How Many Duds Do You Hire?

While much attention has been given to the importance of hiring talented employees, issues around the cost of bad hires are of increasing importance to both HR professionals and their organizations. What strategies could you use to improve the performance of new hires and how can you reduce the likelihood of their early departure?

With the best screening process and interviewing of candidates, it’s still possible to have a very high on-the-job success rate even if major errors occurred in the screening process. This may sound counter-intuitive, but there is a reason for this.

Tips for minimising new-hire early turnover
For the purposes of this article, the definition of a new hire ‘failure’ includes a new hire that: must be given major training or retraining during the first six months; voluntarily quits within six months; must be redeployed during the first year; is given performance management counselling during the first year; must be terminated within one year, or is a finalist who refuses your job offer.

Involve employees. If you have a less-than-perfect screening process, as we all do, the best way to minimize the impacts of any errors is to ensure that the new hire gets additional help once they start the job. In other words, even if the candidate does not have a perfect set of skills, they can still succeed if other employees want them to succeed and a buddy system is created. If other employees want them to succeed, they will provide the new hire with whatever special help, mentoring and guidance they need.

The best way to ensure your employees are willing to provide this extra help after the candidate starts the job is to involve the employees early on in the hiring process. Involving employees works because if they feel they are responsible for the new hire and that they own the hiring process, employees will invariably find a way to help the new hire succeed on the job. The best ways to increase employee involvement include paying special attention to employee referrals, providing peer-to-peer interviews, and, whenever possible, letting employees make the final selection from the group of finalists you have approved.

Here is a big one....avoid misleading the candidate.... giving them a realistic job preview. A major reason for candidate failure and early turnover is that the candidate was misled about the job, the manager, or the company during the recruiting and interviewing process. It’s important to not only provide the positive attributes of the job, but if you over-glamourize, many new hires quickly become disillusioned, disappointed, or even angry when they find out after starting that their real job compares little to the one outlined in the interview. This can result in poor early job performance or early resignations.

A realistic job preview should include both positive and negative aspects of the job. It can be a video, a site walk-through, or merely a list of the positive and negative aspects of the job. You can develop a list of positive and negative job features through an anonymous survey of recent hires and people currently in the job. It generally includes not just the types of bad and good things that occur, but also their frequency of occurrence.

Ask candidates what they require for success. Many candidates fail on the job not because they don’t have the required skills, but because they are not provided with the right information, tools, or guidance. That’s why it’s important to ask finalists, “If you’re hired, what would you require in order to be successful?” By identifying candidates’ key success factors and needs, you can determine if those are even possible before you hire them, and you can provide that list to the direct supervisor, who can utilise the list to ensure that new employees’ needs are met so that they can get off to a fast and successful start. The goal here is to create a win-win by taking care of your new hire's needs.

Make sure you have a solid orientation program in place. Even a great hiring process can’t guarantee that you won’t end up with low performers and high turnover rates. This is because the selection process is only the first step to success. The seeds of on-the-job failure can begin the very first day on the job if the new hire’s orientation experience goes awry.

For example, if the new hire starts and on their first day their manager is nowhere to be found, it can confuse and disorient them. During the first week, frustration and other problems can occur if the new hire has no uniform, work schedule, or training manual. The absence of managers and the frustration of not having the necessary tools might lead a new hire to develop poor habits that will permanently affect their productivity. In addition, poor orientation might cause candidates to develop such a negative attitude about the firm that they may prematurely quit.

Avoid ‘candidate abuse’, high offer - rejection rates and early turnover

Even if you accurately assess the candidate, you are likely to lose candidates if you mistreat them during the interview and hiring process. In fact, several companies have found that the highest reason for offer letter rejection is ‘candidate abuse’ during the hiring process. Some of the ways to decrease candidate abuse, and subsequently increase offer acceptance rates, include:

Stop doing stupid things during interviews. Sometimes interviewing managers can be the cause of high offer rejection rates. By taking phone calls during interviews, cancelling and rescheduling interviews, appearing disorganised, or even asking illegal or silly questions, interviewers can easily scare away top candidates.

