Re: Lying applicants

["William G. Meisheid" <wgm -at- SAGELINE -dot- COM>]

|All I can suggest is to try changing your interviewing tactics. Ask the
|candidate to talk about a specific project she did, and ask specific
|technical questions about it.


As a consulting company that uses contractors exclusively (we currently have six
consultants working on five client projects), we never send someone to a client
site who hasn't proven themself with us first and this is not just responding to
an interview, it is doing real work. Unknown and untried people are given work
to do at our office during a trial period during which they know they are being
evaluated. This is done on a small 24-40 hour contract, with provision to be
rolled over onto a longer contract if results are favorable.

Even with that, clients know all contractors we place on their work are subject
to their review. Many clients reserve the right to have the new contractors work
on a two trial contract before accepting them full time on the project. I
consider this good business for the client and for me. Even a good person with
all the right skills is not always a good fit.

That said, I was suprised that a person lacking such basic skills needed to do
the job would have gotten past an interview. That speaks to the interview
process as much as the person's gross misrepresentation of their skills.

________________________________________________
William Meisheid "Thoughts still and always in progress"
WUGNET/Help Authoring Forum Sysop & Microsoft MVP
Certified RoboHELP Training   http://www.sageline.com
Sageline Publishing  410.465.2040 Fax: 410.465.1812
70713 -dot- 2225 -at- compuserve -dot- com  or wgm -at- sageline -dot- com
Baltimore/Washington area RoboHELP training


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=