Category Archives: Hiring

Maybe I’ve Been Wrong About Quality of Hire (QoH)

Posted on by
1

I was at LinkedIn’s Talent Connect Summit this week, and I sat in a session on measuring the quality of hire delivered by Ana Recio, the VP of Talent at Uber. I’m a big fan of QoH, and I’m not alone. LinkedIn’s own annual recruitment data shows that QoH is the #1 priority for people leaders. I actually wrote quite a bit about QoH in my book, The Talent Fix, Vol. 2, but my take was a bit different from most people in our space, and although it pains me to say it, most people might be right, and I might be wrong!

My original belief is that QoH needs to have an industry standard measure to mean anything. If we can’t benchmark across industry, what are we really measuring? Or so I thought.

Ana at Uber and her team built a straightforward survey measure of QoH (You can download Uber’s QoH measure details here) that, after six months, asks the hiring manager simply, “Would you hire this person again, if given the chance?” They also ask the employee if this is the job they thought they would be getting. This is very similar to the approach CrossChq has taken in their QoH measure.

I like the simplicity. My struggle with QoH has always been it’s just too damn difficult to really measure it (in the way I thought it should be measured). I was stuck on the “quality” component and wanting data around quality. In my head, that meant performance data. How can we show this hire was better than another hire that previously worked in this job or many other hires that have worked in this job? That meant you had to wait a period of time to have real performance data. It all seemed like a lot.

Uber figured out, that “data” could just be a signal from the hiring manager. Simple, yet still valid.

Does this simplicity have issues?

Maybe.

I’m kind of stuck on us believing all of our hiring managers will have enough confidence to actually call our their own failure of selection, development, and performance management. That’s what we are asking them – “Would you make this same selection again if given the choice?” Meaning either you chose successfully, and this person has been great, or you failed in your selection, and this person sucks.

Also, if I’m confident, I come clean and say, “No, I would not choose this person again.” Will HR be coming down to put this person on a performance plan? Do I need to put them on a plan? I mean, if we are honest, and I don’t want to hire this person again, it’s probably time we move on and actually hire a person I would hire again, right?

This QoH measure and process are new to Uber, so Ana and her team haven’t really crossed that bridge yet. Since this is so new, maybe they haven’t run into this issue. I wasn’t able to ask her this question, but I plan on sending it to her as a follow-up to see how it’s going when they get some more data.

Still, I like what Uber is doing. Maybe we don’t need “one” measure of QoH to make it meaningful and impactful. Maybe each organization will figure out its own data and measure QoH in a way that makes sense to them. Maybe some organizations will have multiple QoH measures based on positions (Sales vs. Engineering, for example).

The data nerd in me would love one global QoH measure, but I also love that organizations are just trying to figure this out on their own and benchmarking against themselves. In the end, talent intelligence is about making your hiring better, period. Thanks to Ana and Uber team for sharing!!

Just play your hits!

Posted on by
1

I’ve been on the road a lot this fall. It’s conference season, and that’s what I do!

During that time, I was lucky enough to see two concerts: Garth Brooks (okay, calm down and let the legal stuff play itself out first) and Pink. Both shows were amazing. Both artists have a ton of hit records. Both artists came out and played all of their hits! It was basically a two-hour sing-along, and it was amazing.

Garth even came out and just said – “Don’t you hate it when you go to a concert, and the artist wants to play all of their new stuff that no one knows?!” Yes, Garth! I hate that! He said, well, that isn’t going to be this show, and played all of his great songs. I lost my voice singing!

Play your hits!

As organizations, we stop playing our hits. Marketing departments are the worst at this, but employment branding is pretty bad at this as well. We always want to tell people about the new stuff, not the stuff that made us who we are!

We get sick of our own bullsh*t way faster than the market gets sick of it.

New features, new menu items, new products, new colors, new, new, new.

I get it, and I love the new stuff as well. But we tend to walk away from what we are really good at way too often and way too quickly. There should be a part of our strategy that looks at what are we really good at and how often are we reminding people we are really freaking good at this?!

In HR, that is doing stuff like continuing to tell our employees about those great benefits that we know are great, but not enough are taking advantage of. To highlight great leaders in our organizations that employees love to work for, but well, Tim got that award last time, so let’s not talk about him this time. No, talk about him! Keep selling what you’re good at!

In recruiting, we tend to sell what we think candidates want to hear. Instead, sell who you really are, the good of who you are, and then the candidates who come will want you, the good you! I want to hear about why your longest-tenured employees decide each and every day to stay employed with you. Those hires are your hits!

As individuals, do what you are good at and do it some more. I can’t tell you how often I see amazing individual performers get pulled into jobs they really don’t want. They might want that pay increase, but they definitely don’t want that job. They stop playing their hits, and no one likes their new stuff!

