|
In our last Manager Newsletter we explained why we think that the market for technical professionals will intensify and tighten even more than it has. If your company has tried to hire people, you have probably seen that it’s a lot more difficult to fill jobs than at any time since 2000.
This Newsletter may give you some ideas that will help you improve your chances of competing for skilled personnel. Many managers think that the only way to compete with other firms and win is by offering more attractive salaries. Of course, salary is a key component of any candidate’s decision-making process. But, if your company doesn’t pay as well as others, tweaking your recruitment process can go a long way to leveling the playing field.
The first thing you and all the other stakeholders in your firm should do is realize the emphasis of your employment system needs to shift. From 2001 to 2004, the focus of most firms was on the SELECTION side of employment. In other words, if you were hiring at that time your most difficult task was to choose, or select, the best candidate from a group of readily available applicants. Your interviewing process was solely geared to revealing candidate weaknesses and strengths. It’s focus was on finding the best possible candidate from a group of candidates. Of course the definition of "best candidate" could change from job to job and company to company. From some, it might mean cheapest. For others, most highly skilled in one area. For others, most flexible, etc. This type of process generally involves multiple interviews and multiples candidates and can easily last for months. Often times, the interviewing process reveals more than one candidate who can do the job and who meets the specs and the manager wants the best of that capable group.
If your employment process is still geared towards SELECTION, I think you may need to make an adjustment. You now need to put more of an emphasis on ATTRACTION. Candidates are hard to find, even for the most basic jobs. Ad response is sparse, at best, and even the ad response that you are getting includes candidates who have multiple opportunities. To successfully staff their organizations, companies need to present a more aggressive and candidate-focused face to their potential candidate pool. You need to ATTRACT people to send you resumes. You need to ATTRACT people to take time off and interview and you need to ATTRACT people to choose your opportunity and not others.
Let’s start at the beginning. The ad. In an earlier Newsletter I pointed out that most companies run horrible employment ads. Pretend you are a consumer and read most want ads. They are usually designed to eliminate, not attract. Most ads don’t tell a candidate why they should apply. In fact, many actually discourage candidates from applying. They are cold. If consumer goods were sold that way we’d still be wearing animal skins and living in tents.
Knowing where to advertise is important too. Interestingly enough, even in the age of the Internet, the success of recruiting web sites can vary dramatically from location to location. A web site that is successful in Northern Jersey might not work in Lancaster, PA. Different groups of people use different sites too. Engineers use different sites than salespeople. You’ve got to run a good ad in the right place. The days when everyone looked in the Sunday paper are over. Writing a good ad is only good if the person you want to apply sees it. With so many media possibilities, a poorly placed ad can be invisible. Know your market.
When a possible resume comes in the door, you’ve got to maintain the ATTRACTION focus. No matter who calls the candidate first, HR or you, you should be prepared to answer questions and to project a positive image of the company. Remember, this is not 2003 when the candidate was sitting at home hoping for an interview. Now, a badly handled initial contact may lead the candidate to decline the interview. After all, it’s likely they now would have to take off from work to interview and may have limited time available. They need to save those days for the jobs they really like. The other day I had a candidate tell me about a company that badly handled the initial call.
It was a classical mistake. They focused on the negative and wanted to SELECT. He said that the whole conversation was about money. The person who called him spent no time going over the job or what makes the company a nice place to work. All they asked was what his salary was and what type of salary he wanted. This was a fellow who is currently driving an hour to work and this company was 10 minutes from his home. Geeze, he could have taken a lateral and saved a fortune, especially at $2.50/gallon gas. Instead of creating a positive impression, the company rep put a lot of concerns in the candidates mind. Are they just looking for the cheapest person? If I actually interview and go to work there, is this a preview of my first review? Will I have to beg for resources to do my job? A poorly handled initial contact can stop the process in it’s tracks.
The best managers leave the candidate with a good feeling after hanging up. They are upbeat about the company and energetic about the job that they do themselves and that they are trying to fill. It’s the difference between shopping at Joe’s Discount and Nordstrom’s. Intangibles are very important. Hint: people pay more for the same goods at Nordstrom than at Joe’s Discount. People accept jobs for less money when the employment process reinforces the positive nature of working at a company. If you aren’t good at being upbeat in the initial phone call about your company, have someone else in that role. Not everyone can carry it off well. Know yourself.
OK, the ad is important and the first contact is important. The interview is still the same though - right? Nope, the interview process becomes a simultaneous two-track process. Frankly, if you can’t create a positive buzz in the candidate’s mind while simultaneously evaluating their skills, you probably shouldn’t be a manager. Hiring is one of the most important jobs a manager has. Everyone talks about team building. Employment is the first step in building a solid team. Companies that think the interview only consists of them asking (or barking) a series of questions at the candidate are often surprised by a large number of turndowns. They forget that the candidate gets a say in the employment process also. Sometimes candidates say no.
I know of a local company that puts a large amount of stock in a candidate’s formal interviewing skills: eye contact, handshakes, etc. They have not hired people because of weak handshakes and other intangibles. That’s their right. However, they are often surprised when someone who they like turns them down. What they don’t know is that they never reciprocate the courtesy that they expect the candidate to show them. It’s not unusual for a manager there to keep someone waiting in the lobby for 30 minutes beyond the scheduled time. Their interviews are very impersonal and cold. The interviews always end abruptly, with no one walking out with the candidate thanking them for their time and letting them know the next step. Interviews should be a dialog, not a monolog. Courtesy on the part of an employer can overcome a lot of obstacles in recruiting.
Lastly, and most importantly, in switching from SELECTION to ATTRACTION, we need to shift the actual decision-making process. Of course, it needs to speed up. The longer a candidate is on the market the more interviews they will have. The more interviews, the more offers. The more offers the less chance they will choose your offer. I am always amazed how often I hear that a job is hot and critical yet it takes 2 weeks or more to review a resume and another 2 weeks to make a decision after an interview. It is in this part of the employment process, the end game, that the manager needs to make the most difficult adjustment.
In a tight labor market, it’s a luxury to be able to choose the best person from a group of capable candidates. You may not have that luxury. Now, you have to "hire to spec". In other words, after an interview you should ask yourself two questions. One, can this person do the job I am trying t fill? Two, is this person someone with whom we want to work? If the answer to both is yes, the next question should be asked of the candidate - if we offer you xxx dollars, will you come to work here? If yes, make the offer. If no, keep interviewing. If they are unsure, find out why.
Comparing a group of candidates to each other takes time. Time is your enemy. Waiting a week or a month until another candidate who may be marginally better shows up is a big gamble. As we said earlier, time gives the candidate a chance to get more offers, possibly putting you at a disadvantage. The penalty for comparison may mean having to choose from the candidates who haven’t already taken jobs. In effect, getting the ones others didn’t want. Not a good strategy.
Objectively evaluate your process. Ask your other managers and HR people what they say to candidates in their interviews and in the initial phone conversation. Take a step back and pretend you are a candidate just leaving the interview. Is the last impression they have of you good? In your last 15 minutes with them, did you tell them that they were asking for too much money in an attempt to bargain with them or did you tell them what a great career they would have in your group? Who would you rather work for, a manager who seemed to care about you or a manager who seemed to care about $500/year? Candidates will make sacrifices, up to a point, in order to work for someone they feel will look out for them. Don’t end with a negative. It’s your staff. It’s your hire. Make it your process. Thanks for your time. Jeff
|
