Very interesting! A friend of mine pointed me to this article/blog b/c of all of the entertainment I have provided him over the years with my wacky hiring stories. I DO use Monster.com as I have found that to be the most effective for my company--and other job sites poach Monster and post my listing free (bonus!).

I do a couple of things with culling:
1) I require a cover letter and resume be faxed or mailed instead of click-thru - not too much to ask but 1/3 still click thru and 1/3 more just send resume or fax/memo cover letter.

2) Remaining 1/3 gets reviewed for typos and all of the other stuff listed in the article - leaving 10% who actually follow directions and have a decent cover letter/resume.

3) The last 10% receives an e-mail further outlining the position available - including a number of what some might perceive as bad points (hours, project work, time off) and are instructed to follow-up if interested. That leaves 3-4% who do follow-up.

4) Those last folks are given an interview. At the end of interview, if I feel they would be good for position, I instruct them to follow-up with references if they are interested in position (allow 2 days tops for this). This usually narrows it down to 1%.

It is an amazing process and I am pleased that the system I developed over the years has become so efficient. Unfortunately, sometimes there are NO qualified candidates and that's where the real challenge starts...

No wonder I've lost all interest in being an "employee". Long ago I concluded that corporate bureaucracies are over-populated with control freaks. Definition: a control freak is someone whose primary interest is that you "follow directions". I'm a problem solver; I work best on the kind of problems where the very concept of "directions" has no meaning.

It's been a number of years since I was a "hiring manager", but if I was doing it again today, I'd simply do a Google search on the person's name and actually see what they've been up to. My main question (that I would have to answer myself) is whether they are truly a "professional" with interests in their profession, or are they basically just a direction-following clock-watcher?

-- Jack Krupansky

I understand Mr. Krupansky's position on this issue, but still must deem it irrelevant. It is a well known fact that to be a good leader, you must be a good follower. We tend to send mixed signals to "hourly" employees; telling them to "quit watching the clock but don't go over 40, it's unauthorized and you'll be written up." What we are looking for are the natural time managers, people who know how to get a specified job done in a specified amount of time even with interruptions and obstacles. These are the ones who go far in the company because they can remain focused on the task at hand. These people are also, generally, already employed and require a degree of recruitment skills from "hiring managers".

Keep in mind that everyone who interviews with your company goes away with an impression of your company that they will remember for a long time and likely share with others. People you discard don't disappear. They end up working for your competitors, vendors, and customers. You will see them again.

An excellent point, Fred, and one worth thinking about when your company has a policy of "no rejection letters or other communication" as all too many companies have nowadays.

Selecting the best candidate for a job is a challenge of intangibles - discovering whether the candidate has the motivation to do the job in the way you, as the manager of the designated position, and the person who assesses and rewards the jobholder's performance, wants the job done, is a more difficult challenge.