So, what did we learn today? Tim has a very eclectic music taste, and he likes to sing-alongs!

Does “Overqualified” Really Mean “Too Old”?

Posted on by
3

I recently spoke with an incredibly talented woman. She’s 49, a college graduate, and has a solid work portfolio. She’s been applying for jobs, but keeps hearing the same thing in interviews: “You’re overqualified.”

Now, sure, she does have more experience than the role requires, but she knows what the job involves and wants to do it. She’s not expecting anything more, unless she proves herself and the company needs her to move up.

Let’s be honest: “Overqualified” is often just code for, “You’re too old for us.”

Prove me wrong!

Why is someone labeled overqualified when they clearly understand what the job is and want to do it?

Let’s say I’m a heart surgeon, but I want less stress, so I decide to switch to a cardiac rehab role. It still involves working with heart patients, but it’s less demanding and pays less. I don’t need as much education for the job either. So, am I overqualified for the rehab job just because I used to be a surgeon? Only if you say I am! I’ve got the skills and I want the role, so why wouldn’t I be a great fit?

Hiring managers often say someone is “overqualified” when they can’t come up with a real reason not to hire someone with lots of experience.

It’s an excuse. A bad one too.

Here’s an example: “Oh, Susan has too much experience. She wouldn’t be happy reporting to me long-term, especially since she has more experience than I do!” Did Susan say that? “Well, no…”

This happens a lot with older folks who don’t want to retire yet. They’ve got years of valuable experience, but 32-year-old Steve won’t hire them because he thinks they won’t take his direction. That’s Steve’s problem, not the candidate’s.

And it’s not just guys. Women do it too! Turns out we all love discriminating against older workers.

Tech companies are the worst for this, thinking only young people understand technology. Creative companies are just as bad, acting like the only people who matter are 26-year-olds on Instagram.

Then there’s the classic: “I don’t want to hire someone who’s going to retire in five years!”…

How long do people usually stay at your company? “About 4.2 years.” Yeah, having someone for five years would be awful, right?

I once had a hiring manager say they needed someone for the long term when talking about a 52-year-old candidate. 13-15 years isn’t long term?!

I’ve found that calling hiring managers out—saying, “You’re being ridiculous”—works wonders. It cuts right through the bias.

So tell me, what’s the real reason you won’t hire someone “overqualified”?

How To Push Top Talent Away

Posted on by
1

When you’re trying to bring great candidates on board, communication is key. But sometimes, the wrong word can send them running for the hills.

There are certain words and phrases that can make a candidate lose interest in working for your company. I often tell students that what they say in an interview can make or break their chances of getting hired.

Picture this: You’re interviewing a candidate, and they start explaining why they left their last job, saying, “Oh, it was just a ‘misunderstanding.’ I can explain…”

“Misunderstanding” is a huge red flag! It wasn’t just a mix-up—it likely got them fired. The real misunderstanding is not realizing what they did was wrong.

So, what are the 7 Words that will push candidates away? Don’t use these:

  • “Layoff” – No matter how you spin it, this word is bad news. Even saying, “We’ve never had a layoff!” can make candidates nervous. People want job security, and “layoff” screams instability.
  • “Might” – Top talent wants clear answers, not wishy-washy ones. Saying “might” makes things sound uncertain. Instead, say, “I’m not sure, but I’ll find out for you.”
  • “Maybe” – This is another word that makes you sound unsure. Candidates like to know what they’re getting into, not guesswork.
  • “Unstable” – When you call something “unstable,” it doesn’t sound good. If things are shaky, be upfront about it, but don’t make it sound worse than it is.
  • “Legally” – Nothing good ever follows this word. For example, “Legally, we’d love to give you a $25K sign-on bonus, but…” It usually means bad news is coming.
  • “Temporarily” – This word makes candidates uneasy. For instance, saying, “Temporarily, you’ll work out of the Nashville office, but soon you’ll be in Austin,” just adds uncertainty.
  • “Fluid” – Saying a situation is “fluid” is another way of saying you don’t have a solid plan. Candidates prefer stability, not a situation that’s “up in the air.”

That right there is how to push top talent away!

We often use these words because we’re afraid to be completely honest. But the truth is, most candidates appreciate transparency and believe they can make a difference. By being straightforward, you’ll attract candidates who are ready for the challenge and more likely to stick around.

Should you be checking the social media accounts of your candidates?

Posted on by
10

I tackled this question today on video because I think it’s easier to discuss it that way versus writing about my reply. All of us are doing background checks, but rarely do we find anything on those. We have the potential to catch way more misconduct issues on social media.

Check it out and let me know what you think:

Some resources from Fama:

Let me know what you think! Are you checking your candidates’ social media accounts? Do you think you should be?

