We Need To Fix the Broken Candidate Experience

Every now and then, you read an article that you have to share with others. It’s just too good to keep to yourself.

That’s the case with Anne Kreamer’s recent Harvard Business Review blog post,

“The Rise of the Rude Hiring Manager.” In the post, Kreamer shines a fair and fairly unflattering spotlight on the experiences of several individuals as they undergo the rigors of today’s job search, recruitment and hiring processes.

Kreamer describes how these individuals are put through their paces by prospective employers—often being asked to interview multiple times over the course of months, to take on test “assignments,” and to deliver polished business plans, proposals and presentations as part of the process of applying for an open position. During their ordeals, these candidates also experience administrative incompetence, a lack of timely communication, and just plain rudeness from their potential employers. And the sad fact is these experiences are growing more common.

Although the headline of Kreamer’s post calls out hiring managers specifically, the entire hiring process is actually at fault here. At one point, Kreamer astutely observes: “I can’t pinpoint exactly when the hiring process went off the rails, but I believe it began in the late 90s, when cost cutting became a mania and headcount was slashed to the bone, requiring every employee to do the work of many. With so little margin for error, every hire became a fraught decision, and the fear of making a mistake loomed larger and larger.”

Vetting candidates became increasingly complex and time-consuming, Kreamer writes, and “new hurdles were added until someone interested in a director-level position … is now routinely required to submit the kind of analysis and proposals that were once the province of in-house executives or paid consultants.” Especially harrowing is the interview process, which ballooned from an average of 12 days in 2009 to an average of 23 days in 2013.

Putting job candidates through a reasonable but thorough screening process is just good business. But it appears this process has gone haywire at many organizations, which is just bad business. After all, the candidate experience we provide says a lot about us as employers. It’s the first taste people get of our culture, our work environment and how we treat our employees. If we have any hope of consistently hiring the best talent and building great employment brands, we need to fix the broken candidate experience—and the sooner the better.

~

Connect with the individuals and sources highlighted in this post by clicking the links below:
@AnneKreamer
@HarvardBiz

The Major Drawback To Checking References

Let's suppose you're hiring for a key mid-level management position. You've gone through an extensive search and interview process and you are ready to extend an offer to one of the candidates. Before extending the offer, three references are checked. One reference gives a glowing recommendation, the second gives a positive, but more subdued thumbs up and the third provides a somewhat useless report simply confirming hire and termination dates along with position held.

Based on these recommendations, what kind of opinion should you form? The answer is; it's hard to say. But why?

We all know that checking references can provide a mixed bag of results. This can often lead to confusion about the potential of the employee. Some hiring experts point to the fact that most employers are afraid to say anything negative about a former employee out of fear of litigation. This is certainly an issue that needs to be considered in evaluating reference checks. However, we think there is a bigger issue to address when evaluating reference results.

Every organization takes on a culture in terms of performance and accountability. A few have a high performance, high accountability culture. Some have a low performance, low accountability culure. And the rest fall somewhere in between. Given this fact, how can you effectively evaluate a candidate's past performance without knowing what kind of culture they operated within?

Let's go back and look at the first reference you called. They gave a glowing recommendation of the candidate. But we have to ask ourselves a very significant question. How does our culture compare with the culture of that organization? If ours is a high performance, high accountability culture, but they operate within a low performance, low accountability culture the candidate's glowing recommendation is based on "jumping over a lower bar" than he/she will have to jump over in our culture. Unfortunately this leaves us wondering in terms of whether that candidate can get over our "bar".

To compound matters further, it is not acceptable to ask questions of the person providing the reference about his/her company's culture. Even asking questions such as "When Mary was faced with high expectations, how well did she meet those expectations?" are clearly not going to yield reliable answers since the frame of reference is different than your frame of reference. In other words, what the other person considers to be high expectations is very likely going to be different than your organization's definition of high expectations.

There are numerous examples of employees who received strong recommendations from former employers only to fail with their new employer. There can be a multitude of reasons for failure, but the point here is that reference checking will only rarely provide good information. Unless the companies providing references are somewhat similar to yours as far as accountability and performance are concerned don't expect to have a strong base of information to work with.

Given this potential problem, how should you deal with it? First of all, during the interviewing process make sure that the candidate is asked to respond to questions that relate to job-oriented behavior. For example, suppose you are hiring for a managerial position and the candidate has a management background. You might ask the candidate to "briefly explain how you establish accountability among those who report to you". This will provide some insight into how well the candidate understands the notion of accountability, but perhaps more importantly will reveal something about the culture(s) he/she has operated in previously. If the candidate stumbles with the response and doesn't have a good handle on this concept, it could mean that he/she has come from environments where accountability and high performance were foreign terms. Or it could mean that the candidate doesn't understand the important concept of accountability. Either way, a red flag is being waved.

