I am very passionate about improving the candidate experience and implementing ‘common sense changes’ to the hiring process. Unfortunately, I am no longer a Human Resources practitioner and the hiring process is full of stupid hurdles and shenanigans that I cannot change.
I received a press release, last week, that said, “Sixty percent of job seekers can expect to participate in three or more interviews with prospective employers before getting an offer, according to a survey of more than 2,000 individuals by Right Management.”
As a former recruiter who has hired thousands of people, I have strong opinions about the hiring process. I believe that HR and recruiting departments often get in the way of hiring good people. I believe that software is a straw man for broken recruitment cycles. I believe that hiring managers should be tasked with developing communities and sourcing from those communities as part of their jobs.
I also believe that if it takes you three or more interviews before you make a hiring decision, your methodology is flawed or your candidate pool is off. Either way, interviewing a candidate more than three times is not the answer — and it’s not respectful of the candidate’s time.
Sheesh. Is this 1997?
I was very annoyed to read some of the key findings in the survey.
- Older workers participate in three times more interviews. Forty-eight percent of those 55+ receive four or more interviews compared to 18% for those aged 25-34.
- Women participate in more interviews. Sixty-five percent of women get three or more interviews compared to 61% of men.
Good grief. What does that say about our diversity and inclusion initiatives? Moreover, what does that say about human nature?
My own experience leads me to believe that we don’t really need traditional recruiters. We could put all of the qualified resumes into a hat, pick one, and hire that person with the same success rate as traditional, behavior-based interviewing. That might be a stretch, but what about using an algorithm to make the hiring decisions? Score the candidate on certain factors, stick the data into a computer, and let the Googles make a decision.
Recruiters go apeshit when I write things like that, by the way. They blame corporate culture and HR processes. They blame hiring managers. They blame the system. In my heart of hearts, I think recruiters can make a difference in the recruiting process — but if you’re going to own the process, own the process and master it. At the very least, this means putting your foot down and saying, no, you can’t interview a candidate a fourth time.
It can be done. I’ve done it, and I was a nobody. A minion. A worker bee.
Talented people with amazing skills will not tolerate three or more interviews before your risk-adverse company is willing to make a decision and take a risk. Stop talking about Facebook and recruiting technology and start worrying about the results from the Right Management survey. That’s where you need to spend your time, yo.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 33 comments… read them below or add one }
Excellent points, and have been saying for years to my students that we should let computers make the hiring decision using a rather rudimentary algorithm (which is more than likely going to have a better rate of success than humans). The answer I always get back is that computers can’t tell us about “fit.”
Harvard gets thousands of applicants for a select few slots in each freshman class. Each of those applicants are among the top of his or her class, with a bevy of exemplary test scores and extracurricular activities. The admissions office chooses that class on totally arbitrary criteria, much of which has nothing to do with whether or not the student would be successful in their 4 years in Cambridge, MA. I’m convinced that we could choose all the qualified applicants at random and create a just as successful class.
Further, you avoid the problem of EEO concerns if the process is random. Race, sex, religion, etc. will not enter the picture (which it might if you are interviewing someone several times).
Ruetty, I suspect that the old farts are run through more interviews because their going for far more senior positions. The stat for women may not be statistically significant because of the sample size. Does the press release say more? If not, I’ll call my friend at Right and get a copy of the survey. Let me know…
Nonetheless, more highly matrixed environments mean that on the job you’re going to be working with many more people and hence more interviews. This being said, I like using panel/group interviews to eliminate a few of the individual ones. But we all know that most recruiters and hiring manager are average or worse at interviewing so lumping them all together can turn into an idiot’s delight…
Algorithms are great too but since jobs are typically poorly defined, you’d be making an algo out of garbage. Only exacerbates a poor situation.
No scientific study I’ve ever read demonstrates that the DNA of someone with the title of “recruiter” provides superior interviewing skills; I’m sure that in most organizations there are people who are FAR better at interviewing people than members of the HR or recruiting teams.
Let them continue to go apeshit; it makes for funny Twitter fodder…
I liked this article a lot. I do disagree w/the comments about allowing a computer to make a decision, especially because there IS certainly a concern about fit based on the environment and culture.
