by Beth | Oct 25, 2011 | Employee Hiring, Interview Process
I have seen companies who are looking for employees post a blind ad, meaning they post an ad without using the company name. This ad will request that the candidate send their resume, which includes personal information like addresses and phone numbers. If you have ever responded to a blind ad, then you know that those ads are usually solicitations of some sort.
What does a company hope to gain by posting a blind ad? Anonymity? How would you expect to attract quality candidates while remaining anonymous at the same time? It is a conflicting message to candidates: “Please apply, but not really…” Placing the company name on an ad is setting the tone for the application process. The ad says that the company is proud to open its doors to the next best person to work here. It says that the company is serious about finding someone great. It says, “Please apply, quality candidates, come join our team.”
by Beth | Oct 20, 2011 | Interview Process, Selecting Good Candidates
In the movie “Up in the Air,” George Clooney remarks “I stereotype. It’s faster.” It may be faster, but it is not 100% predictable. In other words, you cannot predict an employee’s success in their position by stereotyping. I work with business owners and hiring managers every day who use stereotypes to predict employees’ success or failure. I say that for every stereotype that exists and is used to predict behavior, I have a success story to disprove it.
So, which interview method works best to accurately predict the likelihood of success in an employee? The answer may surprise you: just listen.
Don’t talk. Don’t think about the next question you are going to ask. Don’t look at your phone. Don’t clean your finger nails. Don’t tie your shoe. Sit. Focus. And listen. Really hear, observe and absorb what your candidate is telling you. Be entirely present to the moment, and the candidate will tell you if they will be successful in the position with their answers.
by Beth | Oct 19, 2011 | Selecting Good Candidates
Christopher Robin: “There now. Did I get your tail back on properly, Eeyore? “
Eeyore: “No matter. I’ll most likely lose it again anyway.”
Last month, I interviewed a candidate who was world weary, tired and unhappy. This person had been out of work for a long time in an industry that is rapidly changing. The overall impact was the “Eeyore Effect.”
Christopher Robin and his gang are forever reaching out to help their friend re-attach his tail, but Eeyore shows no appreciation for their efforts. Not only does he not thank Christopher Robin for helping him, he criticizes Christopher’s work. He also puts forth no effort to permanently find a solution to his tail falling off. Has he thought about super glue? Stitches? Duck Tape?
In other words, Eeyore is an energy drainer. He is hard to be around. He has very little enthusiasm for his life, his work, his tail or even his friends. Can you imagine as if you had an employee like this?
Watch for the “Eeyore Effect” while you are interviewing, even if when faced with the world weary, tired and unhappy.
(Thanks to Michelle Barnes for “The Eeyore Effect”)
by Beth | Sep 28, 2011 | Employee Hiring, Rehire
Occasionally, my clients are faced with a decision to re-hire a former employee. People may leave your organization for any number of reasons: more money, different opportunities and loss of passion for a position are common. I was asked for my opinion by a client who wants to re-hire a former employee. My honest answer was “Well, it depends.” Re-hiring a former employee can have some advantages. Training and ramp up speed are often reduced. But there can also be some disadvantages, like wasting valuable resources on an employee who is not really engaged with you or your business. Following a few guidelines can help in your decision making process:
1. Did your re-hire “leave well” by giving you notice and wrapping up projects before their departure? Did they leave on good terms and help with creating a job description or training their replacement? Remember that the manner in which your employee left you the first time will be the way that they leave you the second time.
2. Will your re-hire add value to your current culture? Chances are your business has changed since your employee has left. Make sure that this person is still a fit for your business and the position.
3. Realize that it may be short term. If your re-hire left once, it is most likely because certain needs were not being met. Are those needs being met now? What has changed since their last period of employment with you? Make sure that you both address those un-met needs before bringing them back on board.
One of my former colleagues in the restaurant industry often had kitchen staff that would periodically leave for more money, less hours, etc. He always thanked them for their service and let them pursue the new opportunity. Invariably, they would realize that life was not always greener on the other side of the fence and would try to come back. The ones that left well with integrity and honesty were hired back immediately. Those who left ungracefully, were not hired back.
by Beth | Sep 27, 2011 | Employee Hiring, Selecting Good Candidates
I have so many people say to me before they are clients “Beth, you should have seen this person in the interview! They were amazing! And then I had to fire them two weeks later. What did I miss?” The answer to this burning question is that many hiring managers and executives do not realize the power of the interviewer.
When interviewing a candidate, it is really important to remember that you are in charge of the entire experience. Usually, the interviewer controls the time of the interview, the date, the day of the week, the location, the agenda, the questions, the structure, the process, who is on the team, the outcome of the decision to hire and whether or not the candidate will ever find out if they got the job. In all aspects, the interviewer is in total control – and the candidate knows it. This type of “power” over another adult rarely occurs in our society, and when it does, there is usually extreme violence involved. As a result of lack of exposure to this type of control, most of us do not realize this dynamic in an interview. How can we? We have no experience with it.
This means that the candidate, who is nervous, anxious, worried and very vulnerable, will do whatever it takes in order to please the interviewer and secure the position. Once the candidate gets the job, this power difference is dramatically reduced. The new employee becomes comfortable and relaxed in the new work environment, becoming their true selves, and sometimes with disastrous results.
Because I interview as a profession, I understand this dynamic. I teach my clients about this power difference and what they can do to reduce it. For example, at the end of each interview I inform our candidates about when they can expect an answer from us about our decision. I then follow through and give them the decision as promised. I inform them of the agenda for the interview. I give them options for interviewing times. When they show up 15 minutes early, I am ready to begin their interview 15 minutes early. I have their resume and cover letter in front of me for reference, but my real purpose is to actively listen to them. I do not withhold information from my candidates, especially when the answer is “no.”
In order to see your candidates’ true selves and determine if they are the amazing employee you are seeking, give some power back to them during in the interview process. Treat them with the respect and dignity that they deserve and they in kind will perform when hired, powerfully.
by Beth | Sep 21, 2011 | Selecting Good Candidates
I have been asked recently by hiring managers and recruiters about my “active to passive ratio”. Active to passive ratio reflects the number of people interviewed who are currently unemployed versus employed. An active candidate is currently unemployed and actively looking for a position. A passive candidate is currently employed, relatively satisfied with their current position and may or may not be interested in a new position. My question to them was why is that important?
Some employers are specifically not hiring people because they are unemployed. They believe that all of the unemployed people out there are unqualified candidates. The thought process is that if this person lost their job, then they must have been underperforming. As a hiring specialist, I see an amazing amount of qualified applicants in both categories. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, over 2 million people quit their jobs in April 2010, the highest amount in over a year. Are they unqualified also?
Judging an entire group of people based on one qualification is called a bias or a prejudice, and not only is it wrong, but it simply misses the whole point. You can’t judge a book by its cover, and you can’t judge a person’s effectiveness by their employment status.
