Category Archives: Uncategorized

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!!

Annual Review or Annual Purge?

Posted on by
1

Have you ever considered how your company handles terminations when annual review season rolls around?

Back in the day, Tesla made headlines when they let go of 400 employees right after performance reviews. If you missed the details, it’s an interesting read, and you can check it out online. Plus, my friend Kris Dunn took a deep dive into Tesla’s unique culture over at The HR Capitalist—definitely worth a read!

When the news broke, Tesla confirmed in a statement that these departures were “part of an annual review” but didn’t provide an exact number.

The San Jose Mercury News reported that up to 700 employees across roles, from engineers to factory workers, were cut. Tesla’s statement mentioned that performance reviews sometimes lead to employee departures—a common practice for companies of their size, with more than 33,000 employees worldwide.

But here’s the question: is tying terminations to annual reviews a good way to sustain a healthy workplace culture?

Sure, Tesla’s got the cool factor—having “Tesla” on your resume is a badge of honor for many. But does that still apply if employees feel like they’re on the chopping block every review season? I get that letting go of underperformers is a necessary part of business, but should it be tied to once-a-year performance reviews?

Picture the lead-up to review week at Tesla. I can almost imagine the “just-in-case” goodbye lunches, where everyone’s invited to break bread “just because.” And once reviews are over, that Friday could be one big post-review party.

Let’s be real—firing employees around annual review time can turn a standard process into a high-stress, anxiety-driven experience. If a company only addresses performance issues annually, that’s a sign performance management might be falling short.

Strong, performance-driven cultures don’t wait for review season to give feedback; they make it a continuous process. If improvement isn’t happening, high-performing companies usually address the issue immediately, rather than waiting for an annual purge day that piles on unnecessary stress.

But hey everyone can march to their own drumbeat! I’d love to meet Tesla’s HR leader back then and hear their take on how they think this approach strengthens their culture.

Keep it real in HR!

Exceptional or Average?

Posted on by
Reply

With fall comes HR and TA conference season. From October through December, there are events happening every week around the globe. These conferences are packed with vendor booths, big-name speakers, and the chance to step away from the office for a bit. But there’s a common strategy behind these events that keeps people coming back year after year.

The secret? They won’t tell you that your processes are bad. Instead, they show you how far ahead everyone else seems to be, making you feel like you’re behind.

Picture this: You’re at a session, and they’re talking about how a company like Google has created the perfect, diverse workforce. Now, you’re thinking, “How can we ever compete with that?” That’s when you start looking at the expo booths for tools to help you “catch up.”

The truth is, no company is perfect, even if it seems like it at these conferences. The reality is that everyone is trying to improve, and most companies are far from flawless.

“Exceptionalism” is this idea that every company has achieved greatness. But if everyone is “great,” doesn’t that just make “great” average? The cool new tools you see at a conference today will be standard practice for everyone else tomorrow.

In HR and TA, we see this all the time. A new trend or tool spreads fast, and before you know it, everyone’s doing the same thing. You’re not paying all that money to be just like everyone else, but that’s often what happens.

What Really Builds a Great HR or TA Team?

Here’s what they don’t always talk about:

  • It’s about small, consistent improvements: Great HR and TA teams aren’t built overnight. Instead, they grow through steady progress that matches what your company actually needs.
  • Chasing the top 1% isn’t always the answer: It’s tempting to try to be like the few companies doing amazing things, but leadership often doesn’t want to make those big changes. Pushing too hard for this can lead to burnout or frustration.
  • Real greatness takes sacrifice: Reaching the highest levels of success requires both vision and hard work, but not everyone has the desire or resources to make those sacrifices.

But let’s be honest, this isn’t what sells conference tickets. What sells is the idea that you can be just as great if you invest in the latest tools or strategies.

At the end of the day, it’s not about being perfect. It’s about making steady improvements that move your company forward. So instead of feeling like you’re always behind, focus on what really matters for your team’s success.

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”?

The Need For Proof

Posted on by
Reply

As an experienced HR pro and leader, I’ve seen a troubling pattern in workplaces: we often wait for solid proof before addressing problems, even when it’s clear something is wrong.

Malcolm Gladwell said it best: “Sometimes ‘proof’ is just another word for letting people suffer.”

Think about that.

We often know something isn’t right, but without concrete evidence, we hesitate to act. This hesitation means people continue to suffer because we don’t have undeniable proof.

HR pros and leaders are trained to rely on proof to minimize risk. This cautious approach can lead to inaction, even when we know someone is being wronged.

Here’s my challenge to you:

Stop hiding behind the need for proof. Your employees are suffering, and using the lack of evidence as an excuse is wrong.

Yes, acting without proof can be risky. Yes, it might backfire. But we have a responsibility to help those who are suffering, even if it means taking a risk.

