Re: Examining proficiency of job applicants in FrameMaker

Subject: Re: Examining proficiency of job applicants in FrameMaker
From: lyndsey -dot- amott -at- docsymmetry -dot- com
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:59:35 -0500

Andrew Plato writes:

ANYBODY can learn how to use a tool effectively. Tests for tool skills have
little to no bearing on the aptitude of a person.

You can always teach people how to write or how to use FrameMaker. That's easy.
You cannot teach somebody how to be responsible, motivated, or creative.
In my opinion: motivation, attitude, and character are more important than tool
or writing skills. I've had great success with that hiring philosophy.
I know I said I'd never mention this subject again, but ...
Yes, indeed, anybody can learn to use the tools, but the fact that there are so many questions on this list about how to use them suggests that it is not as easy as you think.
When they come across a Word Weirdness or FrameMaker Foul-up, many people don't bother trying to resolve the problem. They come up with a work-around that gets them through the immediate difficulty, but which creates problems for those who have to update those documents later on. It is the people who are motivated to do a good job, those who have (good) attitude and character, as you say, who do not take the easy route in resolving the problems that arise, whether these are caused by the tools or by the writer's ability to write.
I think you are right that people should be hired according to their motivation, attitude, and character, but then you still have to train them once they're hired. For me, it is much easier to teach people how to write well than it is to teach them how to use the tools. Writing mistakes don't irritate me as much as tools mistakes because, with writing mistakes, I just send the doc back to the author; with tools mistakes, I usually have to fix them myself.
I once interviewed a person who had written her sample doc in Word. This person appeared to be motivated, eager, and seemed to have the right attitude. Her doc was quite well-written, but there were one or two grammatical errors and spelling errors, problems with horizontal and vertical alignment, bullets of different sizes, some font-size changes, and a hard-coded TOC. And those were just the problems that I could see easily. I am sure I would have found more in the electronic version of the doc. Would you have hired this person? I see these kinds of problems all the time.
And how do you test if a person really is motivated? Employers have been trying to find a way to test this for centuries.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lyndsey Amott
www.docsymmetry.com
2-271 Aubrey Street
Winnipeg, MB R3G 2J3
204-478-1332




References:
Re: Examining proficiency of job applicants in FrameMaker: From: Andrew Plato

Previous by Author: Re: Best technical writing of the season
Next by Author: Re: Word 2003 Style Question
Previous by Thread: Re: Examining proficiency of job applicants in FrameMaker
Next by Thread: Re: Examining proficiency of job applicants in FrameMaker


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads