Drilling for Good Candidates

The current low unemployment rates and data mining have led to companies tossing out wider and wider nets to fill positions.  But, is all of this confusing activity with productivity?

This article (thanks to Dennis Adsit for bringing it to my attention) brings up some great reminders about some very solid things that employers should be doing (valid testing, structured interviews, etc.) and avoiding others (tech is NOT a magic bullet for recruitment and selection).  However, it also does a good job of challenging some basic assumptions about hiring, all of which can be evaluated.  These include:

  • Unless you are adding positions, why are you looking for so many outside candidates? One reason people leave companies is because they do not feel they have promotional opportunities.  One reason you are looking for so many outside candidates is that people quit.  Chicken, meet egg.
  • Taken a step further, HR really needs to test the effectiveness of its processes on an ongoing basis. If there is data to support that, in general, outside candidates perform better than those promoted, then keep on searching for them.  And you should probably revamp your entry level recruitment and hiring processes.  If not, then career development and taking steps to increase internal mobility will be more effective actions than scouring the universe of passive candidates for new hires.
  • Develop measures to evaluate the success of what you are doing. Few things frustrate me more than a client saying, “We cannot measure someone’s individual performance.”  Really? Does that mean the cost of turnover is the only reason you keep people in their jobs? Granted, it can take some time to measure output, but you can typically find ways of evaluating a person’s contribution to a team.  If a manager says, “I like/don’t think this person is effective” she should be able to say why.
  • Related to the above, don’t assume that a good process will always have the same effectiveness. As your business changes, recruiting and selection systems need to adapt as well.

I do not think that HR has to constantly be reinvented.  But, basic assumptions should occasionally be challenged.  It is only by measuring and evaluating our processes that we can truly improve them.

Finding Talent in Nooks and Crannies

Low unemployment is great for the economy (rising wages!), but challenging for employers (higher quit rates and a smaller available talent pool).  This can lead to many creative recruiting strategies and looking at (relatively) untapped sources.  I came across two not-so-new ideas around this recently.

 

One is the idea of returnship—these are programs designed for people (primarily women) with white collar education and skills to transition them back into the workforce after raising their families.  These are initially short term job tryouts (like an internship).  I do find the idea somewhat patronizing in that it seems like companies that use it are saying, “We’ll let you take baby-steps (pun intended) back into the workforce and we’ll see if you’re ready.”  It seems exploitative of returning workers’ self-confidence and makes them compete (again) to get jobs that they have already shown they can do.  Having said that, companies that use the program are providing opportunities for a very talented pool of candidates.  The programs are VERY selective, so it is not surprising that more than half (but not always 100%)  of those who are chosen to participate transition to full time positions.

The other is providing job training for older workers.  I’ve written about ageism in recruitment and selection before and the problem is not getting any better.  This article outlines the pros and cons around re-training older workers.  Of course, part of the issue is that companies will force out older (more expensive) workers while they are still productive, and then the employer finds that they are missing important skills. Where the article misses the point is that if given a choice between hiring skilled people or retraining employees (of any age), hiring good talent is less expensive.  With so many skilled older workers available, companies with talent shortages (and not just McDonalds) would be wise to recruit from this talent pool.

Creativity often comes when we are faced with a dwindling resource, no matter how temporary.  Creating paths for working parents to come back to the workplace and retaining skilled older workers should always be part of HR’s recruitment and retention strategies.  Now is as good of a time as any to implement them.

Is College Recruiting Ageist?

When we hear about age discrimination employment lawsuits, they are typically centered on older workers being let go when a company reorganizes so that less expensive (e.g., younger) employees are retained. Of course more subtle examples of ageism are present in workplaces and we need to be as aware of them as we are of bias against women, the LGBTQ+ community, and racial minorities.

Recently, the US District Court in California allowed an age discrimination case to proceed as a class action. As summarized here, the plaintiffs claim that the company used only college recruiting to bring on entry level hires, hence discriminating against potential hires who were not in college (re: people of 40). As evidence, they present that web postings of the positions only appeared through college recruiting sites and not on their regular career site and that resumes from older workers were regularly rejected. They also argue that the company has a general culture which values younger workers over older ones. The company counters these arguments by saying their process is merit-based and that given the number of candidates who apply, using the current process makes business sense.

There are several aspects of this case which are interesting and instructive:

1) There is nothing inherently wrong with college recruiting, especially for entry level jobs. However, if this is the ONLY way a person can get into the pipeline, by definition you are primarily looking at candidates in their 20s.

2) It shows a presumption that older workers will not take entry level positions. That may be true in some situations, but it is really up to the job candidate to make that determination. If an entry level job pays well relative to the experience necessary, why wouldn’t an older worker take it?

3) Like many class action suits, the statistical data will be a key point in determining if there was adverse impact against those age 40 and older. If, as the company claims, only 3% of college candidates get hired (I can see a huge legal argument about who was an applicant and how many there were), the plaintiffs will have to show that fewer than 2.4% of older candidates (again, a fight over who were actually applicants) were hired for the positions. That seems like a pretty low bar to get over.

