Category Archives: Hiring

Would You Pay A Candidate To Interview?

Posted on by
4

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!

Talent Acquisition’s Digital Disruption

Posted on by
4

I’m headed out to Park City, UT on June 1st to be part of HireVue’s first ever Digital Disruption 2014.  Semi-User Conference, Semi HR Tech Trends Conference, one of the more intriguing agendas filled with practitioners from across industry.  The keynote will be the famous Moneyball guy Billy Beane – remember the Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill movie about baseball and selection metrics, that Billy Beane.  He was really the first guy to bring selection metrics to the forefront of what we in Talent Acquisition now use daily.   He did it to get the best baseball team possible, using the smallest payroll possible, to stay competitive in a world of competition willing to spend whatever it took.  Sound familiar to your own industry!?

I’m looking forward to seeing him talk, again.  The first time I ever saw Billy speak was the day after the Oscars when Moneyball, and it’s actors, were up for a number of awards.  He had great stories from that, plus his normal presentation on metrics.  That was a few years ago.  Things have evolved, as has the emphasis of everyone now using the same metrics.  So, now what?  What do you do when those who have more money than you, now are also using your metrics as well?  My guess is you get back to strategy and culture, and make sure you follow it, like crazy!  It should be very interesting.

On a side note, ERE recently released their annual ‘State of Recruiting‘ study.  You know what they found out?  You don’t like to be called ‘Recruiting’.  In fact, the majority of you prefer to be called ‘Talent Acquisition’.  Did you know that?  It’s uncomfortable to me.  I like to shorten everything.  I like to simplify.  So, going from one word to describe something, to two words to describe something, seems totally ridiculous!  I can’t tell you how much of a pet peeve this is to me.  It’s like when someone named “David” or “Michael” demands you call them by their full name instead of “Dave” and “Mike”.  I hate those guys!  What do you mean you want me to use two syllables when I can only use one!  I demand efficiency!

My guess is people who do this type of business for a living, on the corporate side, felt like they needed two words to keep up with Human Resources.  “Well, if they have two words in their department name, we need to words in our name as well!”  No one would admit this, but in reality, it’s how this stupid stuff happens.  There is actually nothing wrong with calling Recruiting, Recruiting.  HR use to be ‘Personnel’, but had to change it because ‘Personnel’ just didn’t encapsulate what ‘we’ really did.  Now, even ‘Human Resources’ is coming under fire from progressives because we shouldn’t think of our employees, our people, as ‘Resources’.  They are People!  So, you get these ridiculous titles like Chief People Officer and VP of People.

I hear you Recruiters.  I know you want to be all big and fancy and “Talent Acquisition” seems so much more big and fancy…  But you aren’t kidding anyone.  You’re still a recruiter.  You’re not ‘acquiring talent’, you’re putting asses in seats.  Get over yourself, and get back on the phone.

I only bring this up because when I’m in Utah with the HireVue folks, I’ll be rubbing elbows with many ‘Talent Acquisition’ Pros.  Talking about all the new cool trends in, well, Talent Acquisition (a little part of me just died).   I think what Billy Beane will all remind of, though, is that while technology and analytics can disrupt any industry, you still need to have great vision, solid strategy and the courage to follow through with your plan.

My guess is that hasn’t changed as much as we like to change what we call ourselves!

I Had To Work

Posted on by
1

“I had to work!” – 84 year old Barbara Walters on NPR, talking about her retirement this week from TV.

For those who don’t know, I run the company my 67 year old Mother started, with help from my 84 year old Grandmother, over 30 years ago.   I was raised and influenced by two women who had this same philosophy — “I have to work”.  My Mom was a single mother, raising two kids.  My Grandmother was married, but was raising 5 girls and she needed to help my Grandfather supplement prom dresses, makeup, hair salon appointments, etc.

The only time you hear this phrase, it’s usually coming from a woman. I don’t say that with negative connotation.  It’s just one of those statements, in our culture, you usually hear from an older female who ‘had’ to work because they didn’t have a man paying the bills, for whatever reason (divorce, never married, death of a spouse, etc.).  It’s very common for single mothers, of which, Barbara Walters was, thus her comment.

She had a child to raise, and she was the first woman to make it in major network news.  She had a male partner who hated working with her, she cried almost daily, privately, in her dressing room, because of how this person treated her. But, she had to work.  She was working in a time when women were not welcome in her chosen field.  She broke down barriers for all those talented women we see today in network news.

There’s a big difference between “I had to work” to “I want to work”.  It’s wider than the Grand Canyon.   “I had to work” speaks to desperation and being uncomfortable.  I think it also speaks to the great successes we see from females who have to work versus those wanting to work.  If they were given the choice of working or not, they never would have went through the tough times, pushed themselves further than they ever thought possible.  Quite frankly, most would have given up, if they had other means of living and not having to work — that’s just life. But they didn’t, they had to work.

I think the concept of “having to work” speaks to how many people become successful.   Given only one choice — to work — people find ways to be successful because it’s the only option.  We always think people want options.  So, we try and give people as many options as possible.  But this probably hurts their ability to be successful, because having options gives them outs when they fail, or even begin to fail.  If you only have one option, work this job, or basically become homeless, you probably work the crap out of that job!  You make sure you don’t fail.  Your ability to become successful rises exponentially when you have fewer choices, not more.

In today’s society, unfortunately, single Moms have become the norm.  Thirty and forty years ago that wasn’t the case. These women had to fight to survive at a different level.  This isn’t to take away from single Moms today, that’s still a mighty struggle to make it.  I just know those women who came before them had the equal pressure of not being welcomed in most fields which would allow them to make a salary to raise a family!

I wonder if we will ever get to a point, culturally, where men will be heard saying the statement “well, I had to work” in the connotation that its considered normal for them to stay home and be caregivers, homemakers, etc., while their spouse takes off to the office.  I can’t even imagine.

 

Would You Be Willing To Pay For Interview Feedback? (Take 2)

Posted on by
7

“I believe you have to be willing to be misunderstood if you’re going to innovate.”

– Howard Marks

Recently I wrote an article over at Fistful of Talent, and subsequently posted on LinkedIn, that caused some people to lose their minds.  I asked what I thought was a simple question: Would you be willing to pay for interview feedback?  Not just normal, thanks, but no thanks, interview feedback, but really in depth career development type of feedback from the organization that interviewed you.  You can read the comments here – they range from threats to outright hilarity! Needless to say, there is a lot of passion on this topic.

Here’s what I know:

– Most companies do a terrible job at delivery any type of feedback after interviews. Terrible.

– Most candidates only want two things from an interview.

1.  To Be Hired

2. If not hired, to know a little about why they didn’t get hired

Simple, right?  But, this still almost never happens!  Most large companies, now, automate the entire process with email form letters.  Even those lucky enough to get a live call, still get a watered-down, vanilla version of anything close to something that we would consider helpful.

When I asked if someone was willing to pay for interview feedback, it wasn’t for the normal lame crap that 99% of companies give.  It was for something new. Something better. Something of value.  It would also be something completely voluntary.  You could not pay and still get little to no feedback that you get now — Dear John, Thanks, but no thanks. The majority of the commentators felt like receiving feedback after an interview was a ‘right’ – legal and/or G*d given.  The reality is, it’s neither.

The paid interview feedback would be more in-depth, have more substance and would focus on you and how to help you get better at interviewing.  It would also get into why you didn’t get the job.  The LinkedIn commentators said this was rife with legal issues.  Organizations would not be allowed to do this by their legal staff because they would get sued by interviewees over the reasons.  This is a typical HR response.  If you say ‘legal’ people stop talking about an idea.  They teach that in HR school so we don’t have to change or be challenged by new ideas!

The reality is, as an HR Pro, I’m never going give someone ammunition to sue my organization.  If I didn’t hire someone for an illegal reason, let’s say because they were a woman, no person in their right mind would come out and say that.  Okay, first, I would never do that. Second, if I did, I would focus the feedback on other opportunity areas the candidate had that would help them in their next interview or career. No one would ever come out and say to an interviewee, “Yeah, you didn’t get the job because you’re a chick!”

This is not a legal or risk issue.  It’s about finally finding a way to deliver great interview feedback to candidates.  It’s about delivering a truly great candidate experience.  So many HR Pros and organizations espouse this desire to deliver a great candidate experience, but still don’t do the one thing that candidates really want.  Just give me feedback!

So, do you think I’m still crazy for wanting to charge interviewees for feedback?

 

 

3 Highly Effective Habits of Annoying Candidates

Posted on by
1

I’ve noticed a run on ‘Highly Effective’ list posts lately!  It seems like everyone has the inside scoop on how to be highly effective at everything! Highly Effective Leaders. Highly Effective Managers. Highly Effective Productive People. Highly Effective Teacher.  If you want a post worth clicking on, just add an odd number, the words ‘highly effective’ and a title.  It goes a little something like this (hit it!):

– The 5 Highly Effective Habits of Crackheads!

– The 7 Highly Effective Traits of Lazy Employees!

– The 13 Highly Effective Ways To Hug It Out at Work!

Blog post writing 101.  The highly effective way to write a blog post people will click on and spend 57 seconds reading.

I figured I might as well jump on board with some career/job seeker advice with the 3 Highly Effective Habits of Annoying Candidates!

1. They don’t pick up on normal social cues.  This means you don’t know when to shut up or start talking.   Most annoying candidates actually struggle with the when to stop talking piece.  Yes, we want to hear about your job history. No, we don’t care about your boss Marvin who managed you at the Dairy Dip when you were 15.

2. They live in the past. Usually, annoying candidates are annoying because they were annoying employees and like to share annoying stories about how great it was in the past, when they weren’t thought of as annoying.  I guess you can’t blame them. If there was ever a possibility they weren’t annoying, I’d probably try and relive those moments as much as possible.

3. They lack a shred of self-insight.  That’s really the core, right?  If you had any self-insight, you would understand you’re just a little annoying and you would work to control that, but you don’t.  “Maybe some would say spending a solid ten minutes talking about my coin collection in an interview wouldn’t be good, but I think it shows I’m passionate!” No, it doesn’t.

You can see how these highly effective habits start to build on each other.  You don’t stop rambling on about something totally unrelated to the interview because you don’t notice Mary stopped taking notes ten minutes ago and started doodling on her interview notes, but you plow on because you told yourself during interview prep to make sure you got out all of your bad manager stories.

Highly effective annoying candidates are like a Tsunami of a lack of emotional intelligence.  Even if I was completely unqualified for a job I think the feedback afterwards from the interviewers would be: “we really liked him, too bad he doesn’t have any the skills we need.”   Highly effective annoying candidates have the opposite feedback: “if this person was the last person on earth with the skills to save our company, I would rather we go out of business!”

What annoying candidate habits have you witnessed?

Wrong Company, Right Interview

Posted on by
4

If you’re in the staffing game enough, you’re bound to have strange stuff happen to you.  I’ve had employees die on the job.  I’ve had employees go postal.  I’ve had employees get caught doing almost everything imaginable, but this past week I got a first!  I like firsts. Firsts are like little HR and Talent trophies you get to show off to your HR and Talent peers when you’re out after work sharing war stories!

It seemed like a normal Thursday.  Phones buzzing, recruiters cruitin’, interviews, offers, no-shows.  Call comes in from a client, “Hey, Bill never showed for his interview!” Ugh, I hate no-shows!  In good job times, no-shows increase at alarming rate.  Candidate gets ‘sold’ on a job, then they get buyers remorse and decide instead of being an adult, they’ll just burn a bridge.  We give Bill a call to see why he hates us so.  Bill answers! (that doesn’t usually happen with no-shows, you just have to yell at their voice mail and belittle to a recording) “Bill, I just got a call from InfoGenTech what the hell!  You no-showed. Please tell me one of your kids is seriously injured!”

Then a funny, first time thing, happened.

Bill says, “Well, I went on the interview, but went to the wrong company!”  What!?  Didn’t the wrong company tell you,”Hey dude, you’re stupid and at the wrong company!”  Nope, they didn’t.  This is the D! (Detroit for all you none “D’ers'”!) This company said, “What position are you supposed to interview for?”  Bill goes, “for aprogrammer position”.  Wrong company front desk person, knowing they also need programmers, quickly calls HR and explains Bill’s situation.  Bill gets on the spot interview with wrong company.  Bill never gets the chance to make it to our client’s interview.

Score one for the D.  The war for talent is alive and well in Detroit!

I’ve had candidates get lost and not be able to find where they are going for interviews.  I’ve had candidates show up at wrong locations.  I’ve never had a candidate go to the wrong location and get stolen by the company!

When people ask me how Michigan is doing, how Detroit is doing, I’ll give them this story.  We are so short on talent, we steal interviews.

Recruiting in the D.  Silicon Valley can kiss our ass!

HR’s Dirty Little Secret #26

Posted on by
2

If you clicked over to read Dirty Little Secret #26 and you’re looking for numbers 1 – 25, hold tight, I haven’t written those yet.  I just like picking random numbers for posts because they work, and I believe HR has at least 26 Dirty Little Secrets.  This is just one.  I’m not really ranking them.  Number 26 could be as bad or worse than number 1.  I’ll let you decide when they’re all done.

So, what is HR’s Dirty Little Secret #26?

“We check secondary references, without you knowing, all the time!”

First let me give you the line 100% of all HR Pros will give to you and all employees, all the time.  “We do not give references.  We will only give you employment verification, which includes dates of employment. Thank you.”

You’ve heard that, right?

One of HR’s most dirty little secrets is that we give out references all the time!!!  Especially, if you’re a terrible employee!  We just don’t do it publicly.  The Chairman of JetBlue Airlines, Joel Peterson, wrote a blog post on LinkedIn (first, I doubt highly he wrote it, but his PR team did a nice job with the series) titled “Top 10 Hiring Mistakes, #5 Lazy Reference Checking”, where he gives advice about checking secondary references.  Secondary references are those references that a candidate didn’t give you, but you have through your own connections. His advice was awful, but he’s a public figure, he had to give it.  He said you should always let the candidate know you’ll be checking secondary references so they can reach out and let those people know.

First, thanks for the tip Joel, but that never happens. Never.  Plus, why would I want to give away the one unfiltered piece of the selection process I can get!? You don’t!

Here’s reality.  If you interview for a position, you should assume that someone in the organization is checking secondary references behind your back.  It’s easy to do.  I call up a buddy who works at your current, or old organization,  we talk, catch up on our favorite teams, crazy employees we both know, etc. Then, she let’s me know if you’re a train wreck or not.  Of course, she also first says, “Tim, you know we can’t give references.” Then she says, “Off the record, your candidate is a psycho path!”  End of secondary reference.

You think I’m joking.  It happens just like that, and it happens every. single. day.

Don’t get me wrong, most of the time, the secondary reference actually comes back positive.  You get more of an unfiltered references than you get by checking the ‘given references’ a candidate provides to you as part of your process.  Given References are completely worthless.  I don’t even waste my time checking given references.  If someone can’t find three people who think they walk on water, they’ve got bigger problems.

If you’re going to do ‘given references’ because you can’t talk the old white guys in your leadership out of it, because it makes them feel all warm, fuzzy and comfortable, at least talk them into automating this process.  Chequed is a company that does it better than anyone, and it will totally take this worthless activity off your back. Plus, Chequed has shown that people who fill out an automated reference check, even a given reference, will be more honest about a person’s actual strengths and weaknesses.  I’m a fan of their science. (FYI – they didn’t pay to say that, although, they should!)

I won’t ask what HR Pros think about this, because they’ll mostly lie and say they don’t do this.  That’s why it’s my HR’s Dirty Little Secret #26.

The Organization With the Most Expensive Selection Mistakes is?

Posted on by
2

The NFL.  This Thursday that NFL will perform their annual selection process on ESPN, with their annual draft.  Just like you, they have no idea what they’re doing, but act like they figured out the secret sauce to great selection.  The big difference between you and the NFL, their mistakes costs them a lot more money!  Check out this chart from BI on the NFL Draft Guaranteed Contracts:

NFL draft

This chart basically shows you that the best, or highest, first round pick will get about $22 million guaranteed, while the lower third round picks will get $600k in guaranteed money over the life of their contract.

How would you like that level of possible expense in your selection process!?

All that money, all that time, all that research, and the NFL draft is still basically a crap shoot.  The pick people, like you pick people.  “Well, we really like Johnny’s football IQ and he just seems so personable! What the hell, let’s pay him $15M!”

What!?!

“Well, we know his ‘past performance’ in college.  We know all his ‘performance metrics’.  We gave him a personality profile.  We ‘feel’ like he’s a safe bet and potential high performer.”

It’s really not that different from you picking a $50,000 per year sales professional.   Many organizations put as much into their hiring selections, as the NFL puts into picking their draft selections.  Obviously, the NFL has more resources to throw at their process, so they probably have a few more bells and whistles.  But, they have no more success than you.  The ones who do the best, like you, are not only concerned about the ‘big’ hires/selections – your executive hires, their high first and second round draft picks, but put as much research and resources into each hire.  Making a great selection in the 7th round might be as valuable, long term, as making a great first round selection.  Just as you making a great entry level sales hire, might be as valuable, or more, to making a really solid Director level hire.

The learning on all of this?  You can’t take hires off.  There are no ‘throw away’ hires, just as their are no throw away draft picks for great NFL teams.

3 Ways to Kill Comparison Interviews

Posted on by
2

I had a great candidate interview yesterday with a client!  This person is completely money!  Close the search, game over.  Just make the offer and pay me.

Then ‘it’ happens.

Client: “Tim, we loved her!  She is perfect!  I can’t believe you guys found her!”

Me: “Awesome. Pay me!”

Client: “Well, the hiring manager would like to just see one more person so she has a comparison, before making an offer.”

