them how they would handle it, and if they start with “Well, I would read the functional spec, I would write my test cases against the spec” I know they won’t be able to do the job after telling them the circumstances we work under.
In your case, is there something unique to what you guys are doing? If it takes learning things quickly, then give the candidates an idea of what it requires, and ask them “in your life/experience, can you describe to be places where you have had to learn things quickly and apply them”. Likewise, in the day 2 scenario you gave, after the business manager gave them a rundown of the basic skills of the job, how about giving them something to do that would use those skills, but also have some elements they wouldn’t have learned in the basic skills…to see if they when they look at the problem, can ask questions to solve the problem. Rather than give them a problem where A+B=C, where A and B are know, give them a problem where A+B+C=D, where A and B are known (information/skills that were mentioned), but C is unknown, and see if they ask the right questions.
I also would say that in an interview, if the person doesn’t ask any questions about the company, the job, the environment, that I would be loath to hire them. I understand this is an entry level, basically clerical position, but given the internet and how easy it is to look things up, if they don’t take the time to look up the company and understand what it does, or look at other things about it, it doesn’t bode well IMO. Again, it could be the kind of job and the nature of it, but it still is presumably something they are looking to do . If you have a lot of positions to fill, it becomes a lot more difficult, but one thing I have learned is I would rather be understaffed and hiring slowly to find the right match, rather than hire people to fill the positions as rapidly as possible, because hiring people who aren’t a fit/don’t really want to be doing the job, will be harder than working understaffed, a bad hire can drag down a group’s efficiency way more than being understaffed.
Another suggestion, usually within the first several weeks to a month you get an idea if someone will work out or not. Unless this is a unionized position, why not make any hire a trial hire? They usually talk about a 3 month trial period, but that is more myth than reality (that generally is what unionized positions have, and has become some sort of de facto rule), why not make clear that the first month is the probationary period, and if it doesn’t work out, that is it? I realize that can be a pain in the you know what, and HR may not be happy to potentially have to get rid of someone who isn’t working out, but it is better to do that IMO then have someone not work out that you continually try to get to improve, and soon it is 3 months, 6 months, a year, and you are still struggling with the person.
In the end, hiring is a gut feel kind of thing on those who hire. In my group, we do it by consensus, which isn’t perfect, but it can help. Maybe have some of the co-workers interview them, and if the candidate comes in on day 2, have them interact with the other employees. Another trick of the trade I’ll use is I’ll have someone talk to a candidate who is not in our area, just to get an idea of what they think of the person in terms of personality and such. Like I said, all the testing they have designed to supposedly make the hiring process scientific has pretty much failed, the yield rate of regular hiring versus the ‘scientific’ ones is pretty much the same thing, despite claims to the contrary.
