Category: hiring

Misalignment is the root of all evil in recruiting

Misalignment is the root of all evil in recruiting, according to Chris Bruzzo, Chief Experience Officer at Electronic Arts. To address this, they created alignment meetings, which all hiring managers must attend and present at before recruiting for a new or backfill role.

At these meetings, a number of key questions are asked, below three are highlighted:

  • Was the hiring manager’s criteria realistic?
  • Were the job ads written to attract a diverse talent pool?
  • Are we learning what works and what doesn’t work?

If you never change your hiring process, it could be considered pretty insane; expecting a different result but doing the same thing. Jobs are often “sold” to candidates in an unrealistic way, meaning the expectations to perform in the job aren’t aligned with how it was initially presented.

Properly aligning professional expectations at the start has the potential to remove the root of all evil from recruitment.

too long

How long before you realize you’ve made a hiring mistake? The short answer is, always too late.

Very successful businesses and their employees have made costly hiring mistakes, and some are willing to admit it, but how long does it take for the company to recognize a bad hire? How long does it take for the employee to realize?

According to research, one out of two employees is looking for a new job within the first year of employment due to a mismatch in expectations. In a commercial context that would translate to, what I’ve been sold, is not what I’ve been promised.

Imagine how much money companies could save, and at the same time, how much well-being could be boosted if hiring mismatches were to be avoided up-front.

ruin your brand

Bad news travels far swiftly. Almost three-quarters (72%) of job seekers say they share negative experiences with companies where they apply online.

Offering a bad experience to potential candidates is, by and large a surefire way to drive your employer brand into the ground.

What’s worse, some initiatives are so simple to implement. So simple, in fact, that it’d be a shame not to do it.

React. A simple message to acknowledge that the candidacy has been received successfully goes a long way. If at all possible, including the typical response time in that message makes a huge difference.

Image ordering online, checking out without any indication whatsoever regarding delivery. How many customers would purchase again with that same company, or leave an enthusiastic review?

training is the new hiring

Training is the new hiring. Labor market scarcity is evident by now, unfortunately. A natural reflex is to lower the criteria (among other initiatives). We’ll hire people and train them on the job, so they can grow to become the full-fledged employee required for the job.

Train for what?

A new type of IV treatment, not yet taught in nursing school, has to be explained on the actual job. Controlling a cluster of instrument panels in the port has to be preceded by training. But what about the non-technical skills, the soft-skills?

Without understanding the base skillset, regarding soft-skills, of a new employee, only 50% of the spectrum is taken into account.

Map soft-skills on the talent – and job side to bridge the gap. Gaps between the soft-skills of today and those required for the job tomorrow.

kings of companies

In the land (and era) characterized by labor market shortage, the company that retains and engages their talent the best, will prevail.

The original quote — in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king — is credited to Desiderius Erasmus’s Adagia around the year 1500. Half a millennium later, the principle remains underrated.

While all your competitors focus on the ultra-short-term, hiring whoever applies, the companies who have a long-term strategy, will reign supreme. Those companies take bi-directional professional expectations into account to build a career perspective.

All hail to the kings of companies.

hire for

What’s the thing that the majority in HR seems to agree on yet the minority is actually doing? Hire for attitude train for skills.

If the majority of employers would indeed hire for attitude, why is everyone copy-pasting the same generic, crappy vacancy descriptions?

Apparently, the whole world needs dynamic team players for every job.

Identify and communicate specific attitudes derived from the actual job. Time for HR to live up to their end of the bargain.

clue in the game

My brother-in-law helps manufacture rubber in the port of Antwerp. His HR department literally sits in an ivory, sorry, glass tower. Alongside an R&D department, some managers and executives. The workers, on the other hand, are in the plant, which is a different building altogether. HR doesn’t have the slightest clue of what’s happening down there.

The good thing is, they’re very well aware. That’s why HR uses proverbial antennas and satellites. Just to create an understanding of what’s going on. Also, for hiring purposes, they must consult with team leaders from manufacturing because they wouldn’t know how to begin to express what the job entails precisely to future candidates.

Situations like these are, by no means, an exception. Every day, HR is involved in hiring and interviewing candidates for a job that they know nothing about. When HR isn’t involved with a particular job, how can they provide legitimate advice?

Create a thorough understanding of the actual job-content and team roles for a specific job. In other words, feel what it’s really like to work that job on a daily basis.

attitude uncertain

“We don’t want to overload our candidates with tests or assessments.” That sounds like a sensible approach. How many tests are too many? The answer is usually unclear.

The rationale behind this sensible thought is often fear. Companies don’t want to introduce extra hurdles. Struggling to find talent, why make it even harder?

Statements I’ve heard many times throughout the last couple of weeks; whoever wants to work with us, we’ll hire them. We hire based on attitude, and we’ll train them on the job. Not a bad approach per se, but something is lacking.

Without assessing attitude, there is no certainty if the candidate will thrive.

gaslighting talent

Are companies (and their recruiters) gaslighting their candidates?

When people quit after six months because the job doesn’t align with their expectations the way they thought it would, who is to blame? The company or the candidate?

If the company can’t adequately describe what’s expected for the job, blaming the candidate seems unfair.

If the candidate, on the other hand, isn’t able to clearly express their expectations of the job, blaming the company might also seem unjust.

Both companies and candidates need help expressing job-content and (team) role expectations.