You don't make bad hires on purpose. Humans act on first impressions. Decades ago, Lou Adler said that "making decisions based on emotions, biases, chemistry, personality and stereotyping cause more hiring mistakes than any other single factor." Sadly, it is still valid.
Your existing hiring process, based on "the way we've always done it," is probably wasting time. It fails to spot high performers and does not screen out applicants who may be at high risk for "victim" behaviors. If we look for time wasters, there are many.
Applications provide little information about possible behaviors beyond demographics. Résumés enable the writer to withhold or manipulate information freely.
Real examples from my HR experience include an applicant who described time in a drug rehabilitation clinic as "studying for the ministry" and convicted felons who described prison time as "state employment." Sigh.
Looking ahead, AI may make this information jumble even worse. Follow my logic on this: I help organizations as they implement AI to take existing job descriptions and create open-position postings with defined tasks for applicants to use.
At the same time, applicants use the same technology to create résumés and cover letters in response. Therefore, applicants will submit computer-developed documents for computer-developed open-position listings, leaving human wisdom out of the process. Computers are talking to computers, which I see as a potential problem.
Keep this in mind as we continue solving the talent shortage. The existing human parts of your hiring process can benefit from some examination and improvement. Initially, humans may conduct a brief phone screening to verify basic facts but may elicit little new information before scheduling an interview. Opportunity missed.
Only by the second interview do most hiring managers honestly assess candidates. Still, these assessments focus on visible skills and abilities, and spend little time learning whether the candidate's values align with the organization's purpose.
A reference and background check may uncover some data, but the candidate's true colors are usually not revealed until after they are hired. This is similar to making a marriage decision after a computer introduction and two speed dates.
Our challenge -- solving the talent shortage -- requires using methods that can get more helpful applicant information sooner.
The first step in the hiring process should be values questions -- a more narrative application that instantly screens out people who don't want to invest their time in your process. More importantly, it helps identify people likely to fit into the organization.
Values questions on the application should be simple and tailored to the position. Applicants may still provide incomplete or misleading information, but the narrative style tends to capture better information overall. Some questions that can reveal values:
These offer valuable clues to the applicant's values and attitudes before actually talking to the applicant.
Use the clues. The written information from the narrative application is the background for a 10-minute virtual call to follow up with the applicant, drilling down for more detail about values and attitudes. Ask promising applicants to complete an online assessment.
Use a validated assessment tool that measures qualities relevant to your company's needs and probes for issues that might cause conflict and chaos. Online assessments should include external distortion scores that quantify the likelihood of the applicant telling the truth.
By the time an applicant comes in for an interview, you will have invested less time, yet gathered more useful information assessing the candidate's values and attitudes than is traditionally the case. You then have a wealth of data to prepare structured questions. Better data provides a better decision.
The rigor of the process combined with your putting values in the front window leads low performers and non-aligned applicants to opt out early. This results in a pool of candidates that skews toward high performers and will produce a workforce with higher ethical standards. Win/win.
Evaluate the success of the new hiring process and make improvements as needed. The information gathered can be tracked systematically to determine the process' effectiveness.
After six months, compare the performance of new hires against the information collected during the hiring process to learn what pieces of information correlate with good and poor performance, as well as high ethics versus the possibility of poor morals.
From this feedback, adjust the process to further tighten the standards. Revise the application, phone interview and online assessment to improve the screening process further.
Our back-to-basics approach changes the steps of your hiring process. As always, I close with a challenge: Are you willing to change how you hire, manage and spend more quality time with your high performers?