4) The company’s second argument that college recruiting is efficient, therefore is OK even if it does discriminate (which they argue it does not), will be a tough one to make. Civil rights laws allow neutral selection techniques to have adverse impact if they are job related, but make no exclusions based on expense. I honestly do not see how this is relevant to the complaint.

This case will take years to wind its way through the courts. However, it does provide a timely reminder to review recruiting processes and valid selection tools for adverse impact based on age and not only race and gender. College recruiting is not in and of itself ageist, but you will want to be sure that it is not the only point of entry into your company.

Just Give Job Seekers the Information They Need

I’ve written in the past about ensuring that job postings are free from potential discrimination. But, summer is also the time when we think about internships and attracting early career talent. No, this is not going to be a screed about millennials and their work ethic. Rather, I will ask you to consider whether your job postings are appealing to them.

This article encourages employers to be direct, rather than using jargon in their postings. More importantly, and in contrast with the stereotype that younger workers are looking for things that are flashy, the more effective ads had basic information. Apparently, listing things like salary ranges, location, and the company’s mission is important. Who knew?

What is effective in marketing, which is what job postings really are, changes regularly. So, what works now may not work in 12 months. Fortunately, this is a data-rich environment, so there are things you can do to measure the success of your postings:

1) Experiment with language and see which versions attract more interest.

2) Get input from recent hires on the content of the ads. This will help keep you current as to what job seekers in a specific demographic are looking for.

3) Your ATS probably does keyword searches on resumes and your social media likely relies on keywords, perhaps those same ones, to show up in better places on the web. Measure whether those keywords are attracting the people you want to reach.

The message here is really not to get overly cute or overthink job postings for entry level positions or internships. If you are direct and provide the job seeker what s/he is looking for, you are likely to attract more interest.

Recruiting and Customers

When a consumer brand, especially a national one, looks for new hires, they are doing more than acquiring talent. They are making an impression on their customer base as much as any other piece of advertising.  That in and of itself is not a revelation (or, at least it shouldn’t be).  Rather, consider how much that information has been used in designing recruiting tools or assessments.

This is important because some of these companies will come in contact with a million or more potential candidates and customers.  While HR may loathe the idea of working with marketing (data vs. feelings) on recruitment and selection, there are some inherent advantages, including:

  1. Using language that will attract the target audience.  The marketing department probably knows more about reaching those who are attracted to the company than HR does. This can increase the effectiveness or your recruitment outreach.
  2. Making Awesome Realistic Job Previews.  At the risk of over-generalizing, most HR departments are much better at describing a job than getting people excited about one.  Sure, an RJP should discourage those who would not be a good fit, but it should also grab the attention of those who maybe would not have considered the job to increase the talent pool from which you are drawing. A marketing perspective is likely to help design RJPs to attract job seekers.
  3. Following-up With Non-Selected Candidates.  Let’s face it, you are likely to reject more candidates than you hire.  Not following up with them hurts your brand. And you want to keep them as (potential) customers, right?  Marketing can likely help you craft messages in a way that leave the person with a positive feeling about the brand so that they will become customers (or stay that way).

 

HR has an important job to do when recruiting and selecting talent.  Yet, it should be mindful that its messaging can have as much impact on customers as anything that comes out of the marketing department.  Reaching across departments can add some expertise that will make recruitment and selection more effective.  And, who knows, maybe they will ask for your advice in the future.

What Implicit Bias Looks Like

The idea of implicit bias has been making its way into the business vernacular.  It involves the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner.  As you probably gathered from the definition, implicit bias is something we all have.  They are little mental shortcuts we have which can lead to discriminatory behavior.

Examples of implicit bias are found throughout the hiring process, including recruiting, interviews, and performance appraisals.  I think that you will find this interview very helpful in understanding how these biases creep into our decision making. 

It really breaks down the abstract to the actual behaviors and their impacts.

At this point of the blog is where I normally come up with a prescription of what to do.  The only problem is that there are no good empirical studies showing how to reduce implicit bias.  There are some lab studies with college students which support some short-term effectiveness, but some police departments swear that they are a waste of time.  So, the jury is still out.  But, there are some things you can do to reduce the opportunity for bias:

  • You can (mostly) decode gender out of job postings.
  • Take names off of applications before they are sent for review. The law requires that race, gender, and age information be optional on applications to help avoid discrimination.  For the same reason, you should redact names on applications and resumes before they are evaluated (if they are not already being machine scored).
  • If you are using pre-employment tests that do not have adverse impact, weight them more than your interviews, which are likely loaded with bias. If you insist on putting final decisions in the hands of interviewers, use a very structured process (pre-written questions, detailed scoring rubrics, etc.).

All humans have implicit biases—we want to be surrounded by our in-group.  A reduction in these biases, or at least fewer opportunities to express them, will likely lead you to a more diverse, and better performing, team.

Thanks for coming by!

Please provide this information so we can stay in touch.

CLOSE