You are Overqualified!

Posted on by
1

Navigating the job market can be tough, especially when you hear things that don’t make sense. One common thing HR peeps say is: “You are Overqualified!” Respectfully – shut up! No, I am not!

The truth is, no one is ever really ‘overqualified’ for a job. You might have more skills and experience than the job needs, but that’s not the real issue. The real issue is that the interviewer might be scared because you’re better at the job than they are.

For a long time, HR and hiring managers have been taught to say candidates are overqualified to hide their own fears. They say, “We won’t hire you because you’re overqualified and might leave soon because you’ll be unhappy.” But the real fear is that your talent might make them look bad.

This idea has been around for ages and people just believed it without questioning it.

Having more qualifications should be seen as a good thing. Companies should be eager to hire highly skilled people. These days, expecting someone to stay in the same job for 40 years is unrealistic. Getting a talented person to stay around for even 3 or 4 years is great.

Companies should try to hire the best people for every job and let them do their best work. Worrying about whether they’ll stay for a long time shouldn’t be a big concern. Just focus on using their skills and letting them make a difference.

The real problem is that some hiring managers are afraid to hire people who are better than them. This fear is bad for the company. To get better, companies need to hire better people.

Creating a culture that values and welcomes top talent is important. This not only improves the company but also makes it a place where people want to work. Avoiding the mistake of hiring less qualified people ensures that your company stays competitive.

In the end, the idea of being ‘overqualified’ is just a myth. Hire great talent, let them do their thing, and watch your company grow.

Hiring your first employee is a big deal!

Posted on by
Reply

Do you remember your first hire? It’s normal to have felt nervous because you definitely didn’t want to make a mistake. You wanted your first hire to be amazing!

All of our new recruiters and hiring managers face the same issues when hiring for the first time. They’re not quite sure what to do. It’s kind of like bringing your first baby home from the hospital. Remember that? You get to the lobby with your baby in the car seat, and you’re waiting for someone to stop you like “Are you sure you’re ready for this?” They might as well put a sticky note on your forehead that says Hey I’m new to this!

That’s exactly how our managers feel when they hire for the first time. You’re letting me make this decision? Are you sure?

To help out, I’ve put together a list of the Top 7 Rookie Hiring Mistakes to avoid. Here they are:

  1. Letting HR Control the Process
    This is your hire. You’ll probably be working with this person every day, so get involved from the start. Don’t just sit back and let HR handle everything.
  2. Looking for the Perfect Candidate
    No one is perfect, not even you. Find someone who can do the job well and fit into your team, rather than holding out for perfection.
  3. Hiring Someone Just Like You
    You might think someone like you would be great, but it’s often better to hire someone who complements your skills and brings something different to the team.
  4. Moving Too Slowly
    If you find a great candidate, don’t wait too long to make an offer. Good candidates are often snapped up quickly by other companies.
  5. Taking Too Long to Fire a Bad Hire
    First-time managers often think they can fix a bad hire. Don’t drag it out—if it’s not working, let them go quickly.
  6. Thinking Recruiting Isn’t Your Job
    As a manager, finding the right people is part of your job. Take ownership of the hiring process and work with HR, but remember that you know your team’s needs best.
  7. Worrying About Leadership Judging You
    Leadership isn’t going to judge you on one hire. They look at your overall hiring track record. One mistake won’t define you, so don’t stress too much about it.

What do you think? What are some of the biggest hiring mistakes you see new hiring managers making? Share your thoughts in the comments!

Ditch “In Transition” if You Want to Land Your Next Job!

Posted on by
1

Be honest—what’s your first thought when you see “In Transition” on someone’s resume, cover letter, or LinkedIn profile? Share your thoughts in the comments!

If you’re like me, the reaction isn’t positive. If it’s not working in your favor, it’s time to remove it from your profiles!

When I see “In Transition,” I wonder, “Why are you in transition? Is something wrong?” No one aspires to be in transition. While career transitions can be positive, the term often carries negative weight.

Why does “In Transition” have such a negative vibe? To me, it suggests uncertainty—you’re not clear about what you want. Instead of being “in transition,” you should focus on clearly stating your goals and the direction you’re heading.

Why You Might Be “In Transition” and Seeking a New Job:

  • Retirement from your previous role (often viewed negatively due to age bias)
  • Switching careers entirely (potentially positive if you’re willing to start at an entry-level position)
  • Fired from your last job
  • Laid off or company closed down
  • Owned a business that has since ended
  • Took a personal leave of absence (for reasons like FMLA, further education, child-rearing, or caring for an aging parent)

The challenge is finding a term that doesn’t immediately raise red flags for TA pros and hiring managers. While there’s no perfect phrase, honesty framed positively can go a long way.

