Hiring can be a difficult process. Hiring involves risk, especially if it means bringing on the right talent if it is the first hire or part of a small department. For many organizations there is a window of opportunity because of cash flow constraints or time limits related to acquiring new verticals or adapting to industry changes as well as rapid demand for services and products (fast growth). A mismatched hire can equate to a 6-12-month delay before funds are replenished or further opportunities present themselves. Hiring is expensive as it takes time and is a monetary investment. This discussion provides specific strategic practices and mindsets to help increase the likelihood of successful talent acquisition.
First, let’s describe common missteps we might make in our talent acquisition process. Our brains often prefer simple models with few steps. This looks like a mindset which believes these steps are posting a job ad, interviewing, and choosing. While these are core steps, the way in which these are performed dictates the outcome. Poor process = poor match = short employee retention = wasted time and money. There are many things that can cause a failed hire but the most frequently observed are implicit bias, poorly defined parameters-measures, and confusing pace and volume with accurate precision.
In my experience hiring is fraught with implicit bias. The word implicit denotes “present but not consciously held or recognized” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). Implicit bias is characterized by assumptions, beliefs, and associations we unwittingly use to make decisions. There are varying types of implicit erroneous ways we act based on our implicit (subconscious) thinking. Other scholars state some of them as implicit attitude-stereotyping (attitudes consisting of prejudice, grouping people into categories, etc.), implicit egotism (focus on self-benefit and self-aggrandizement), implicit racism (false beliefs centered around race and even ethnicity;Kassin et al., 2017; Kenrick 2014). Implicitness acts below the surface without our attention, it is a set of any subconscious feelings, ideas, and attitudes that have zero grounding in reality, meaning whatever those fallacies are, they have no bearing on matching a candidate to the role and predicting future performance. They are formulations that undercut successful selection before real variables have opportunity for proper examination. Implicitness crowds out selection criteria that truly matter and are truly correlated (related to, associated) with person-job, person-leader, person-organization-fit and performance. The next area where we might misstep is the way we measure candidates.
Both inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria are fundamental in hiring. We must know what the job requires (inclusion criteria) and what will not work with the job (exclusion criteria). Then, we must measure for those criteria, detect whether they are present/absent. The tools we use for detecting those criteria must be able to measure what we are trying to measure. When they do, it makes the measure valuable and predictive of what we are attempting to forecast. Imagine we are the timekeepers in a race but instead of using stopwatches we use thermostats. Every competitor who crosses the finish line receives the same score, 75º F! We wouldn’t do this because we are trying to measure time versus temperature. Yet, this is what happens frequently, we use ways of measuring candidates that are inaccurate and unrelated to the outcomes we desire. Coupled here also is our methodology, the way we use our tools and process. Interviews are prime example. Phone interviews, in-person interviews, situational and behavioral techniques are tools. When the way we do things is inconsistent between candidates, we are drawing out different aspects of candidates versus controlling the environment to reflect back from each candidate our inclusion and exclusion criteria. In our race analogy, this is like recording one racer based on our thermostat readings and the next based on our stopwatches, it makes comparison invalid and non-sensical. We are measuring different dimensions and one of them is also the wrong one! We need to ask questions regarding work history of course, but when we change interview questions between candidates, change order of questions, put in questions we think are predictive in the spur of the moment, we demolish our ability to target what we are looking for. We lose control of our environment.
Lastly, we tend to confuse volume and pace with accurate precision. It is good to have a solid sample size of candidates to choose from for sure. This is just good science, the larger the sample size the better perspective we have across candidates. However, we need to remember that we will choose a select few candidates which mostly or fully meet criteria, and of those, we are likely choosing one candidate based on one available role. Performing needless interviews is a waste of all parties’ time. It may feel good, like it is boosting our confidence that we did our due diligence in candidate selection, but it clouds our ability to be accurate and precise in the use of our effort and time. A larger sample of candidates is beneficial, but our most intense efforts and time cannot be dispersed among all candidates…when we put a hook in the water, we typically catch one fish. Here are tips to aid in design of a more evidence-based framework for talent acquisition.
ioPSYte® has a proprietary hiring process with evidence-based techniques that are quality driven in every talent acquisition as well as variables we customize per specific roles, leaders, organizations, and needs. Need help? We love to help lift by reducing the stress of hiring and increasing the likelihood of employee retention and performance.