TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: Technical Test From:Alan -dot- Miller -at- prometric -dot- com To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:57:59 -0500
Donn wrote:
<snip>
<<The situation Andrew sets up with his interview "test" reflects a
real-world situation. Just as the large mechanic was rejected for the
position because he was unable to meet a job requirement (not being able to
fit through the man-hole opening), so too can a potential candidate be
rejected for a position because "can-do" attitude is a "skill" that person
may have failed to demonstrate with Andrew's test. Most of us are faced
with working on projects from time to time where perhaps the technical
knowledge requirements may be overwhelming, but we dive in anyway because
we have the job requirement of "proper attitude.">>
I agree completely. The job interview must reflect the skills, knowledge,
and abilities needed for the job. For the sake of consistency and for
protection, I contend that these should be clearly defined and documented
somewhere. Nothing fancy. Not a process :-{). Just a good-faith effort to
be fair. AKA CYA.
<<I find it difficult to believe that Andrew would have a hard time
defending in court his right to hire or reject candidates according to his
clearly defined job requirements. In fact, the very act of a rejected
candidate suing him for discrimination proves Andrew's case before even
stepping into a courtroom!!>>
What would make it difficult for Andrew is, as he wrote earlier, he doesn't
write the test down. He just does it. (No apologies to Nike.) That, it
seems to me, would complicate his case. We're in the business of
documenting stuff, why not this as well? (Yeah, I know--the Cobbler's
Children.)
<<Ah, life is nothing but a journey through a litigious landscape...why
couldn't it be more like Fantasy (or is that Temptation) Island?>>
Why the answer is 42, of course.
Regards,
Al Miller
Chief Documentation Curmudgeon
Prometric, Inc.
IPCC 01, the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference,
October 24-27, 2001 at historic La Fonda in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.
CALL FOR PAPERS OPEN UNTIL MARCH 15. http://ieeepcs.org/2001/
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
