Good Corporate Citizenship

Just witnessed a focus group concerned with “Good Corporate Citizenship.”

It seems that in the past 25 years, corporations have reduced Human Resources to a transactional and legal compliance activity. Hiring decisions are made at the lowest, least expensive level possible. Virtually no attempt is made to assess basic intelligence, enthusiasm for the task, motivation or integrity. It has become a simple matter of matching the job knowledge with previous job knowledge. But, when purchasing shares in a mutual fund, we always heed the warning “past performance does not guarantee future performance.”

When treating people like interchangeable parts, or at best like cattle, it is no wonder that employees are no longer loyal to their employers. This phenomena has created significant social consequences. For example, it has increased the average commuting distance, choking the roads and wasting energy. Employees are reluctant to relocate and live near where they work – knowing that in most cases the chance of them losing their job at some point in the future is relatively high. Low employee morale and apathy has reduced productivity. The cost of recruiting, and the cost of making a hiring mistake are substantial.

A bank president gave me this example. He said: "You have a job that needs to be filled (position A). You have an employee (employee B) who is a long term, loyal employee and knows 80% of the job. The company, in it’s desire to be efficient, chooses to pay a recruiter to find a new employee rather than spend the time and resources to teach him/her (employee B) the remaining 20%. The recruiter delivers the new person who claims to know the job 100%, but in fact knows only 85%%. Employee B, who knew 80% becomes disgruntled and quits to take a job with a competitor, convincing them on the interview that s/he knows 100%. It takes the competitor 6 months to figure out that they made a hiring mistake, but in this 6 months the employee learns the remaining 15% and now knows 95% of what is needed." What a stupid, wasteful system.

It is time for the pendulum to swing back the other way, and have corporations treat people with a long term perspective. Motivation comes in many forms. An employee who is smart, enthusiastic, loyal, protective of the company, excited about doing the work, has feelings of pride in accomplishment, is cooperative, and has a positive attitude toward learning will be much more productive than someone who has all of the required job knowledge but feels like an outsider who may be expendable. But attempts at measuring these personal characteristics are seldom made. It requires a higher level of experience and education on the part of the recruiter – which makes it more expensive. This “penny wise” and “pound foolish” mentality is hurting us, and it is time to try something new.

The Spectrum of Recruiting

The Spectrum of Recruiting

Most recruiting firms are somewhere in the middle of the recruiting spectrum. At the top of the spectrum is the recruiter who convinced Lou Grishner to leave American Express and take on the role of CEO for IBM. I was told that this recruiter received $250K and that the deal was consummated by cell phone in the recruiter’s living room.

These kinds of deals are:

• Low volume, high margin
• Very personal in nature, relationship building is a key to success
• Candidate personality traits are more important than skills match
• Candidates are unique and precious
• Candidates are met face to face every time.
• Lots of face time with both client and candidate
• Candidate is often put through psychological evaluations
• Significant research of the candidate’s background is conducted
• The job is “sold” to the candidate, sometimes requiring months of “selling” before candidate agrees to meet with the client
• The job description is carefully presented to the candidate
• The financial terms are presented to candidate very carefully, very controlled method

At the bottom of the spectrum are the very large global Staffing Companies (such as Manpower) placing minimum wage warehouse workers.

These kinds of deals are:

• High volume, low margin
• Impersonal, transactional – no "face time" required
• Candidate personality traits are not relevant
• Candidates are readily available, viewed as interchangable
• Candidates are often not met before sending to client
• Candidate evaluation is typically for drugs and criminal convictions
• Candidates are eager to accept the job (no selling required)
• Compensation is simple and presented as mater of fact. No negotiation required.

It would not be smart or cost effective to use the recruiting procedures required for the top end of the spectrum for jobs at the bottom end of the spectrum. But, the client naturally wants that level of service for the same price as the lower level. Welcome to the world of contingency recruiting. Unrealistic expectations all the way around.

Hiring for Motivation – Investing in People

Have you ever hired someone who you thought was under qualified, and subsequently became happily surprised by how quickly they learned the job and became a star?

Enthusiasm, and the joy of feeling like we are growing is the fuel behind great performers. Great performers work with the deep understanding that every job is a stepping stone. They know that they are on a path to a new, more exciting stage in their career. They are "juiced" and excited, feeling like they are making progress toward an exciting new lifestyle. When we hire based only on past performance, we are loosing the benefit of tapping into this powerful motivating force.

So, how do we determine a candidate's true motivating force? The first step is to seriously consider candidates who at first appear to be under qualified. Many of the best candidates are never seriously considered for the role, because the corporate culture does not encourage that amount of on the job learning. The candidate is labeled as under qualified, and is not viewed as a potential candidate. This is a deep component of corporate culture. The best companies see themselves as institutions of learning, and have incorporated this on the job learning as a part of their normal processes.

Once the company begins to seriously consider these marginally qualified candidates, then the underlying motivation must be uncovered during the interview. This is accomplished by getting the candidate to relax and start talking about future dreams and aspirations. Ambition. Where do they want to go, and why do they want to get there? By listening carefully to their answers and reading between the lines, the truth will come out. You want to tap into the excitement of learning something new, of growing on the job and really going somewhere. People will surprise you.

There have been many studies that demonstrate that academic achievement is an imperfect predictor of future success. One very successful way to predict future success is to look for an example of passion being expressed at some point in the candidate’s past. Look to see if they became focused on one project and really “blew it out of the water.” This would be an example of their tapping into their passion and working diligently for a future goal. This is a better predictor of future achievement that a consistent stream of successful cooperation with the institutional powers that are governing their behavior during that time.

Another benefit to employing this cultural norm is an increased focus on quality control. Giving a task to an employee with the knowledge that their may be some deficiency in the work they perform obviously requires a heightened attention to supervision and quality control. Conversely, assuming that the person who has performed this task a thousands times before will continue to deliver is a dangerous assumption. With financial reality acting as a sword of Damocles hanging over their head, they probably will. But things happen and individual motivation can sometimes change dramatically. Companies who take the safe path and only hire those with the exact experience needed often end up with a group of people who are boring and simply going through the motions. Their is little excitement and very little innovation. The group lacks power. The best long term strategy is to create a learning organization, and not depend on a collection of pros.

Past Performance Does Not Guarantee Future Performance!

Our culture’s current selection process sure is sloppy. We have all seen this statement when investing in a mutual fund – “past performance is no guarantee of future performance.” Why don’t we apply this concept when selecting a candidate? Isn’t it true that when someone is hired at an ice cream store, they are encouraged to eat as much ice cream as they want when they start – because the owner knows they will get sick of it and never want it again?

We live in the information age, and candidate selection is all about information. People (hopefully) are learning and changing faster than ever before. In fact the rate of this change is accelerating. But our recruiting and selection process remains archaic. "Find me a square peg for a square hole."

If rectangular candidate is selected, the recruiting manager may look incompetent. But what happens when our employees are changing their shape every 6 months? The square peg you selected 6 months ago just became a star shaped employee, and your competitor is desperately looking for a star. So, s/he leaves your company, and you are back to square one. But you still look good - because the right shape was selected. Surely no one could have predicted the candidate would change that fast! That's OK, because your boss just found a better job and you have been left on your own anyway.

Would it not be better to hire a plastic, round peg, and then routinely ask them to work at new stations until they are fashioned into a square? We are surrounded by employees and candidates who know 85% of a particular job. But instead of helping them learn the remaining 15%, we let them go and pay a recruiter to find someone who knows 100%. We usually end up with someone who knows 92% of the job, but is skilled at interviewing and "fakes it till they make it." Our competitor hires our former employee who they think knows 100%, but then learns on the job and soon knows 95%. What a stupid system!

This kind of thinking has made people today loyal to their discipline, but not to their employer. It takes courage to hire the round peg for the square hole, and with rare exceptions, our corporate structures just do not allow this kind of courage to be expressed.

In today's environment, we must view all of our employees as if they were volunteers. We all have so many other options that now, from the employers perspective, $1.00 of humane consideration is worth $20.00 in compensation.

The true cost of a hiring mistake - what the VP of HR at Dupont told me…

I once had a retired Vice President of Human Resources from Dupont visit me in my office, and he told me this story. He said the cost of a hiring mistake is so high, that it is difficult to calculate. He said think of it in this way:

He said this. Our group spent considerable amounts of time defining our need. We then began the recruiting process. There were costs associated with these activities.

As we began to interview candidates, we took time away from our normal work activity. There were additional costs associated with this.

After considerable time, effort and expense, we choose one candidate and begin the on-boarding process.

Now, we knew that it would take a certain amount of time for the newly hired candidate to learn where we keep the office supplies, and our routine, so we simply watched them work for the first 3 months. We were not overly concerned about their productivity at this stage.

In the next 3 months we focused on quantifying their productivity. At this point, we at times recognized that we had made a hiring mistake. When this happened we then spent the next 3 months documenting all of our interactions with this employee to insure that we were on solid legal ground when we let the candidate go. By the time all was said and done, we often had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So, what can be done?
First, minimize turn over by staying in touch with your employee’s hidden feelings. Get a good understanding of their underlying internal dialogue by spending time in informal settings, such as sporting events.

Second, use behavioral interviewing and careful background checks to reduce hiring mistakes. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Third, use a script when interviewing. By asking each candidate the same questions in the same way, you will obtain a more accurate reflection of the candidate’s true nature and interests.

Fourth, spend time with the final candidates in various settings, and at different times of the day. Meeting in a restaurant, or hotel lobby will at times give you a completely different view of this candidate’s personality.

