A New Approach to Hiring:
Change Your Thinking to Significantly Improve
the Selection Process
Michael Couch
President
Michael Couch and Associates Inc.
Pittsburgh, PA
Contact Michael
A client recently complained to me that he had spent months going through 27 candidates to find a single programmer analyst that ended up being just an average performer. A curse of today's tight labor market? Maybe. My experience indicates that the culprit is more likely a poorly designed and administered selection process. If talent is tight, all the more reason for companies to significantly upgrade their approach to selection.
Screen-In rather than Screen-Out Candidates
Most hiring processes I've encountered try to narrow down the field of candidates as quickly as possible. One of the easiest ways to improve the return on hiring investment is to increase the selection ratio - the number of candidates that you consider versus the number that you hire. Though it seems counterintuitive, the number of likely candidates should be kept as large as possible, as far down the decision process as possible. Research by folks at Michigan State has shown that an improvement in this ratio can significantly increase your hiring payback, particularly if your interview process is not good at identifying top talent.
Many hiring managers set too stringent knockout factors at the start of the process - factors that often have little relationship to future performance and potential. One of the biggest culprits is over-emphasizing technical knowledge that can be learned in a short period of time in the new job. The first steps in the screening process (i.e., Monster screening questions, resume reviews, or telephone screens) should screen-in on broad capabilities such as the ability to learn, ability to achieve results, experience on teams, or experience managing others and eschew narrow technical skills.
On-line testing is an effective and efficient way to identify potential early in the process. If you have a favorable selection ratio, the investment in the test validation is always worth it!
Selection is a Project
Just like other projects that occur in process stages (i.e., product development), selection tasks should be planned concurrently, should have clear milestones with reviews and measures, and require coordinating the work of multiple contributors. Recruiters must be effective project managers, able to manage multiple projects simultaneously.
Start the selection process with a detailed project plan. Use project and collaboration software. Have clear expectations on time frames and results. Hold kick-off communications sessions to get participants commitment, plan their schedules, and clarify expectations. If the process cannot be a priority for key players, then negotiate with resource providers to change priorities, move out time frames, or add resources to meet commitments.
Having a plan with committed resources allows time frames to be compressed. Potential candidate resumes will be compiled for review on X date. Reviewers will meet on Y date and make the first screen-in decisions. Interview dates and times are known when telephone discussions with candidates occur. Telephone screeners know the capabilities, are empowered to make screen-in decisions, and can schedule interviews on the call. No more "I'll get back to you." Group interview dates are scheduled in advance and training occurs while the rest of the process moves forward. More on this later.
For cost reasons, many HR departments wait until late in the process (when many candidates have been "screened out") before drug screens and background checks are scheduled. This is like putting prototyping at the end of product development. Forget the cost, it's minor. Do these steps earlier in the process so that offers can be made immediately following interviews - no delay.
Now for a big change. Schedule all the interviews on the same day. Have candidates show up at the same time, one group in the morning, another in the afternoon if necessary. The candidates hear a pitch about the company and the job as a group then go through a series of individual interviews. Each interview focuses on a unique set of competencies (selected in advance), assessed through behavior-based interviewing techniques. Interviewers meet at the end of the day, review their results and make their screen-in decisions, in a priority order.
I've seen the group interview approach work very effectively in a number of settings. It comes across to the candidates as being very professional and organized. (One of the biggest interviewee complaints is that different interviewers asked them the same questions.) You can also get back to them immediately with a decision. Interviewers like it because it uses their time wisely and gives them a tool that makes the process cleaner. It also avoids the "context effect" that occurs when interviews are scheduled over days, weeks or months. This effect, discovered in interview research, showed that interviewers will adjust their internal scale based on the capability of the last candidate reviewed.
Know Success When You See It
The success profile that drives hiring decisions should not describe the typical performer that meets minimum requirements. Average performers describe their jobs differently and view results differently than do top performers. Research has shown that the productivity differences between average and top performers is significant, sometimes 100 to 200% higher. Effective hiring can have a significant payoff, if productivity improvements in the role have a benefit to the company.
You should know your top performers and model the hiring success profiles after them. Top performers should be part of the selection decision, especially interviewing. Do not relegate this task to just anyone.
No matter who does the interviewing, they must be trained in behavior-based interviewing techniques. Interviews should be structured so they gather as much relevant data as possible and come across as very professional to the candidates. The way the interview data is combined into a decision should also be structured and objective, focusing on actual behaviors and observations, not impressions and inferences.