I’m willing to get fired for doing what’s right. I can’t stay in a job where people suffer because I can’t ‘prove’ something. Think about these examples:

  • Hundreds of athletes were abused by a doctor because there was no proof.
  • A hiring manager’s racism goes unchecked due to lack of proof.
  • A co-worker harasses another employee, but there’s no proof.
  • The CEO’s misogynistic behavior is ignored because there’s no proof.

“Sometimes ‘proof’ is just another word for letting people suffer…”

Look around your organization. Who is suffering today, and what can you do about it?

You all are sleeping on Paradox.ai!

Posted on by
Reply

One of the biggest developments in HR technology in the last decade was the advent of high-volume hiring technology. I’m a huge fan of this technology because it seems obvious, yet traditional ATSs and large HCM recruiting modules never went down this path to develop something for hiring low-skill/no-skill workers. The expectation was that these hourly workers would jump through the same hoops we make salaried workers jump through, and they’d like it.

The leader in this space is Paradox.ai. When they launched using machine learning with their chat-to-apply and on-demand interview scheduling, it was groundbreaking. For the first time, we actually had technology built specifically for low-skill/no-skill hiring that was fast, efficient, and reduced cost per hire. It was a technology that seemingly allowed everyone an equal chance, or at least many more, to make it through the hiring pipeline than we saw from traditional hiring practices.

While they still use conversational AI automation for hiring, they have also launched their next-gen generative AI chat, which literally blew me away. Paradox is way out in front when it comes to using generative AI in a safe, ethical way that delivers an advanced candidate experience. Paradox found an architecture that I think will blow most legal teams away in terms of how it protects both the brand and the candidate.

Here’s the thing: you don’t really even know what Paradox is today!

Paradox has quickly evolved into a full-feature hiring suite for all of your hiring, not just high-volume hiring. Don’t get me wrong, it still kicks ass on high-volume hiring. Here’s all that they have right now:

  • Conversational Career Site
  • Conversational CRM
  • Conversational ATS
  • Contextual Q&A
  • Video Interviewing
  • Conversational Interview Scheduling
  • Conversational Events (Career Fairs, Campus, etc.)
  • Employee Chat Assistant (think hourly worker has an HR need during a shift or after hours)
  • They also have fully built-out integrations with Workday, SAP, and Oracle.

I hesitate to call Paradox an ATS because they’ve taken what we thought an ATS or hiring process was and completely flipped it upside down. In this new world of AI, Paradox has discovered a new way, dare I say a better way, to hire people. The companies I know who are using it are seeing measurable positive results, and the candidate experience is also very high.

It’s like we’ve had this wheel in hiring for decades. Everyone had a wheel. The wheel worked fine. It was way better to have a wheel than not have a wheel. Then Paradox came around and said we can reinvent the wheel! And they actually did it. They built a better mousetrap.

I spoke to a Fortune 200 TA leader recently who said this about Paradox: “Tim, it just works!” When was the last time you were able to say that about your hiring technology?

I recommend Paradox so much that I tease I should be on their sales team, but that’s how much I think what they are doing is the right thing. If I were running an enterprise TA function, I would buy and implement Paradox. In fact, I wouldn’t even take the job unless I had assurances I could do that. They are a game changer for our industry, and everyone else is currently playing catch-up.

So, what are the negatives?

I see two for TA leaders:

1. It’s expensive. They can charge a lot because it works. From the shops using it, I know the ROI is high. You probably need to make 1,000+ hires a year to even consider using them to get the value.

2. To get full maximum value it will supplant your ATS or Recruiting module, and that can be a hard sell to your CFO, CIO, and CHRO. But it’s worth the fight.

In ten years of covering TA Technology, I’ve never found a better, more complete hiring tool. I don’t know what else to tell you.

Go demo and give them the discount code: “Tim’s a Fanboy”! Just kidding, they didn’t give me a code.

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!

Staying True to Your Game

Posted on by
Reply

The saying “Stay true to the game” pops up all the time. It’s been around in sports and pop culture for ages. Basketball especially! (Side note: who do you have winning tonight?) Anyway, I feel like I keep hearing it more and more.

“The game” stands for your thing, whether it’s sales, accounting, basketball, you name it. For me, it’s recruiting. Whether third-party, corporate, or RPO, we’re all in the same boat.

Being true to recruiting is kind of subjective. What does it even mean?

If you zoom out from recruiting and think about staying true to something you’re passionate about, how do you do it? How do you make sure it’s a priority? What do you do to show you’re committed?

This way of thinking sets the stage for understanding what it means to stay true to recruiting.

Recruiting is my thing. To keep it real, I stick to a few key things:

  1. I soak up as much recruitment info as I can.
  2. I connect with top-notch recruiters.
  3. I swap stories and tips with fellow recruiters.
  4. I’m always looking for ways to improve my skills.
  5. I know that staying loyal to recruiting is a choice I make.

Staying true to recruiting means always aiming higher, personally and professionally.

Sure, it’s not always easy, but it’s about staying true to the game.

So, here’s the deal this Monday. Share what your thing is in the comments below. Then, let us know how you’re staying true to it this week. Go for it.

LinkedIn’s 2024 Future of Recruiting Report #FutureOfRecruiting @LinkedInTalentSolutions

Posted on by
Reply

This week, LinkedIn released its latest Future of Recruiting Report, and as always, it was packed with great data for TA pros and leaders. LinkedIn has an absolute treasure trove of recruiting data, so this is always one of the reports I can’t wait to dig into.

What were their predictions?

  1. AI will supercharge recruiting.

This isn’t surprising as AI is on everyone’s mind across the entire enterprise. AI is changing work, and it will change how we recruit talent. Interestingly, we are still in the early days, so while it’s the #1 prediction, there still isn’t a lot of meat on this bone around how. That’s really the billion-dollar question everyone in TA is working to answer, including LinkedIn, which will have a giant advantage because of their parent, Microsoft, and Microsoft’s massive investment into OpenAI, which is out in the lead on GenAI. Stay tuned. I’m very interested in seeing what the LinkedIn product team is working on!

2. Recruiting will help build the skills-based workforce of the future.

This kind of gives you a bit of an answer to the first prediction. If recruiting is going to change, LinkedIn believes skills will be the answer to what recruiters will be shifting to in the future. Skills are definitely evolving, but it’s another massive understanding for organizations. Also, it’s just about skills. We still must consider the whole person and their fit into the culture. Just because someone has the skills to do the job doesn’t mean they’ll succeed at the job or within your unique culture. It’s still a work in progress.

3. Quality of Hire is top of the recruiting agenda.

As it has been for two decades! And yet, we still do not have an industry standard to measure QoH, nor do most organizations actually use it as a measure of success. Nor is it actually a recruiting metric! Here is where I think LinkedIn could espouse a measure and even build it for the industry. Currently, CrossChq is the closest to making this a reality within their product and consistently delivering a QoH metric that is reliable to the business (Editor’s note: CrossChq isn’t paying me – neither is LinkedIn – which seems like an opportunity!). The reality is that QoH can be a fantastic measure of success around talent for an organization, but you actually have to do it!

4. Agility will be a must-have for recruiting teams.

Again, see number 1. As the great Ferris Bueller once said, “The world moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” Agility in TA means we need to stop guessing and be more data-driven in our decision-making. This means you have to stop using archaic measures like Time to Fill to understand talent acquisition.

5. Recruiting teams will advocate for flex work policies.

And higher wages. And better benefits. And managers that don’t suck. In the future, recruiters will advocate for anything and everything that will help them attract the best talent.

6. Attracting GenZ will require a new playbook.

Yes! And that playbook is as follows (Tim’s words, not LinkedIn!):

  • Good pay and benefits for the work
  • A chance to learn and grow within their role
  • An organization that cares about them
  • A manager and leaders they can trust
  • To be treated like an adult around work and life.

Okay, so maybe it’s not a totally new playbook…

You might look at the six predictions and think, “these could have been the same last year, and the year before” and you probably wouldn’t be wrong. Also, they might be the same next year. That’s what happens when you have a major technology shift happening. It’s hard to predict. But, these are six strong strategy pillars for TA leaders to build around for the years to come.

Go download the report – there’s a massive amount of arts and charts, and data in it!

HR and Recruiting: The Unspoken Rules

Posted on by
Reply

Some unsaid rules guide us through HR. They’re not really hard and fast rules, just practical tips that we’ve learned along the way. Let’s break them down:

  1. Stay away from personal questions in interviews.
  2. Keep reference checks simple – just confirm dates of employment.
  3. Guard employee files like they’re top-secret.
  4. If it’s important, put it in a policy.
  5. Take every accusation seriously and look into it.
  6. “Mutual decision to leave” usually means otherwise.
  7. Measurement gets things done.
  8. Be careful about setting precedents.
  9. Expect things to go haywire on day 2 of your vacation.
  10. A candidate hasn’t really accepted the job until they show up to work on Day 1.
  11. If it’s on the ‘roadmap’ of your HR or Recruiting technology vendor, it means it’s not actually built and might never be built.
  12. Employees tattling on others probably have their own issues.
  13. Employee harassment stories are rarely simple.
  14. Open enrollment meetings need cookies.

We love our rules in HR! Ironically, I love the profession so much because I’m a low-rules kind of person. The reality is, in my couple decades of HR and recruiting work there really has only been one Rule of Thumb that has been the same at every organization I’ve worked in. Big and small. Public and private. Across all industries…

– Things change.

This basic principle reminds us that flexibility is crucial in the ever-shifting HR landscape. What’s your go-to rule in HR and recruiting?