Welcome to The Fordyce Letter:

The Fordyce Letter

Straight Talk for the Recruiting Profession


Articles tagged 'screening'

Interviews

The Art of Performing Technical Screening



woman on phone by George Reyes

Kerri, a senior technical recruiter with eleven years’ experience, has noticed that slowly but surely the requirements for the regular .NET developer and database developer positions are requiring more and different skills than she has been used to. She is finding that she does need to learn about these new tools but knows from experience that it takes a lot of her time to research. “I need information on how to validate these skills, to know if the candidates really have the skills or not,” says Kerri during a training session.

The usual research practice to learn about these skills starts with wiki search, the purchase of one or two software development beginner books (written for the developer audience), and ends with joining a number of developer user groups, only to find out that these practices are not effective and not really helping with screening. For one, the books are full of jargon and require prerequisite knowledge in technology. Second, how do online groups really help one in validating skills?

She loathes the idea of asking her client, and does not want to ask her candidates for fear of appearing ignorant of such well-known technologies. Kerri knows that to continue to be successful in her career, she needs to stay on top of her game. And this game includes learning all she needs to learn (as much as is relevant to her job) in IT to be able to successfully screen candidates and match them to her clients.

I have met many other recruiters like Kerri who want to learn how to screen and validate technical skills in order to ask the questions that make the matching process faster and more effective.

As targeted as technical screening is for recruiters, it also benefits hiring managers and candidates.

Uncategorized

For the Times They Are A-Changin’



fordyce-default

The market is changing for recruiters and you better be prepared.

If you are stuck in the days of selling the fact that you can “find” talent then you are spinning your wheels, or you soon will be. Clients are more demanding and HR leaders need to believe that you can provide value so that they prove ROI.

Everyone is using social media to build their networks and connect with more people in more ways and in more places than ever before. With information so easily available, almost anyone with a computer can become a “recruiter” and throw a resume, or 10, out to an HR manager in need.

But how does this create value?

Uncategorized

The Recruiter’s Liability for Wrongful Hiring: Injury BY the Candidate, Part 2



fordyce-default

Yesterday in part 1, we discussed “traditional indirect liability,” which covered who is responsible for the wrongs of the employee on the job. Today we focus on negligent hiring and strict liability.

2. Negligent Hiring

Employers are now being constantly sued for negligent hiring. This means the act of hiring an unfit employee, who then proximately (directly) injures another, will render the employer liable. As with misrepresentation, the issue becomes whether the employer “knew or should have known” about the dangerous propensities of the candidate.

This isn’t vicarious liability — it’s direct. And yours is too. The victim can name you for your negligent “consulting.” In some states he must — you’re an “indispensable party.” The employer won’t forget it paid your five-figure fee either.

Uncategorized

The Recruiter’s Liability for Wrongful Hiring: Injury BY the Candidate, Part 1



fordyce-default

On Monday and Tuesday we covered the known area of liability for injury to the candidate. Now we start another two-day series that goes into the unknown territory of liability when he injures someone else.

1. Traditional Indirect Liability

One of the most fundamental principles of law is the Latin phrase respondeat superior.

As it has developed, it means “The employer is responsible for the wrongs of the employee on the job.” No corporate defense lawyer argues about that — only about whether the “wrong” occurred “within the course and scope of employment.”

There is no limit to the number of “course and scope” fact patterns that can arise.

Was the act “authorized?” Was it “ratified” (impliedly accepted)? Was it “reasonable?” Was it for the “employer’s benefit?” Was it done during “working hours?”

The traditional “employment agency” had no difficulty here. If the fee was paid by the “applicant,” it was no great legal leap to show it was acting on his behalf. Even if the fee was paid by the employer, the alignment was with the applicant. But “clients” don’t see “applicants” — they see “candidates.” They’re judging a beauty contest, and you’re the modeling agency.

The alignment — your liability — runs to the employer.