What I find difficult about recruiters is they appear to have blinders on and seek resumes that represent a mirror image of the hiring manager’s description. Not with just one job…the entire resume. When hiring managers ask for: 13 years of experience working in a basket weaving factory in the Southeast, 7.5 of those in a union environment (ONLY Teamsters!), 6 of those managing at least 13 people, recruiters will look for that and only that. You’ve heard it all before: there is no perfect candidate. So with so many great individuals out of work these days, recruiters will say, “we can’t find qualified people!” I believe recruiters can make a difference but maybe that puts them out of their comfort zone…? I think experienced recruiters need to start educating hiring managers about transferable skills.
Let a candidate share an experience with you to show you HOW they could be a fit for a position. It may not always work but you’ll never know it unless you give them a chance. If you have a candidate qualified to do a job and know them well enough to put them in front of the hiring manager, do it!
Liked the post! I agree with you that there may be better ways to determine the best candidates than the traditional behavior-based interview! Not sure a computer algorithm is the answer but I do think there are other methods such as projects or case study type activities that can provide you with a better feel for how a person would do in a specific role.
The key is to understand what the key characteristics of a viable candidate are and design ways to see candidates in this environment. For a job interview I had, a big part of the process was going to be my writing skills. So instead of a behavioral interview first, the company gave me a day to write a blog post that they might put on their blog. Overall it was a good way to understand how good a writer I was and if I could quickly understand the tone and voice the company should have. This was a simple request but one that made a tremendous difference in understanding if I could handle the responsibilities I would have once I got the position.
Processes like this in your recruiting I believe can make a huge difference.
Paul Meehl studied clinical versus statistical prediction over 50 years ago – at best, over the long term, the statistical decision performs no worse than the clinical or human solution. But hunches still prove to be true even when the statistical data “proves” otherwise.
The problem with those in HR, recruiters and many hiring managers is their belief system that somehow thinks they can smell talent or things even more ludicrous. I wonder what the divorce rate is of these people? Some skills!!
Just like marriage counseling helps so does more recruiting training yet so many experts turn up their noses at the thought.
Finally, a voice of reason. “My own experience leads me to believe that we don’t really need traditional recruiters.” And I couldn’t agree more. In fact, are there even any real traditional recruiters left out there? And who doesn’t blame the hiring manager for all of their troubles? My experience has been that recruiters are more than a dime a dozen and I have yet to meet or talk with even one that has any sense of the core purpose of their chosen field. It has evolved into another glam wanna be profession that has nothing to do anymore with getting the job done and increasing productivity. My experience with recruiters has been, especially in this current economy, that they are unorganized, uninformed, uncommitted, non-communicative, and unable to follow through on their own commitments, but have become masters at offering excuses about why they do not follow through. I am not interested in speaking with any one who, when they speak ends every sentence as question. I am not interested in hearing about their vacation plans, kid issues, software problems or long lunches because they need a brake. I often equate recruiters to real estate agents. During the dot.com boom, every one wanted to be a recruiter- for… the …. money. Much like when the real estate market was booming, people were quitting their jobs, getting a real estate license with the dream that all they had to do was sell 1 million dollar house and they’d be set. And I love the new recruiters coming on board with low GPAs with no career plan so they use recruiting as their filler job until they figure out what they want to be when they grow up. And they bounce from one recruiting company to another…. while they waste candidates time.
As for the flooded market of HR software… it’s only as good as the people that program it and test it and buy it and none of it is a sure thing. Too many companies are quick to respond to the fast sell and flash presentation about how it can “make a difference” in their efficiencies. It can make a difference alright… creating another black hole. It’s another band-aid to cover a problem no one either knows how or wants to fix.
Laurie, let recruiters go ape-shit when you write things like this. I’d like to see Right Management do a survey on why recruiters want to be recruiters. What do they have to offer that makes a difference? What’s their personal brand? How do they differentiate themselves from the rest? And how is Facebook and Twitter making a real and tangible difference in their recruiting efforts? Recruiters need to hold the mirror up to their own face and ask themselves how and where they are adding value. And why someone should hire them.
