Avoid misfiring when you hire by carefully defining jobs

559

Scott was hired as a the Manager of Purchasing for a growing health care company over two years ago, but within nine months his manager knew it wasn't working out. Scott didn't work collaboratively with his fellow managers; he acted like the Purchasing Police when it came to buying decisions.

Joyce was brought in to manage the customer service area for a mid-sized distribution company a year ago. Her computer knowledge had been a big plus for the growing company, since its systems were badly in need of upgrading. However, her leadership style wasn't as up-to-date as her technical skills. Her staff was demoralized and resentful and the best customer service rep was looking for a new job.

Poor hiring decisions can suck the life out of a growing business. The wrong people in key jobs can cause damage that takes years to undo. And yet most businesses don't take a systematic approach to hiring. Instead, the owner or upper managers are in a rush to fill the job, so they run a general ad in the paper or ask around to find out who's available.

Typically, they haven't carefully thought through what they need before they start interviewing. In fact, many managers (and job candidates) tell me that the hiring manager sometimes determines what they need as they go, by interviewing people. This backwards approach is dangerous. And although it may seem to save time, it often ends up doing just the opposite after the wrong person has been hired.

Another typical approach to hiring is the "gut check" interview. Some hiring managers rely on their intuition to make hiring decisions. Although it's very important to rely on your gut reaction to a candidate, using it as the sole criteria could cause you to hire a person you like but who isn't right for the job.

Most companies research and cost justify any capital expense worth more than a few bucks, yet they don't do the same diligent analysis when making a key hiring decision...and that hiring decision can be a lot more disruptive and expensive if it doesn't work out. Rather than paying for itself over time, a poor human investment can become a money and morale pit.

That's why I prefer a behavioral approach to filling key positions. Does it take more time on the front end? Yes. But the odds are much better that the candidate will be perfect for the job and save endless hours later. It isn't appropriate for every job but for high visibility/high impact positions, it's worth it. Here's how it works:

1.      The owner/upper managers determine the basic requirements of the position...who the person reports to, what they're accountable for, general level of salary, and other related issues.

2.      Internal customers are gathered together to flesh out the detailed position requirements. If this person will have a lot of interaction with outside accounts, it's wise to include an outside customer as well.

Internal customers could include the new person's manager, peers with whom there is a lot of interaction, and some employees who will report to this person.

3.      The group determines what skills, experience and abilities are "musts" and those that are "preferred but not required."

4.      The group identifies specific behaviors the ideal candidate will demonstrate. For instance, it's not enough to say "Works well with customers." They must be very behavioral and descriptive.

5.      The skills, experiences, abilities and behaviors are listed on a form to be used by all interviewers during the assessment process.

6.      Each interviewer takes one area to assess, for example, technical skills, customer relations, management skills, and so on.

7.      Now for the behavioral part. The group brainstorms ways to actually test the candidate's abilities, rather than just taking their word for it.

For instance, in one company, the interview team set up "stations" for the candidates to go through. At one station, they asked the candidates to role-play a customer complaint with someone, while someone else took notes on their performance. At another station, they asked the candidate to write a response to a memo to test their ability to write tactfully and clearly--important requirements for this job.

8.      After all the final candidates have been through the process, the interview team gathers to compare notes they've compiled on their forms. Since everyone has used the same criteria to assess each candidate, the results are usually very consistent and the top candidate is identified.

It's been my experience that the candidates are impressed with the process and the interview team learns a tremendous amount not only about the candidates' qualifications but about their own as well.

Internal Consulting Skills for HR Professionals is Joan Lloyd’s intensive, interactive full-day workshop for HR practitioners.  Human resources professionals—both functional experts and generalists—have a new found opportunity to act as internal consultants who can help their organizations with organizational changes, performance coaching, conflict mediation and other value-added services. This workshop focuses on giving HR professionals the tools and strategies they need to help their organizations as well as advance their careers.

As a participant, you will have an opportunity to work on the problems and opportunities you face in your own organization, as well as to hear innovative ideas from other organizations.  Few training opportunities provide this level of intimate, hands-on experience. Call us for information about having Joan Lloyd work with your HR Team (800) 348-1944.  (Occasionally, we run this workshop as an open enrollment training offering.  Subscribe to Joan Lloyd’s “Article of the Week,” where we announce these sessions, as they are scheduled.)