So far until now I’ve not had a negative hiring experience. However, I was responsible for recruiting volunteers for the International Wikimedia Conference in 2007. We advertised on the most popular online forum of college students and got 159 responses in one month and a half. We didn’t make any selection at first as we felt we needed as many volunteers as possible. The only criteria to be selected was for each volunteer to finish a three day training, in which they had to familiarize with Wikipedia and the conference. However, at the time of the conference, only 52 volunteers were left.
I feel the most important indicator that shows if a volunteer is going to stay or not is judging on his or her knowledge of Wikipedia and the enthusiasm shown during the training. Being a volunteer runs on enthusiasm. I found that if one didn’t seem enthusiastic about Wikipedia, I generally wouldn’t seem him showing up by the time of the next training session.
What is your evaluation of the criteria used by this organization in making hiring decisions?
During the on-campus round, associates or senior associates, instead of the most seniors, were sent to conduct the first-round interviews. The intention was that the less senior associates were more attentive to day-to-day concerns and demanding on the basic skills an associate should possess. The interviewers were also described as being hard on interviewees. Personally, I think this is an ideal strategy for the first selection since the purpose of it is to filter out the true talents. I wouldn’t think of someone who lacks basic skills that are necessary in the business as an appropriate candidate for the second round interview.
After making through the first selection, candidates then participated in the ‘Super Saturday’ in which 30 bankers were present for the interview...