It’s amazing how quickly a HR minion with initiative can take over the entire hiring process, learn how to subvert the electronic and corp recruiting process (but stay within policy) and hire most positions in 1 interview and higher level jobs in 2, max. It think panel interviews are bunk and honestly “fit” is bunk. When did we decide we would all hold hands and sing the Coke song instead of expecting everyone to be a professional and get back to work. A decent HR person or Hiring Manager can figure out if the person can do the job. That is the one and only goal. Sadly, this same tricky minion has to paint her ‘simplistic’ process with shiny buzzwords and gilt phrases to get a good mark on her eval.
I’m tired of the gaggle of HR folks out there making me look like another mean spirited gate keeper, based on title. HR is now in a position somewhere between Lawyers and Accountants on the scale of necessary evils. I honestly tell my friends to find ways around HR whenever they can to get to hiring managers and get interviews. I apologize in advance to my fellow HR rebels out there that have not found a way out of this trap. My prayers are with you.
Laurie:
I would agree with much of what you say, but with some exceptions. I like you have practiced HR fror a long time. I like you think much of the recruiting process is fucked up. I don’t place all the blame on the recruiters.
Hiring and placing people is a critical role for management. We usually do a shitty job of training them how to do it right.
I think most of the mistakes are made BI or “before interviewing”. How many organizations really sit down and think about the real candidate profile they need before they push F8 and begin “recruiting”? I think that is also why we see so many interviews- thry are trying to interview their way to “fit”.
Like you I also think using some computer algorithm to make the selection is bullshit, but its gives people something to hide behind.
I have seen studies that say we spend $5 trillion annually on turnover! Much of that is bad hiring. As others have pointed out we don’t often put the “hurdle” for getting a “recruiting” job very high. As an HR executive I was always uncomfortable with people who were “one trick ponies”, they only did one thing like recruiting- gives you tunnel vision.
I am in the busines of helping people build strong organizations and a big part of it is hiring the right people- my philosophy is “Hire Hard-Manage Easy” and I will tell you smart companies don’t delegate that process down to junior staff in HR, use a computer to make selections, or hire randomly.
Lets put the blame where it belongs- would a high tech firm turn the decision to buy a critical piece of capital equipment over to a junior buyer? Then why are we delegating hiring to mouth breathers or inexperienced people…..
Over the last two or so months, I’ve been working on a lousy 10 server farm Linux/Unix Administrator position that I have submitted in excess of 20+ resumes for— and any one of these qualified individuals could do this position with thier eyes closed— yet for whatever reason, none have been good enough in the past. Now— they’re desperate to fill the position— (and even went to an outside source– the bastards!!) and will interview just about anyone to fill the position– and theres the possibility all my hard work in the past was for sh*t. And you know why??? Pure and simple— EGO. HR and the hiring managers sitting in thier high towers and power trips— getting off on the lines of people desperately kissing thier asses to get a simple job to feed thier families. It’s pathetic! And when my job’s in jeopardy because of you’re stuck up, nose-in-the-air attitude towards hiring??? I just want to choke me an HR/HM Ho!!!!!
I’ve always felt that the best analogy of hiring was speed dating, only you wind up married at the end of the event.
This may seem radical, but I’d love it if everyone started as a consultant or contractor, with a perm role being agreed on after a trial period.
Basically – let’s date a bit before we tie the knot.
Most of the hiring managers I’ve worked with aren’t wired for recruiting. I absolutely agree that they need to be held accountable for sourcing candidates, but since they aren’t and won’t, what’s the solution? When I think of all the time I’ve wasted bringing candidates back for 2nd and 3rd interviews because hiring managers can’t make a decision, I want to scream. I know within 15 minutes on the first interview if the person is right or not. And then they cop this “HR can’t tell us what to do!” attitude. Whatever.
Though, I’d give anything to have this problem right now. I haven’t been able to hire anyone in over 2 years. But I’ve sure laid off a whole bunch of people. Fun. At this point in my career, I’m probably better off growing pot or opening an espresso stand.
I’m not much into bashing recruiters, hr or hiring managers on this broken process. The blame can be spread evenly throughout. I’ve been on each and every side of the clusterf*ck that is the hiring process.
The piece that seems to get lost is a single individual managing the process, and managing the flow of candidates, and pushing for a decision.
It doesn’t really matter who the manager is – as long as one exists.
