RIGHT RECRUITING

Our last few Newsletters have focused on broad market and employment issues. We’ve touched on topics such as the lack of technology professionals on executive row as well as how market improvements become visible for different demographic groups at different times in an economic recovery. Since it’s become clear that conditions are improving and people are being interviewed again, it’s time to put our tactical recruiter hat back on. In this issue we will explore the employment process and provide some insight that might be helpful for both employers and candidates.

Here at Right Recruiting, one of the things that make us unique among recruiting firms is our process. Unlike others in our industry, we actually have one. We have protocols for contacting people about jobs and selecting candidates. As such, that gives us a profound appreciation of processes, both their importance and their misuse.

Over the last few months, two unconnected events got me thinking about perceptual gaps that participants on both sides of the hiring equation may have relative to the employment process. The first event was a series of speeches I was asked to give to downsized executives from Unisys, J&J, Visteon and other large local firms. The topic was the transition from a large firm to a small firm. The second is an active recruiting project for a local employer. They are a division of a $5,000,000,000/yr company and are establishing a divisional headquarters here locally. We are halfway through a 10-12 person staffing project that will involve the creation of at least two new departments within their corporate structure. Both of these events pointed out expectations and timing disconnects on both sides of the table that can lead to self destructive behavior by candidates and companies. They also showed a template for how to deal with them.

The first thing to realize is that the employment process is messy. No two companies handle the process in the same way and no two candidates approach the market for the same reason. Because of this, past performance is most definitely not a predictor of future behavior. A candidate who is used to a tightly scripted employment process can founder in a looser process and vice versa. This can lead to missed signals from both parties which can, in turn, lead to missed opportunities.

Please note one thing here. I am using the phrase employment process and not interview process. The employment process includes things that occur both before and after the interview. In the initial stages, recruitment strategies (advertising methods, agency involvement, resume review processes, etc) all send a message to a potential candidate pool about an employer’s culture. In the latter stages of the employment process, issues like feedback time, salary negotiations, benefits explanations and others also provide a glimpse into a company’s psyche.

Of course, for companies, similar issues apply to candidates. In the initial stages companies take notice of ease of interview scheduling, professional demeanor and courtesy. Later in the process, companies pay attention to how the candidate handles the offer stages. They often see that as insight to the candidate’s true values. In other words, there are a lot of places for misunderstanding.

Two anecdotes. The first involved one of the speeches I gave to downsized executives. These were folks at the Manager or Director level who had been laid of from large companies. Most had at least 10 years of service in those firms. Many had worked at the same company for their entire career and had risen up the ranks to reasonably senior positions. Very few had actually ever been in a position where they needed to seek a new job. My role was to help them understand the process and to help them understand how to approach smaller companies in their job search.

One of the advantages of working as a recruiter in the region for 30 years (yipes!) is that eventually most people in the region cross my desk at some point in their career, either as a candidate or as part of a company’s interview team. While I am not particularly intelligent, I have been blessed with a good memory. Frankly, I remember everything and everybody. When the audience introduced themselves, I found that I remembered one of the people. He was a manager at a client I had about 15 years ago. At that time he managed a small engineering group and had since moved on to a Director role with the same firm, before a buyout created the layoff that affected him.

 My memory of him was not pleasant. They had difficult, highly technical jobs to fill and were very picky. It was very hard to find candidates that met their specifications. However, that was not the problem. Companies have every right to have difficult and restrictive criteria. The problem was the process.

My group worked hard on those jobs with the understanding that when we found people who were acceptable our client would react aggressively. We felt that there was an implicit agreement that when we found that very rare candidate, the client would react enthusiastically and energetically when he or she appeared.

In that project, the HR Manager tried to do a very good job of keeping the process moving and providing timely feedback. The holdup was the manager. He was an abrasive interviewer. What was worse was the manager’s post-interview behavior. He was very casual about feedback and casual about decisions. They lost two candidates whom they wanted to hire because the manager was “too busy” to get back to HR with offer information. Frankly, what should have taken days took weeks, if not over a month. The candidates turned down the job for a variety of reasons, all revolving around timing. One got another offer, for example, and another’s interest in the job evaporated over the month it took to provide a positive response. When told of the turndowns, the manager lashed out at HR and me for not managing the candidates better. We walked away from the project.

Back to my speech. In the Q&A after my talk, the same manager, now an ex-Director, asked for an explanation of why companies never try to give feedback on resumes and asked advice on how to follow up on interviews. He was frustrated by the lack of dialog between candidates and companies. The irony is obvious.

The goal of this anecdote is not to bash the manager. Frankly, that would be too easy. There is an important point to be made about the intersection of business and human needs in the employment process. Discussing this may help all parts of the community understand each other better. The aforementioned  manager was a living and breathing example of how two people can look at each other through a pane of glass and see totally different things. In this instance it was actually the same person looking at the same thing, but at different points in his life. Context is everything. Our next anecdote will help illuminate this.

For the last 2 months we’ve been involved with a new client. They are a very large company and we are helping them staff positions in a newly designated division/corporate headquarters here in the region. These are great jobs. All are new positions with a growing multi-billion dollar company.