Ultimately our business is only as good as it’s people.

The "unspoken communications" during my "interview from hell"

I recently returned from one of those “interviews from hell.” It all started with bad weather, and I mean really bad weather. After two days of rain, many streets and businesses were closed. The back roads that I would normally take to this town were impassable. So I gave myself an extra half-hour of time, and took the main road. This turned out to be a mistake, as it was bumper to bumper for 20 miles in both directions. Two hours later I arrived at their location. Of course, I had called in route to let them know I would be late for the appointment. I had also called 20 minutes after the appointed time to offer to reschedule, which they accepted. So our appointment was rescheduled for the following day. Another two hours and I was home from this fiasco. Not a very productive use of my time. The following day, the roads were somewhat better, and I arrived on time for the interview.

Unfortunately, the hiring manager was busy, and had me wait for 30 minutes before being seen. I was greeted by a somewhat serious and preoccupied hiring manager who quickly ushered me into a very small conference room. With practically no small talk, and no apparent concern for my previous day’s plight, we jumped right into it with the normal question of “so tell me about yourself.”

I was not consciously aware of this at the time, but in looking back, I am sure that I was feeling concern about the way I was being treated. Just one more of those subliminal thoughts running through my mind as I smiled politely and answered questions to which we both knew the answers. There was no mention of the previous day, the weather or the inconvenience of my commuting to the location only to have the appointment canceled. The thought of working for a manager who would be so callous as to not even mention the previous day’s experience was repugnant. This fact, coupled with being required to wait 30 minutes before being seen, and then jumping right into the “interrogation” gave me the subliminal impression that this hiring manager was not very intelligent.

The bottom line with this story is that our behavior was shaped by the circumstances and the information we exchanged had less to do with the company’s needs or my ability, and everything to do with the unconscious perceptions of the other person’s sense of priorities. These unspoken communications predominated the meeting, and we both walked away feeling that this was not a match. Not a very accurate assessment of our mutual abilities and interests. This was an all too common “job interview” scenario. It was sloppy, inaccurate, and a true waste of time for both of us. Surely there is a better way.

being measured on my ability to pull distant memories

Just finished a 6th interview for a job for which I am an absolutely perfect fit. I feel that I was being measured more on my ability to pull distant memories out of my memory bank, rather than on my ability to make good decisions at the present time.

Measuring my ability to instantly pull perfect examples from memory to best answer the question being asked is a poor method for predicting my future behavior.

My father once pointed to a fellow walking down a sidewalk and said “if you ask him a question and demand an immediate answer, he will give you a very poor answer. But if you give him a day or two, he will give you the best answer you can find anywhere.”

I am more like this person than are most other people, and interviews like this do not accurately reflect my true experience, work history or present ability. (unless rapid recollection of past events is mission critical to the job, which in this case it is not)

It would have been more revealing to be asked to give answers to “what if” scenarios. Behavioral interviewing - isn't that what it is being called now? For example, “how would you handle it if……” Would it not be a better measurment for the interviewer to think back to the last 2 or 3 events that created some concern, and ask "What would you do ...." I am sure this would be a much better measure of my present ability.

The interview process most people use today is so full of holes and imperfect. In it’s present form, the candidate presents the best image possible, and then the interviewer prods and pokes and shakes, hoping to expose inadequacies.

Once found, the biggest or most recent inadequacy contributes disproportionately to the opinion formed by the interviewer about the candidate.

If the interviewer happens to be in a negative frame of mind, then the candidate gets a thumbs down.

If the interviewer is in a more positive frame of mind, then they tend to avoid asking questions that may uncover a significant deficiency, or do a poor job of remembering (documenting) a response that is unfavorable to the candidate. Either way, the resulting image is distorted.

What a system we are living in! I am delighted with it's imperfections, as they provide ample opportunity for the"wrong candidate" to get in and really shake up the system!

How good is good?

I had an interview recently, and half way through I could tell that I was losing her attention. Has this ever happened to you? Ever get "that feeling" as you are talking with someone? It's as if they have two different brains. One brain is generating and delivering words, facial expressions and body motions. The other is collecting information and forming an emotional association with me as a person. Now, the kind of information they are collecting at the point is at the heart of our discussion, and I've never completely understood it. What ever information this is, I can usually tell when they think it is good, and the few times when they think it is not so good. Is it my gray hair? Is it the wrinkles under my eyes? Is it the fact that my tie and white shirt are too perfect? Is it the degrees of separation between the whiteness of my shirt and the yellow in my teeth? What ever it is, I can see an emotional cloud forming in their mind as we talk. The words and ideas we exchange seem irrelevant. At the end of the meeting, they smile, and I smile, and we shake hands and make statements about moving forward. Often we both know this exchange is a farce. Most people are kind and instead of being honest choose to set false expectations. It's all such a mystery!