The processes get bogged down when expectations, time frames and egos go unchecked. Any one of those things derail the process in a heartbeat. But in the current business climate everyone seems to be afraid to make a decision, risk being wrong, and facing a zero tolerance approach to mistakes that can cost them their own livelihoods. So we sit in analysis paralysis.
I coach my hiring managers to select the top 5 qualified candidates to interview, and to make the decision immediately following the interview. If its no, we move on, but I don’t take anything other than a yes or a no for an answer. My workforce (who are picking up the slack for the missing employee) and the candidates (who are, many times, our customers as well) deserve at least that.
It is a bit like dating. You know you have a good one when you see it, so why are we standing around waiting for something else?
Everyone can point fingers and placing blame or bashing is counterproductive. I agree with Matty and the reason for the mess process, or lack thereof, is ego. If it’s not budget restrictions, it’s ego. People are only happy with their lives to the extent they are in control. This is a fact.
My fiirst job out of grad school (position in an executive training program for a major corporation) I went thru an all day assessment with 9 other people – 3 interviews and 3 team projects…the HR recruiter and hiring mgrs met at end of day and called us in one by one, I was the last one in the conference room…they offered me a job on the spot…that was personally the best process I ever went thru…peer group analyses and comparisons…group dynamics…and a pool of potentials all vying for the same jobs…we knew the others in the room were the competition…total transparancy…level playing field…one and done (one day)…
It doesn’t have to be a long drawn out process (and that was exactly 26 yrs ago)…yes I am showing my age…
PS I stayed with the company for 8 years and got promoted 7 times…so it was a good process for me and the company…live and learn…and forget too…
M
Well put Laurie. Anything beyond three interviews borders on insane, and sometimes a third interview can be annoying, unless it’s for an upper-level position and there are a lot of constituencies who need to weigh in.
Bottom line: Hiring managers and recruiters need to know exactly what they’re looking for before they begin interviews, and ask the necessary questions in the first interview before deciding whether the candidate should come back a second time, or be offered the job.
And that should be applied to everyone, no matter your gender or age.
Great Post Laurie. I agree that recruiters can and should make a difference in the hiring process. To your point, recruiters should own and master the process, this is how a recruiter influence and drive change during the recruitment continuum.
I read a blog post from FOT last week that discussed the importance of understanding your organization’s business objectives and being able to achieve business results that directly impact your organization’s success. I believe it starts there. The organization’s goals and objectives obviously should cascade down to each business unit’s or department’s specific goals and objectives. Recruitment needs to take note of these goals as to understand the unique nature of the business unit they support during their respective searches. If the Hiring Manager, HR, and Recruiter are all aligned this way, it can set the stage for a positive recruitment experience for all. (btw – this is by no means easy)
Keeping this in mind any recruiter that’s any good should be able to own the eff out of the recruitment process beginning with the job launch call. During this step it’s important for the recruiter to understand not only what the critical experience and qualifications are for the position, but why they are what they are. Mark Herbert hit the nail on the head, by pointing out most failures in the recruitment process occur “BI” Before Interview. Your hiring manager should be able to articulate why their Marketing Manager needs 10 years of experience in print production (especially when you just outsourced your reprographics department). This not only sets the stage for the recruitment process, but also gives the recruiter the opp to discuss the goals and objectives of their recruitment team, why these goals and objectives are important and what the expectations are of the hiring team in the process. Furthermore explaining why candidate experience will not be compromised so that everyone and their mother can give John Q. Candidate the third degree, only to have John decide he doesn’t want to work for you anymore after his fifth interview (three of which were scheduled and rescheduled multiple times).
I agree that hiring managers should be held accountable for sourcing candidates to some degree, but I also acknowledge some managers either refuse to or suck at building relationships. Yes, there are some recruiters that are useless, but some are very valuable and there are an elite few that are invaluable. I’ve worked on many searches during my career and have found the job launch portion of the recruitment process to be most pivotal, and if executed well can lead to finding and hiring top talent. In the event the recruiter is an idiot, no matter how good the job launch is….there will be struggles.
MattyMat – I think I’m working on your search (if it’s the one that’s 70% sysadmin, 30% NOC engineer)…
If your recruting experience has been, say retail, where interactions are substantially more one on one, then I can understand why you might think panel/group interviews are bunk. But then I think about how so many work situations involve 3 or more people… Why wouldn’t multiple person interviews be used? Perhaps it’s because they require more skilled interviewers????
