Last week I had the pleasure of once again joining Deb Neuman on her Back to Business radio program. The topic, Etiquette in the Workplace, was suggested by another frequent guest Pete Chavonelle of PBC Consulting. He had some amazing statistics about how much time and productivity is lost due to rudeness. As Pete said, most of that can be prevented by simply using Common Sense and showing Respect.
I had been asked to join them to specifically discuss Hiring Etiquette and in research prior to the show was surprised to find that most of the articles in a Google search were about the rudeness exhibited by companies during the hiring process. Candidates complain that companies are not getting back to them in a timely manner or even at all. We ask candidates to write cover letters specific to the position, email their applications in a certain manner, and to leave work early to participate in interviews. It is only fair -- and mannerly -- to let them know where they stand in the process.
I am not without fault here. There have been some jobs recently that have taken too long for my comfort level. That can be due to many factors including other priorities or challenges in the organization. Life happens. Life happens to all of us and a little common sense and respect will go far here as well.
Even though I am not always comfortable with Hire Well's time lag in getting back to candidates, I know that I am doing much better than most companies. Why? Because I have been getting thank you emails from candidates who received a "No Thank you, You Don't Meet Our Requirements" email. They are thanking me for getting back to them with a "no" because most companies do not get back to them at all.
In addition to being rude, this does not help your credibility in the workplace or in the market. If you are in a small market like Maine, as I am, remember that these candidates have family and friends and colleagues who could be your clients. Getting back to candidates in an honest and timely manner is polite - and good strategy to protect the reputation of your brand.
Here is what I suggest:
First, try to be sure that you are indeed ready to hire this position and look at the timeline from date of placing the ad. Are you or other key managers going on vacation? What will that do to the review process? In an ideal world that process should take 4 - 6 weeks. What is scheduled in your company during the next 4 - 8 weeks and how will that impact the search?
Second, if you don't have a hiring process, create one. Who will review the resumes and on what criteria? How many interviews will be scheduled and who will participate? If one of the top candidates were to ask you what process to expect, you want to know how to answer that question.
Third, prepare three "master" emails (I love AutoText): 1. We have received your resume. 2. No thank you. 3. Invitation for first interview. Then create a process for getting back to the candidates. This first email does not have to be personalized and an auto responder, administrative assistant or intern can handle it. The other two should have "Dear first name" with the candidate's name spelled correctly.
Once you have reviewed the resumes and gone through first interviews,the remainder of the process should consist of personal calls or emails regarding whether or not the candidate is being moved forward and what the next steps are.
If the job changes, is withdrawn, or the process is put on hold then pull the ad and let the candidates know.
When you do this right, it doesn't have to take too much time, and the rewards are great. Hiring etiquette is a key component of hiring well.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Group Interviews - Survivor Style
I ran into an unemployed friend this weekend and asked how her job search was going. She told me she'd had a group interview last week, but wasn't sure how it went and her tone clearly indicated she did not like the process.
Group interviews are an excellent way to determine which candidate will best fit your team. I encourage my clients to involve other managers and staff people in the interview process and meet as a group with each top candidate. This was not what my friend experienced. Rather, 50 candidates were seated in an auditorium, introduced to the organization and the position and "interviewed" as a group.
Really.
We didn't have long to speak on Sunday, but here is what I know of my friend's experience:
The hiring manager was introduced and discussed the position and the company. I assume the process was described. Candidates were then assured that if they wanted to leave at this point, they could do so "with no hard feelings". (I would suspect also no chance at the job.)
Each candidate was asked to introduce him or her self, give a brief description of experience and job history and why he or she would do well in the job. I'm not sure if anyone was asked specific questions or what transpired then. I do know that the final act was to hand out forms for each candidate to verify their interest and contact information. Then, all candidates were again asked to state their name and each person was instructed to note on the form which person (other than themselves) they would recommend be hired.
This is wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin, so I'll just touch on the five most obvious issues.
