argon wrote:
> Hate to digress to a mundane, HR topic on this NG, but in the USA the
> question would be inappropriate in an employment interview and to deny
> an otherwise qualified person employment because of a hobby or lack
> thereof could be grounds for legal action against the employer.
> Unless a question is directly related to the job requirements and the
> candidate's ability to meet them you can't ask it.
But the candidate may provide the information, whether it's asked or
not. Depending on the position, it may not be a legitimate thing to
consider in the scoring. Where I am, we develop 3 sets of questions - 1
for each stage of screening - that have to be pre-approved by HR (Human
Resource for slowpokes like me that couldn't figure out how Heart Rate
got into this discussion
) First 2 sets are used to screen the
written applications to select interviewees. The 3rd set of questions is
read during the interview. Each member of search committee scores each
answer and provides written justification. Total scores for all
questions across the search committee members, and highest score is top
candidate, etc. We also contact references. HR has to ok that all the
committee responses are reasonable and adequately justified in writing
(sentence or 2 - or more, if needed) before a recommendation is made to
the hiring authority. We have on occasion requested clarification or
permission to ask an additional question trying to sort out some issues,
where we weren't sure if it was something we were allowed to ask.
However, administrator with the hiring authority can and has overturned
the search committees recommendations (not sure what basis is used and
what type of hr approval they need) - and boy, have we suffered because
of some of those overturns.
Where I am and types position I've been involved with the search
committee, summer marathoning may work against you because of the
summer field work. Winter marathoning in Alaska would be ok (won't
interfere), but scouting or orienteering hobbies would be relevant job
skills and would be helpful to list on resume. I do agree with Doug that
active employees are generally healthier and hence more productive - a
directly relevant issue. The fact that they're likely to live longer
(assuming not eaten by a grizz) to be a productive employee is icing.
Some employers are more concerned about employees' health than others
(Doug's former employer apparently is, mine doesn't appear to be - at
least with actions - and is something we're fighting to change at the
moment).
But beyond the formal interview and resultant scores (at least for
faculty positions), there are many interactions that take place across
the 2-day interview among faculty, other employees, clients, general
public - none of which officially show up in the final scores but do go
to show how capable the person is to actually do the work and fit in
locally.
What's overlooked frequently is that the applicant is interviewing the
organization as well as the organization interviewing the applicant
looking for a fit. And the applicant isn't restricted in what they can
ask, and we can answer freely.
As an aside, the best interview I ever had was one where, among other
things, I had to identify a bunch of plant specimens and write a
proposal in response to an RFP. They were looking for solid evidence
that a person could do the work, not just a bunch of info on a resume.
(I was offered the job but took the one in Alaska.)
Dot
--
"running is a mysterious journey that we take not just to beat other
people or to stay in reasonable physical shape - but to find out more
about ourselves" - Owen Anderson