I agree to some extent that fit is over-rated; I think it’s used as an excuse when the hiring manager can’t make up their mind and is fearful of making a bad decision so they scream “bad fit” and get a reprieve.
think panel interviews are bunk and honestly “fit” is bunk.
What I’d like to see is for all the recruiter bashers try to do my job for a week…
@Steve More than likely you are working on the same position— IF they’re doing godless amounts of persnickity interviewing without hiring anyone.
In all my years of recruiting– I think I’ve only seen one example of a quick and precise hire go south. Hiring managers and HR have to STOP thinking thier company and departments are “the golden chalices” one must be the opitome of perfection in order to drink from. Give me a break, puh-lease!!
Dude, so glad you brought this up, it’s something that I have been really been looking at lately. You know I’m a metrics geek, and you know I’ve been conducting a job search, so of course I’ve been recording and measuring everything involved in the hiring process.
If anyone will be in the Minneapolis on April 30th, I’ll actually be speaking about my findings and providing simple action steps to improve candidate experience at the MNRec event.
@bruno I think we could sum it up by saying F–k Harvard. That would work for me. Fake smarty pants school with its ivy and its leagues.
@Steve Can’t argue with your points, mostly because I don’t really know what an algorithm does — other than make shit appear on my google screen.
Seriously, though, the title of recruiter is incidental to my larger point. If you’re going to own the process, own the motherfking process and have some integrity when you do your job. That’s all.
@Kimberly I think you’re right that transferable skills are overlooked — but that might happen due to an abundance of candidates who meet the minimum threshold and are exception. I believe there’s more than one perfect candidate for a job — and you’re right that someone with less and/or different experience might be qualified, too. The market is saturated, right now.
@Chris Whoa, that’s creative & interesting.
@Iknowtoo Good comment. Thank you. I’d like to see a survey by Right Management on what the hell Right Management does… outplacement, yes? I can’t even remember. I’ve been out of HR for so long that I dealt with Right Management in several iterations and before they were purchased by Manpower. Sheesh.
@Marti Your post makes me laugh. I used to get pissed off when people would circumvent me. I’d say, “I’m one of the good ones.” No one believed me. I had to work 5x as hard to overcompensate for the dumb HR hurdles. Oh well. That’s why I blog.
@Mark Wait, no, seriously, I do like the algorithm idea. I was never really in the business of finding and building a talent pipeline. I was in the business of being a project manager, which is what modern day recruiting has become, and it sucked. This is why I decided to be a HR Generalist. If I’m going to manage a project OR a department OR an HR organization, corporate recruiting doesn’t get me high enough into an organization to make it worth my time.
@MattyMat Let me ask you something: where are your balls? Did you give them away when you walked through the door of your office? I’d sooner choke on a pile of shit than have some HR generalist tell me how to run my recruiting operation. I’d also make managers jump through fucking hurdles to have the honor to interview candidates, and when they finally had a chance to go through the process, I had them so thankful that they were anxious to hire someone. If the process wasn’t complete in 90 days, I’d make them justify the requisitions to their bosses. No one gave me permission to do any of this shit, and I was a brat, but I did it because I was sick of being semi-responsible for a process that sucked. I either own it or I won’t. If I don’t own it, I’ll show up for work, collect my paycheck, and shop for shoes on Zappos. Black & white. That’s how I rolled.
@H Aria On a serious note, who owns the hiring process? The hiring manager? If they’re not hard wired to do it, don’t let them do it. I know, I know. Easier said than done. But it can be done. It started with me saying, “Here are five resumes. Only five. I want you to talk to all five of these candidates. (pause) You want to see more resumes? How about all the resumes that came in? Like all 600. Would that work for you? Don’t ask me to make your life difficult, my friend. Trust my judgment. I won’t let you down.” Shit like that. It worked for me. Maybe I’m lucky — or persuasive.
@Tammy I like the cut of your gib. Or is it jib?
MORE SOON.
@markF Assessment centers FTW!
@Rick Thanks. I’m with you, buddy.
@RickRO I do feel badly because some recruiters already feel isolated from the business and feel like transactional managers. I think a lot of this is mental, though, and can be changed with a different attitude. I OWN THIS. You can own something without really owning it.