Or try this, "in your past positions, did you find it easy to meet the expectations established for you or did you feel you had to stretch to meet them?" Understand that the response "I found them easy to meet" could mean:
1) the candidate is bright and meets expectations as a result,
2) the expectations haven't been all that high and it wasn't difficult to meet them.
And a response of "I had to stretch to meet them" could mean:
1) the candidate is not all that bright and it isn't easy for him/her to meet expectations or
2) the expectations have been very demanding and it caused them to stretch to meet them.
Knowing that, now try something like this; "you indicated it was (easy/difficult) for you to meet expectations in the past. Can you explain that a little more for me?" By probing, the candidate could reveal some tidbit that you will find useful in evaluating what kind of environment he/she is accustomed to operating in. These are only examples and you should take the time to come up with your own line of questioning to get at this very important issue.

In terms of references, asking questions such as "when (candidate name) was faced with meeting demanding expectations, how well did he/she meet them?" or "of all of your employees past or present, how would you compare (candidate name) with them in terms of overall job performance? Would you say he/she would fall in the top third, middle third or bottom third?" This question often goes unanswered for a variety of reasons. But it is an excellent one since it gives a relative ranking even if the culture is somewhat weak as far as accountability and performance are concerned. Obviously if the respondent says anything other than "top third" another red flag is potentially waived. These are only examples and you should take the time to develop standardized questions for reference checking and interviewing.

If properly constructed and carried out, references can add some value to the hiring process. But evaluate the responses carefully. There are too many unknowns in the hiring process as it is. References are only as good as the questions asked, the person responding and the quality of the organization(s) represented by the respondents. Sometimes an outstanding candidate is given a poor reference when, in fact, they are an excellent choice for the job. This can be due to some sort of bias on the part of the respondent or an environment where the candidate couldn't show what he/she was capable of. Many times an organization impedes the ability of an employee to perform and the employee is perceived as the problem because they are trying to perform at levels higher than the culture will allow.

In short, be very cautious in carrying out and evaluating reference checks. Bear in mind that perspective and frame of reference are important. We suggest that you not weight references too heavily in the final decision. Take them into account and if there is some consistency in responses among the various former employers, you can feel somewhat more comfortable in your assessment of the results.

Hiring In a Tight Labor Market

In a strong economy, current and prospective employees have a broader range of employment opportunities. This means that the always challenging job of finding good people becomes even more challenging. It's important, however, that you not compromise your requirements for top notch people. Once you begin to allow your organization to fill positions with marginal people, you have started the performance erosion process. Try to stay focused on the fact that the success of your business is highly dependent upon the number of high performers you bring in and keep in your organization.

The basis for hiring high performers is found in an organization's ability to keep them. If a business can create an environment that is stimulating, rewarding, positive and even fun, good employees are less tempted to leave. Most bright people are astute enough to understand that the grass really isn't always greener elsewhere.

Here are a few thoughts on hiring in a tight labor market:

-As mentioned, the fewer high performers you lose translates into a less urgent need to hire more except in the case of accelerated business growth. Refer to Business Problem: High Employee Turnover to learn more about reducing employee turnover in your organization. A significant issue as it relates to hiring people in any type of labor market is the reputation your organization has as an employer. Word about the kind of company they work for travels quickly from current employees to outsiders. It doesn't take long for a company's reputation to become tarnished by current and former employees who are disgruntled about the way they are/were treated. When a company has a very solid reputation as an employer and it is known as an organization that cares about its employees, prospective employees will be more proactive in seeking employment there. When an organization has a bad reputation as an employer, the chances of hiring and/or retaining high performers are slim. This issue is very often overlooked as a reason why a company can't seem to attract good employees.

-Look at who's in charge of your hiring efforts. If you have a Human Resources department, do those involved in hiring understand the process? Are they aggressive in identifying strong candidates? If managers or supervisors are responsible for finding people, are they skilled in promoting the organization to prospective employees? Are they taking enough time to do justice to the hiring process? Is there laziness in the hiring process?

-Placing ads in newspapers can be a futile effort in a tight labor market. The likelihood of attracting more than a few potential high performers is not good. And the likelihood of hiring one of them can be even more remote. If you are going to place ads, place them in newpapers or magazines that provide some chance of attracting quailified candidates. The most important thing in placing ads is to be as specific as possible about the requirements for the job. If you are unclear about the specific requirements, you run the risk of attracting fewer qualified candidates and a host of unqualified candidates. Spend a little extra money to buy a larger ad in order to have enough space to promote your organization and to furnish the specific position requirements.