Here are some suggestions to replace “In Transition”:

  • “I resigned from my last position because…”
  • “Retired from my previous role and now seeking opportunities to contribute my skills in…”
  • “Took time off for [specific reason], and now looking to…”
  • “Laid off from my last job due to [specific reason]…” (Be truthful, as savvy TA professionals can verify this.)
  • “Started and ran my own business, which [insert outcome]. Now, I’m excited to leverage my entrepreneurial skills to help your organization in…”

What do you think? Does the term “In Transition” make you wary of a candidate?

Should Companies Pay for Interviews?

Posted on by
3

It’s Re-Run Friday! This post originally ran in May 2014.

Would You Pay A Candidate To Interview?

Last week I got my ass handed to me for daring to consider that those who interview with a company, should pay for interview feedback.  Not just normal interview feedback, like thanks, but no thanks, but something really good and developmental.  Most people think that idea is bad.  Interview feedback should be free.  It’s not that I really want to charge people who interview a fee to get feedback, it’s just I think we could do so much better in terms of candidate experience, but we have to get out of our current mindset to shake things up a bit.

This all leads me to the next idea (hat tip to Orrin Konheim @okonhOwp) what if companies paid interviewees for their time?

Cool, right!?

We’ve built this entire industry on shared value.  Organizations have jobs, candidates want jobs, let’s all do this for free.  What happens when the equation isn’t equal?  What if candidates didn’t want your jobs?  Could you get more people to come out an interview if you paid them?  How much would it be worth?  It’s a really cool concept to play around with, if we can get out of our box for a bit.

Let’s say you’re having a really, really hard time getting Software Developer candidates to even consider your jobs and your organization.  It’s a super tough market, and you just don’t have a sexy brand.  You also don’t have the time to build a sexy brand, you need the talent now!  How much would it take to entice great candidates to give you an hour?  $100? $500? $1,000?  What if I told you I could have your CIO interviewing 5 top Software Developers tomorrow for 5 hours for $5,000?  Would you do it?

I hear the backlash of questions and concerns already forming in your head!

– People would just take the money, but not really want the job!

– How would you know these people were serious?

– Why would you pay to have someone interview when others will for free?

– Did you get hit on your head as a child?

– This might be the dumbest idea since your idea last week.

When we think about really having a great candidate experience, shouldn’t compensation be a apart of the conversation.  For most interviews you’re asking someone to take time off work, losing salary, time off, putting themselves at risk of their employer finding out, etc.  At the very least, you would think that we might offer up some kind of compensation for their time.  I’m not talking about interview expenses, but real cold hard cash, we appreciate your time and value it!

If you started paying candidates to interview, do you think you would get and have better or worse interviews?

When you put value to something, i.e., an interview, people tend to treat it as such.  Now that interview that they might go, might not go, becomes something they have to prepare for, because, well, someone is paying me to do this.  To interview.  I’m guessing if you paid your candidates to interview, you would get a higher level of candidate, and have a higher level of success in hiring.  It’s just a theory, wish I had the recruiting budget to test it out!

Hiring on a New Level

Posted on by
1

Did you know that a whopping 80% of hourly workers live within a 5-mile radius of their workplace? Another study found that 70% of individuals avoid commutes over 30 minutes.

It’s obvious: proximity matters.

No matter if you wear a blue collar or a white one, most people prefer living near their workplace. Who wants to waste time stuck in traffic or on crowded buses or trains? Commuting, even if it can be productive, usually throws off work-life balance.

I created this idea of “Hyperlocal Hiring” years ago. Imagine if companies exclusively recruited individuals to reside within a 1 to 3-mile radius of their premises. The idea is simple yet transformative – making a community of employees who can conveniently walk or bike to work, minimizing commute stress and maximizing efficiency.

The benefits of Hyperlocal Hiring:

  1. Enhanced Work-Life Balance: Hyper-short commutes translate to happier, more balanced employees.
  2. Stronger Bonds: Being close to each other helps coworkers form stronger relationships, making the work environment more unified.
  3. When employees live and work in the same area, they become essential members of their communities, which boosts their involvement and job retention.
  4. Cultural Cohesion: Being close together helps everyone share the same beliefs and values, making the company culture stronger.

Skeptics might have good points, especially about how doable and big we can make Hyperlocal Hiring. Sure, it could be tough for huge companies with thousands of employees. But for smaller and medium-sized businesses, it’s a great chance to get and keep awesome employees, especially younger ones who really want to be part of a community.

Now, you might be thinking about how limiting the candidate pool could work. But that’s the great thing about Hyperlocal Hiring – it’s not about having lots of options, it’s about getting the right people. When you bring in folks who believe in creating lively little communities, you build connections that go beyond just working together.

So, should we give the Hyperlocal revolution a shot?