@Puf OMG, I wish I could see this. Will you record it?
@MattYMat – if your company is on NYC, find my 203 number and call me…
@Ruetty – an algorithm is nothing more than steps used in solving a problem; stop playing dumb.
The big problem with recruiting is that of respect. Ive owned it but I sure had to use lot of sugar and spice to get there. Recruiting takes strength and many in out profession are 90 lb weaklings. When CEOs are actually measured with a talent metric, better, stronger people will enter the profession.
Until then there’ll still be lots of tumbleweeds
MY two cents/voice of experience, from the job seeker position (in no particular order):
Methinks recruiters should buck management and tell bosses: “THIS is who you need. THIS person will work well with your team. Stop telling me to interview ‘just one more person’ to find that Magic Candidate who doesn’t exist.” It’s insulting to the rest of us and a waste of time for the recruiter:
1) Management tells recruiters to hire someone based on certain parameters (job description) as well as company culture.
2) Recruiters submit recommended candidates.
3) Management says, “Nah, I don’t like this one, blah blah blah.”
4) Candidate is left confused, defeated and a bit pissed off after great talks with recruiter only to learn that they lack a Special Factor.
5) Recruiter is left feeling (I would imagine) that their efforts and time are not being taken seriously.
Honestly, if we left it to management, everyone’s cousin would have a job and the country would be bankrupt. Wait a minute…..
Since being laid off from [Company That Won't Be Named In Case My Internet Usage Is Tracked By Future Minimum Wage Employer Seeking Subversive Activities Of Annoyed Americans], I’ve lost track of how many outstanding interviews I’ve had with recruiters only to learn later that they were thwarted in their desire to bring me in to “meet the team” because of management’s desire for the Magic Candidate. It’s insulting to both me and the recruiter.
No offense, but management doesn’t know their ass from a hole in the ground half the time. Most are so obsessed with the bottom line (rightfully or otherwise) that they completely miss the human aspect of getting to the bottom line in the first place. People are what make the numbers happen.
What makes a candidate “perfect,” anyway? Care to share?
Personally, I love panel interviews. Not only is it easier for everyone to meet me at the same time and discuss, but it’s an opportunity for ME to get a feel for the dynamics before I go any further. Let’s not forget: I’m interviewing YOU, too. I’ve done panels at two of my biggest jobs (Fortune 50 companies, both of them) and I say, Bring It On. Frankly, if I can’t carry my weight at that level, then I don’t deserve the job. And guess what, managers? I already know that coming in the door so wipe that “Let’s see what we can do with this one” smirk off your face. Remember why I’m meeting with you? Because you need me. So suck it.
In a nutshell: Keep your ego out of it and trust the recruiter to do their job.
@steve I know. :p
@simone I like your idea of empowering the recruiter. It’s funny because some of the best recruiters I know were religious studies professors, art teachers, and college football players. It’s an eclectic group. I would like to see them gain respect (as steve says) but I’m not sure how you do it without being mean. That’s how I did it… and I’m no 90 lb weakling.
You know that phenomenon when you you learn a new word and then you see it everywhere? Yeah. That’s going on with my super smart and funny new friend Kimberly Roden. Rock on, Laurie. and Rock on Kimberly. Great points on all sides.
@FrannyO You’re the hub!
@Laurie I checked— balls still there. First— the client is a very prestigous Aerospace/Space/Dept. of Defense research company— and yes, I’m sorry to say— EGO— they want Master’s degrees from thier janitor’s, for God’s sake!! Look— I’ve done everything from meeting with HR and the hiring managers to recommending candidates who’d be great fit’s, to demanding they move on someone quickly—- it doesn’t help when the HM looks you in the eye and says “Well– it’s because we don’t really know what we want.” They give me lip service till I’m blue in the face— and do nothing— which was your original complaint about multiple interviews and no action. Also— my nuts have nothing to do with my boss telling me to not piss off the client either—
In my opinion one of the biggest failings in recruitment comes from playing the blame game, by both recruiters and the hiring managers. In my experience as a recruiter, it boils down to building strong relationships with managers – period. Communication, communication, communication. I have made it a practice never to put forth more than 3 strong candidates before a manager – and should all 3 be unsucessful I will NOT put any other candidates forth until feedback is received! Yes, I have ‘upset’ some managers in the past, some to the point they have gone over my head to my manager. In the end, I state my position as the gatekeeper for the company’s reputation and have stood up to very senior managers to ensure someone is speaking out on behalf of candidates.