Early in the project we recognized that the process would be a problem. All of the managers involved in hiring travel frequently. This is complicated by the fact that it’s a 2 interview process and, in the second interview, multiple managers are involved and their schedules need to be coordinated. Frankly, their availability was like the planets aligning themselves around the sun. It was clear that it would take awhile to get from first interview to offer and there was nothing we could do about it.

The answer was obvious. There were two components. The first was educational. Immediately, when we initially contacted candidates, they were told about the manager’s travel constraints and were told the process would have unpredictable timing to it. The candidates were told that this was no reflection on them and they were not to personalize the delayed timing because it had nothing to do with them. The managerial travel was a function of a growing and busy work environment and would diminish as the departments were staffed. The candidates egos were not affected by the delay in feedback and lags in scheduling. This disconnect between ego and process was very important and we will discuss it later.

The second component was embedded in the first interview. The HR person was energetic and sincere in apologizing for the process. That reinforced the message we had given the candidate. More importantly, within the interviews themselves, the candidates were treated professionally and met an energetic and enthused cast of characters. Simply put, they were treated with dignity by a group of people who viewed them as fellow humans, not as economic inputs or annoyances.

So far, halfway through the project, the strategy has been successful. All offers have been accepted, even one that took 7 weeks to consummate. Everyone  seems happy, which means we’ve done our job.

As is usually the case, there is a point to this, though my rambling may mean it can take awhile to surface. The manager in the first anecdote shows us a priority mismatch between employer and candidate in the interview process. Right now, since he is a candidate, employment is a critical issue for him personally so he expects a high level of attention. In the past, as an employer, it was secondary for him. As such, it did not receive a high level of attention. Our second anecdote shows us how that tension between conflicting expectations can be alleviated.

Simply put, to the candidate employment and interviewing are very high priority items. It is vital. This becomes even more important when they see or hear about a job that is particularly interesting to them. It is the type of thing that keeps them up at night. A decision in their favor can literally change their life. The more they like the job, the more intense their interest and the higher the priority it becomes to them. That’s human nature.

On the flip side, to the employer and manager, it’s just one of a hundred things needed to be done that day, week or month. Even though it is important, no one single hiring decision is vital to a company. It’s priority within the firm may change depending upon extraneous events or other projects. We saw that in our current client’s situation. Staffing the department correctly was very important to each individual manager but not to the exclusion of the myriad of other components to the manager’s job. Stuff happens to get in the way.

There is tendency among managers to ignore the fact that, to a candidate, a positive interview and a sought after job is nail-biting time. There is a reciprocal tendency among candidates to assume that the manager shares their personal focus on the outcome of the interview. Candidates assume the manager can make the hiring decision a  priority of the first order.

Both parts of the equation need to occasionally be reminded of each other’s needs and priorities. That allows the situation to be realistically evaluated by all parties. Because of the candidate’s emotional stake in a yes/no decision from the potential employer, an unforeseen delay in updates and feedback becomes a personal issue. It creates anxiety. Because of the day to day responsibilities in front of the manager, a candidate asking for feedback can be seen as an annoyance rather than as an excited and enthusiastic potential employee. As with most things in life, communications can help bridge this priority gap. I always try to remind people that throughout their career, they will move from candidate to manager and back again multiple times. Take knowledge with you from each of those experiences.

In closing, however, there is one area of the process  where managers often need to be prodded and pounded. Oddly enough, it is after the decision has been made to hire someone. For managers, it can be very dangerous to confuse intention with execution. I’ve seen this many times in my career and perhaps you’ve seen it in yourself and/or your organization.

Imagine a manager who has gone through rigorous interview process and who has been trying to fill a tough and important job. After 2 months of interviews he finally has had a final interview with a candidate whom he likes and seems to want the job. A wave a relief washes over him. He’s found his person and made a decision. He can relax and he mentally moves on to other things. Whew!!!

Well, not so fast big guy! Hold on! As a manager, he feels that his job is done. He’s decided on his person. However, he still hasn’t executed the decision. While he has mentally relaxed and moved on to other things, the execution of the offer and formalities become less important to the manager and recede in importance to new project. However, if you’ve successfully understood what I’ve written so far, there is still a disconnect between manager and candidate. The manager wants to make  a decision. The candidate wants to have a job. Manager’s relax when they have decided. Candidates only relax when they have an offer. There is quite a difference between the two.

As a manager, don’t confuse your mental relief in having found a good staff addition with having made a formal offer. Yes, I know that all the remaining details can be tedious and distracting; signatures, approvals, salary, benefits, etc. are all details to you as a manager. Remind yourself that to the candidate, most important thing in the entire process is to have an offer. The primary parts of any offer are formal offer letters that contain signatures, salary and benefits. Once again, these are minor details to the manager. However, to the candidate they are the basic reason they involved themselves in the process to begin with. Managers should never forget the difference. Finish the project. Execute.

I hope this has been helpful to both candidate and employer. It’s easy to forget what the interview means to the other side of the desk. Never forget how the other side views the interview so that you can draw proper conclusions from their behavior throughout the process.

As ever, thanks for reading this far and don’t forget Right Recruiting for all your employment needs.