-Be aggressive and creative. Most organizations lament their inability to attract good candidates, but they are strictly using traditional methods such as newspaper ads to find them. Using your contacts, put out the word to as many people as possible that you are looking for a particular type of individual. Don't be afraid to ask them if they know anyone matching what you are looking for. Ask aquaintances and friends if they had former employees who were excellent employees matching your requirements. If they have someone in mind, find out where they are now and don't be afraid to contact them either by phone, mail or email. Attend as many business functions as possible. Remember that you are always on the lookout for prospective employees even when you don't have an immediate need. When you meet someone who seems to possess the qualities and background you deem important in your employees keep their business card and make a note on the back of it about your impressions of the individual. Keep these cards in a separate location specifically for prospective candidates. When you are shopping, make note of employees such as receptionists or sales clerks who seem to have the skills you are looking for. Don't be afraid to plant a seed about future employment. The point here is that you need to keep your eyes open constantly for prospective employees. We all run into them every day, but fail to make the connection that they could well be working for us.

-Use head hunting and search firms carefully. Many are nothing more than resume handlers and don't carefully screen candidates for "fit" to your jobs. There are some, however, that do a good job of matching candidates to employers and positions. Ask your friends and aquaintances if they have used search firms. If so who do they recommend you use and who should you stay away from. Keep in mind that you will pay a healthy fee when using a search firm. If you are using a firm for the first time, negotiate a lower first time trial use fee and let the firm know if they do a good job you will use them again.

Identifying and hiring qualified high performing employees is one of the most difficult tasks of the business world. Employers simply have to be aggressive in their efforts to locate good people. Look at your current hiring practices and modify them to become more efficient and more aggressive in locating good candidates. But, be selective in who you hire. Even in a tight labor market you are better off leaving a position open than filling it with a marginal employee.

Strive To Hire The Best

Your people are the key to your success (or failure). Why anyone hurries the hiring process is mind-boggling to say the least. Even in a tight labor market businesses want to hire the best of what's available.

Here are some tips for hiring good people:

-Be patient. Don't hurry the hiring process. We believe you are better off with a vacant position than having a marginal employee filling it.
-Develop a complete and accurate position description that details all aspects of the position.
-Develop what you feel is an ideal profile of the person that will fill the position.
-Utilize an employee assessment instrument in the hiring process. These tools are essential to uncovering a person's interests, ability and personality. The best instruments provide a profile of the individual against the ideal profile for the job.
-Spend a little extra time and money attracting as many quality candidates as possible. You will want to be able to select from as many good candidates as possible.
-Be prepared! Develop interview questions prior to any interviews. Focus on the desired traits and profile when developing interview questions. Design the questions to draw out traits and tendencies. Get at the past behavior of the candidate in the interview process. Have candidates explain situations they have dealt with in the past that are relevant to the job you are hiring for. -Put the candidates through a series of what if questions. These are situational in nature and force the candidate to think about what he/she would do in each situation.
-Once you have boiled the candidate field down to just a few people, bring the finalists back for a second round of interviews.
-Have several people interview the candidates. This allows for different perspectives and accounts for various biases.
-Examine your wage/salary and benefits structure. Are you at least competitive with the market? The best people will be attracted to the highest paying positions in most cases.
-Think long-term. Ask yourself if hiring the candidate is in the best interest of the organization. Remember that hiring marginal employees has a devastating short and long-term impact on a business.

Avoid Hair Trigger Hiring

When there are problems in a particular area of your business, make every attempt to determine the causes of the problem before hiring additional full-time permanent employees to deal with the problem. In other words, don't automatically assume that the problem is too few people. For example, suppose a distribution company is constantly dealing with backlogs and delays in shipments. The first reaction is probably to hire more people to pick and bundle orders. But is the problem one of too few people or is it a process problem? Before hiring the additional order pickers, it is much more prudent to closely examine the process and make it as efficient and accurate as possible. And ask yourself if there are marginally performing employees currently involved in the process that need to be dealt with? To hire more people without fully understanding where the problems lie will simply reduce your bottom line. But a natural reaction when process problems or backlogs occur is to hire more people. Try to avoid hiring additional people right away unless you are certain that the process in question is as efficient as possible and that the employees involved in the process are performing up to expectations. Never hire another employee to compensate for marginal employees. Deal with the marginal employees and either expect them to elevate their productivity or terminate them and hire high performers. Don't hesitate to hire additional employees when necessary, but first ask yourself if it truly is necessary.