Remember, great hiring only starts with effective skill assessment. If you disillusion or discourage top candidates, they will simply make up an excuse to drop out of the running or say no to your offer. Incidentally, you can only find out the real reason why they rejected your offer by asking them six months later.

Stop ‘death by interview’. Many companies avoid the use of testing candidates due to possible liability and have become increasingly conservative in how they screen candidates. As a result of this fear, companies have increased the number of interviews to make up for the absence of other screening tools. In some cases, interviews have proliferated like rabbits. Where one or two interviews used to be common, now multiple interviews are frequently the norm.

The net result of this trend is that candidates must endure a large number of interviews that are generally spread out over a painfully long time period. From the candidate’s perspective, attending a large number of interviews on different days is expensive and time-consuming. The long delays and the uncertainty stress candidates and their families. The burden is even worse, however, because in a down economy, the odds of all that time and effort actually resulting in a job offer are actually pretty small. By reducing the number of interviews, holding them at night, and even trying to have them all completed on the same day, can reduce top candidate dropout rates and increase offer acceptance rates.

Stop ‘death by repetition’. In a related matter, when candidates are subjected to multiple interviews (at the same company) it is quite common for different interviewers to ask exactly the same questions in back-to-back interviews. This tedious repetition is often because interviews by different managers are not planned or coordinated. It is also partially caused by interview training manuals, which, by suggesting appropriate questions to use in an interview, can inadvertently cause interviewers to use the same questions over and over.

From the candidate’s perspective, having to answer duplicate questions over and over is frustrating and confusing. Lack of preparation can cause some managers to ask questions whose answers are clearly right on the resume, wasting valuable time and frustrating the candidate even further. By reducing the total number of interview questions and then assigning the appropriate interview questions to individual managers (based on their knowledge area), you can reduce repetition, candidate frustration, and offer rejections.

Don’t keep candidates in the dark. Another all-too-common abuse of candidates occurs when managers keep candidates in the dark about the interview process and what is expected during it. Candidates are not told about what will occur during the interview and what skills will be assessed. In addition, they are frequently not told who will be there during the interview and what the role of each interviewer is.

This lack of information leads to confusion and frustration on the part of the powerless candidate – all for no reason. There is no legal regulation that prohibits companies from telling candidates upfront about the process and what is being assessed during it. Failing to educate the candidate may cause candidates to over-prepare in unimportant areas and under-prepare in important ones. Not knowing who will participate in the interview prevents the candidate from doing research on the background of the interviewers. By telling the candidate more, you can limit their frustration and increase the likelihood that they will provide the information you need to make an accurate hiring decision.

Reduce interview overload by discouraging less than qualified applicants from applying. You are less likely to waste time and be fooled by less-than-qualified or uninterested candidates if you work with a recruiter. Also, you might consider these approaches:

• Put automated self-assessment company culture and skill assessment tools on your website so that candidates can pre-screen themselves in or out of the process before it formally begins.

• Make a list with specific numbers of the disqualification factors that will significantly lower or eliminate their chances of getting the position. Put them on the website, along with the job description, as a pre-warning that they will not qualify if they meet any of the disqualification criteria.

• Post your average job acceptance/failure rate (in percentages) for applicants, so that people know upfront that the odds of anyone (other than the most qualified candidates) of getting the job are very low.

• Be highly selective in where you advertize your jobs, and create links to your website. Don’t place them in general interest publications. Instead, study the demographics of the most qualified people and place ads or job openings exclusively where it is highly likely that only the most experienced and qualified individuals will read them.

• Post frequently asked questions and their answers on your website. By providing these questions and answers, you can discourage individuals who would have not applied had they known in advance the answer to their specific question.

In the end, tt’s essential that recruiters and managers take a more realistic and critical view of the traditional interviewing and selection process. Rather then assuming that it’s perfect, they should instead examine it closely to identify its many nearly fatal flaws.

In fact, if you look at the validity and reliability of interviews as a scientist would, you’ll find the accuracy of the process to be appallingly low. Why managers and recruiters consistently ignore these facts is confusing, but such ignorance is unacceptable because weak hiring systems and bad hires cost firms millions of dollars.