1. A common ground rule in H. R. and recruiting is that one keeps the candidates' names and information as confidential as possible. Maine is a small state and most people don't want their employers to know they are looking. An "interview" such as the one described here totally breaches that confidentiality. It is conceivable - indeed likely - that a candidate may find he or she is openly competing with a co-worker, boss or subordinate, or business competitor; any of which can certainly create problems on the job or in the market.
2. Who is doing the screening for this company? That is the job of the Human Resources Manager or In-House Recruiter. If there is no internal H. R. staff, hiring managers should be instructed in a process that will work well for all parties and is fair for every position. Weeding through resumes and making choices are important tasks and while it can be daunting, it is not impossible. If you can't handle it, hire a consultant or seek a new career.
3. Can you imagine how much of each candidate's time this took? If all 50 spoke just for a minute each of the two times, you are requiring 50 candidates to attend a two or three hour meeting where they have limited opportunity to participate. Can we please assume that some of these people have jobs? That's a lot of time off work with little opportunity to make an impression.
4. The "Survivor" question that essentially voted candidates off the island has to be one of the most uncomfortable interview situations I can imagine. How can a candidate answer that truthfully?
5. Isn't hiring well the goal? How many of the best candidates will pull out because they do not want to be involved in this flawed process? If they assume that other management and H.R. decisions are also handled or miss-handled in a similar manner, then those candidates who withdraw and choose to leave the island may be those who are more confident, informed, and experienced. If that happens, the company clearly won't be able to hire the best available candidate. Not by a long shot.
Group interviews are an excellent way to determine which candidate will best fit your team. I encourage my clients to involve other managers and staff people in the interview process and meet as a group with each top candidate. This was not what my friend experienced. Rather, 50 candidates were seated in an auditorium, introduced to the organization and the position and "interviewed" as a group.
Really.
We didn't have long to speak on Sunday, but here is what I know of my friend's experience:
The hiring manager was introduced and discussed the position and the company. I assume the process was described. Candidates were then assured that if they wanted to leave at this point, they could do so "with no hard feelings". (I would suspect also no chance at the job.)
Each candidate was asked to introduce him or her self, give a brief description of experience and job history and why he or she would do well in the job. I'm not sure if anyone was asked specific questions or what transpired then. I do know that the final act was to hand out forms for each candidate to verify their interest and contact information. Then, all candidates were again asked to state their name and each person was instructed to note on the form which person (other than themselves) they would recommend be hired.
This is wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin, so I'll just touch on the five most obvious issues.
1. A common ground rule in H. R. and recruiting is that one keeps the candidates' names and information as confidential as possible. Maine is a small state and most people don't want their employers to know they are looking. An "interview" such as the one described here totally breaches that confidentiality. It is conceivable - indeed likely - that a candidate may find he or she is openly competing with a co-worker, boss or subordinate, or business competitor; any of which can certainly create problems on the job or in the market.
2. Who is doing the screening for this company? That is the job of the Human Resources Manager or In-House Recruiter. If there is no internal H. R. staff, hiring managers should be instructed in a process that will work well for all parties and is fair for every position. Weeding through resumes and making choices are important tasks and while it can be daunting, it is not impossible. If you can't handle it, hire a consultant or seek a new career.
3. Can you imagine how much of each candidate's time this took? If all 50 spoke just for a minute each of the two times, you are requiring 50 candidates to attend a two or three hour meeting where they have limited opportunity to participate. Can we please assume that some of these people have jobs? That's a lot of time off work with little opportunity to make an impression.
4. The "Survivor" question that essentially voted candidates off the island has to be one of the most uncomfortable interview situations I can imagine. How can a candidate answer that truthfully?
5. Isn't hiring well the goal? How many of the best candidates will pull out because they do not want to be involved in this flawed process? If they assume that other management and H.R. decisions are also handled or miss-handled in a similar manner, then those candidates who withdraw and choose to leave the island may be those who are more confident, informed, and experienced. If that happens, the company clearly won't be able to hire the best available candidate. Not by a long shot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