And since nothing is accepted with out statistics nowadays, I have had round table meetings with candidates hired around the same timeframe and asked for feedback regarding the recruitment process. With statistics in hand, it has always been easier to support a point.
Somewhere along the line, recruiters forgot (or never knew) how to be the gatekeepers of the organisation’s reputation; and the first face of HR. Recruiters need to get back to the 101′s of recruitment – and remember it will not always be an employers market.
Great question: “Are three interviews too many, too few or just right?”
Since only Levy actually answered it and few noticed, I thought I might point out the obvious. Roll out your stats against future performance and either:
A. 1 is enough if 2 interviews doesn’t significantly improve your hit rate (regression correlation of successful employees against the factors in the selection that process that got them there.)
B. If it can be demonstrated that NOT interviewing increased the likelihood of success than maybe some combo assessment would be easier and the winner can just show up. (Certainly the computer can’t abuse the losers any more than the humans who fail to give feedback do every day). Yes, I know that won’t happen as i keep gaming that scenario periodically.
Unfortunately, the above approach assumes some reliability in how recruiters interview and all the inter-rater and even intra-rater studies show really bad numbers unless (and this a biggee) they’ve been formally trained, assessed and periodically audited – which eliminates 100% of all the firms in the US except the academics doing the research. Worse, the predictive validity is directly related to reliability.
So, unless proven (in situ) otherwise, 3 interviews are simply a dumb waste of a businessperson’s time on a professional and scientific level.
And, while I would like to get more than anecdotal evidence, increasing the number of interviews beyond the average (3) likely impacts the engagement levels of even those you do select and increases “restriction of range” effects (better people simply drop out of crappy processes) as well.
This last goes to Laurie’s original thesis. Try explaining to a quality candidate that they should put up with a crappy process that has no basis in fact. Personally, the ones who drop out are the ones I want to automatically hire…at least they are not willing to subject themselves to more wasted effort.
@Laurie Just got a call from the client/HM today— he decided he’d tell me a few MINOR THING’S about what the team was asking candidates in thier screening process THAT WEREN’T ANYWHERE NEAR THE JOB DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS!!! (oh– he apologized profusely, of course)— Minor thing’s like Linux wrappers – loading a Linux operating system – Management in a clustered Linux environment – and Linux security questions like “do you know the difference between NFS v. 1 and NFS v. 2???? SECURITY??? That’s a whole different profession!!
No need to ask— my balls are doing fine, thanks.
Three or more interviews? I am not in the recruting side, but if an HR manager invests that amount of time talking with a candidate, doesn’t it make it difficult for her to reject that person because otherwise she has wasted a great amount of time? Or is interviewing candidates considered as an equivalent of pointless meetings which serves no purpose but to make the stakeholders feel they are making a difference? I agree with you – maybe those HR professionals should conduct the first two interviews on their own, reading the candidate’s FB, Twitter, or blog.
Stellar post Laurie! You are right… too little attention is paid to the candidate’s experience during the hiring process as most managers fail to recognize that the way a candidate was treated during the period of time directly impacts how they will transition into their new role with a new organization.
I’ve featured your post in my weekly Rainmaker ‘Fab Five’ blog picks of the week (found here: http://www.maximizepossibility.com/employee_retention/2010/04/the-rainmaker-fab-five-blog-picks-of-the-week-1.html) so that my readers may also benefit from your post.
Be well!
Come on, pick names out of a hat…really? I know you’re trying to stir the pot here, and I’m all about simplicity and focus, but I think there’s plenty of examples in life (not just in recruiting) where it’s been shown that using data to make a decision is better than using your gut (or a hat or a magical algorithm).
My gripe would be that we’ve been using the same tired ass tools forever now to identify good people in the hiring process. We need something new, something better, and something faster. Personally as an employer I could give a crap about respecting the candidate’s time, I’m concerned about hiring the best person. If I miss opportunities because my process is to freakin complicated and long, that’s a problem.