The average cost of a bad hire is two times salary and when customer contact is involved, the costs can easily exceed half a million dollars. Instead of being complacent, managers and recruiters need to take a fresh look at the process and the metrics or measures that they use to calculate the percentage of ‘duds’ that they hire.

The approaches outlined above can dramatically improve new hire success rates. Because they include less freedom and subjectivity than the traditional interview process, they will produce higher offer acceptance rates as well as new hires who are productive and faster, who stay longer, and who are more satisfied with their jobs.

Social Media "Reference Check"

There is a growing trend to use online social media - facebook, myspace, etc - to gather information or a "reference" of sorts, on prospective candidates. Putting aside the discussion of an individual's privacy for the moment, liability is top of mind for Human Resource Managers in regard to social media and the prospect of lawsuits against their companies.

Human Resource Managers have had it hammered home to, above and beyond all else, be concerned with liability. There are so many areas a company can be open to liability after all; hiring, firing, promotions, credit checks, performance plans … tell me when to stop.

Liability is so prominent that there’s a whole industry dedicated to telling us what can get their companies sued and how to avoid it. Much of that advice is well-intentioned and valuable, but occasionally over the top in the interest of protection.

Go to any HR conference these days and you’ll hear speakers waxing poetic about the risks of viewing the social media accounts of candidates in the selection process. It’s the obvious stance when you think about it. You viewed a social media account, saw something you didn’t like and made a hiring decision that had nothing to do with someone’s ability to do the job.

Are HR Managers damned for judging a candidate's profile on facebook or damned if we don't? Some things to consider from HR's point of view:

1. Can we afford NOT to Google a candidate and see where the digital trail takes us? Most any CEO if asked: “Do you expect me to do everything legally at my disposal to ensure the hires we make can do the job and are great fits for our company?” will likely give a positive response. Your CEO expects you to deploy all legal measures you can reasonably afford to make sure you’re making great hires.

2. Hiring managers are becoming much more tolerant, hopefully, about what they see in a candidate’s social media footprint. The transparency of social media created a bit of a blowback effect in the early days. We never had access to pictures of candidates drinking before, so there was some shortsighted judging going on as a result. Now? We’ve seen enough to remember that people drink socially and pictures can be dated. As a result, we’re much more tolerant when we find out that a candidate’s not spending weeknights at church. Our threshold for what constitutes a red flag is much higher and more related to whether someone can do the job. That’s a good thing.

3. Candidates don't always get the real reason they were rejected, and that doesn’t change simply because social media is at play. Unless the candidate in question has a skills gap, most organizations don’t share the real reason for rejection. As a candidate, you had a personality issue and seemed a little angry at the world during the interview process. Did the company provide you with candid feedback? Of course they didn’t. We’re already trained on what not to say that might present liability in the feedback process. Why should questionable pictures or content mined through social media be held to a higher standard?

Stop me when you’ve heard this risk reducer: “We’ve elected to make an offer to a candidate who was a better fit for the role in question.” The statement is true when you don’t think someone can get along with the hiring manager and it’s true when they’ve blasted opinions via social media that most at your company would find objectionable.

4. Privacy settings have eliminated much of the liability related to social media. By far, the biggest risk to a company is digging into a social media account that is intended for nothing but personal use by a candidate. Facebook is the choice of most candidates when it comes to communicating events in their personal lives, and privacy settings now allow a candidate to wall off what they don’t want the world at large to see. As a result, liability has been greatly reduced during the past two years.

5. Evolution means some species don’t advance. You pay your employees to exercise good judgment related to what, with whom and how they communicate. This requirement is on display daily in your company, and when someone shows they can’t do it, you separate them from the mother ship (that’s called termination, folks).

Even though we’ve grown up dramatically related to our reaction to personal details shared via social media, occasionally someone will share something so egregious you know there’s a judgment issue at play in their DNA. That means they don’t get to play in your company at which time you share the talking points detailed in item No. 3 above.

For HR Managers, it's all about risk vs engagement. So too for candidates. Social media may have started as a convenient way to share your private life with family and friends, but it has always had a risk of what you display, and now that includes prospective bosses.


[Source: article by Kris Dunn, Workforce Management Online, January 2011]