tices . . . after opening kick-off, it's all about your performance on the field in the real-game situation. Or consider the typical Special Operations unit - all the training in the world matters little if you fold under incoming fire. This is why teams and military units develop and rehearse (and over and over and over, iteratively), 'reactionary drills'. (Perhaps the best movie reac-drill was here in "Heat" with Deniro and Pacino - the way the 'bad guys' hold off the police is a reac-drill for the ages.)
Personally, I would use an expert to train me on how to train my candidates to interview better . . . only for cost reasons. That being said, if we're talking a $150k or above candidate, I would consider a consultant to work with the candidate individually - I personally think it would be a very wise investment. As far as whether a candidate should stand on his or her own feet, I don't know the relevancy of that question - I say that because most top performers are sticklers for details and want to know they're as mentally/physically/emotionally (and perhaps spiritually) prepared as they can be.
When everyone else is sleeping, you're running steps at the stadium -- it's part of what makes a winner a winner. When they're tucked safely in bed, you're pushing the envelope trying to improve yourself. Those early mornings might not matter every minute of the game, but there will be crucial situations where they do; crucial situations where you have the chance to impose your will on the other team. It's these few crucibles that separate the wheat from the chafe.…
each site. The vendor runs us a view & click through report
For social networking, i.e. LinkedIn, MySpace, Facebook - it's time spent vs outcome - 2 trails here - one, did I hire an individual from contacting them thru these venues or did I get a referral that we hired from the person I contacted. I tend to use LinkedIn for management jobs & other social networking & blogs to drive people to our website to apply - then it's captured by our ATS. If my recruiters insert any candidates themselves we have a field where they capture where the candidate originated from. We also keep track of how much time we spend in these venues & divide that by outcome - # of applicants & did we hire.
We also rate the success of Boolean searches we do in our ATS & other sites by the number of viable candidates it produces and again, did we hire any of them.
We review our numbers monthly to see what venues worked best for which roles - since my dept covers USA, Canada & Mexico - that adds to the complexity since what works in the US does not work in Canada, or Mexico, and vice versa. Also, we review how much time invested by productivity - did we spend 10 hours on LinkedIn to get candidates but no hire? We have a wrapping service from our largest board so very little effort but if it didn't result in any applicants - it's money not time wasted.
I think you could give a statistician a lot of work to view it from every angle! Generally speaking it's how much money (time IS money) we spent VS effectiveness of the channel.…