Me: “You’re looking for a female Environmental Safety Engineer with an Electrical Engineering background!  I found you the only person on the planet with that profile!  You want another?!”

Client: “Yeah, we just need something to compare her to.”

Me: “Okay, I’ll send over the recruiter who found her and we’ll tell her to talk like an engineer.”

How many times have you had a hiring manager do this to you?  It sucks!  It’s hard to get them to change their mind.  Usually, what happens is it takes you weeks to find another even remotely qualified candidate, as compared to you rock star, and by then your rock star gets pissed off, or cold feet and tells you to go fly a kite!  Opportunity lost!

Comparison Interviews are garbage.  The only way to stop them, is to combat the mindset before the words even come out of the hiring managers mouth.  Here are three things you can do today to stop hiring managers from wanting to do a comparison interview:

1.  Combat the conversation by setting up another interview with another candidate before they even ask, without asking for permission.  “Hey, Jill, we have that really great candidate you liked on paper coming in Wednesday at 1pm, I also set up another candidate for 3pm who was really the next best we could find. I’ll get the paper resume to you before she shows.”

2. Create a higher sense of urgency.  “Jill, you said she’s a rock star, let’s offer now before someone else has a chance to get her before we can.  I know someone of her quality has other options, we can’t look wishy washy on this, if we want talent like this!”

3. Define what ‘great talent’ is before the interview.  Then, when you see ‘great talent’ there is no need for a comparison.  “Jill we hire great talent, that talent by our definition is great talent.  If we find more great talent, we’ll hire that as well.  What do you want me to make the offer at?”

More hires are lost to comparison interview timing, than to counter offers.  We all think we are going to lose a great candidate to counter offers, but the reality is, they don’t happen often, and recruiters have gotten good about preparing candidates for those.  Recruiters aren’t prepared for comparison interviews and the process dragging on for weeks!  The market is quickly changing from where it has been over the past 10 years.  We went almost a decade where hiring managers could take their time and drag out our process. That behavior now costs you the best talent.

Kill the comparison interview mentality now, or it’s going to kill your talent pool!

 

Profiling Diversity Hires

Posted on by
1

Entelo, a recruiting technology company, recently launched a product called Entelo Diversity. To be honest, I had to look up what Entelo actually did.  I had heard the name, but I couldn’t have told you if they were an employee engagement company or an ATS – turns out they’re neither! They’re a recruiting play, inasmuch, you have needs that are hard to find, their product claims to help you find those needs (I’ve never used it, so I not telling you it works or doesn’t).  This new product, apparently, helps you find Black People! Or Women. Or Black Women. Or a half Black-Asain Women, who used to be a man. I’m not sure, for sure, I haven’t used it, I’m just going on their press release.

Here’s what I know, that most Talent and HR people lose their freaking minds over.  It’s not a bad thing to have a product or service that can specifically find you a certain kind of diversity.  I know. I know. That makes you really uncomfortable!

“TIM! People will use those products to discriminate!”

They might.  I can’t stop that at your organization.  I can stop that at my organization!

The products just find what you want.  If you need more female recruits for your hiring pool. Bam!  A product like this will help you.  If you need more shades of color within your organization. Bam! A product like this could help you build a rainbow in your organization.  If you have a hiring manager who only wants to hire young white guys in your organization. You need to address that!  But don’t blame a recruiting product.  You own that one!

I hear the same criticism every time I show a new group how to recruit on Facebook.  There are really cool options where you could search on females, 22 years old to 28 years old, who graduated with an engineering degree from Stanford. That’s is awesome, right!?   I need more young female engineers from Standford in my engineering department! But I can also search 31-45 year old white male engineers from Stanford as well.  Oh, well, that’s not so good, right?  Wrong.  What if your entire staff was black female engineers!  While highly unlikely, you would still need to add some diversity to that staff.

This isn’t about tools getting more powerful and precise to what you are looking for.  This is about those using those tools, usually Talent and HR Pros, ensuring that your organization is doing the right things to get the best hiring pools possible.  Too many Talent and HR Pros run away from using these tools, and it only shows their own ignorance for what true diversity and inclusion is.

Smart Talent and HR Pros know what their organizations are lacking, and they’ll work to fill those needs with the best available talent.  Sometimes that means you need to get very specific on the diversity side.  Sometimes it means you don’t.  Great Pros work to always have the correct balance for their organization, their demographic and their stakeholders.

(Editor’s Note: Ha! That’s funny, you all know I don’t have an editor.  Just so we are clear, Entelo did not compensate me for this post, but if they want to send me Diet Mt. Dew, I never turn that down.)