IF BAD HIRES SQUEAKED
IF BAD HIRES SQUEAKED
* How Effective Are Interviewers At Hiring High Performers?
When the economy is robust and the unemployment rate is low, the supply and demand model favors the applicant, not the employer. Companies can struggle just to fill all their openings. However, hiring High Performers does not require a flood of applicants. If you do need more, you can always get creative. In any labor market, one of the best ways to increase the pool to choose from is to turn your current employees into extended recruiters. Create a referral bonus program and get the word out. Make a big deal about each bonus you pay and it will catch on. But even with quantity, there are times we mistakenly hire poor performers thinking they're good choices. The opposite occurs as well. Without realizing, we say, "No Thanks!" to applicants that would do a good job. More important than a quantity of applicants is our ability to accurately recognize quality. Discerning the difference between who is motivated to do the job and who is motivated to get the job involves more than just assessing a candidate's skills. Without knowing how to properly identify the best, many unskilled interviewers are forced to rely on their gut to tell them which candidate is best. This produces good results sometimes and bad results other times. Improving your selection process involves improving the effectiveness of your interviewers.
* Many people believe that their years of interviewing experience automatically make them an effective interviewer.
This one is my personal favorite. The biggest roadblock to improving hiring is convincing interviewers they need training. More managers come to workshops kicking and screaming in defiance, stating they have too many important things they need to be doing, but leave professing it was the most valuable training they ever had. If a company is already filled with top performers, then indeed, interviewer training is unnecessary. However, if you track and review hiring stats, many companies find they have too few top performers. And, it's no wonder. Typically, 80% or more of those making the hiring decisions have had little or no formal training on how to hire the best. For those who have had some training, it's usually just the legal do's and don'ts, and some interviewing basics.
Many interviewers bring with them what they learned at prior jobs. When one company asked their interviewers to send copies of their interview guides to HR, they received 75 different ones. There was no consistency. Another company had a standard interview format but their training focused mainly on how to keep the company out of litigation. They provided no specifics on how to hire high performers. Since the full cost of bad hiring are typically not tracked, it's hard to say which costs more - poor performers or lawsuits. It's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil, even if both wheels need it. If only bad hires would squeak a little louder.
* We track time-to-hire and cost-of-hire but we don't track quality-of-hire or quality-of-turnover.
Are we saying fast and cheap hires are always good? Do we really not care about the quality that comes into and goes out of our company? In many companies, there is a lack of accountability for the costs associated with each poor performer hired. It's not tracked. There is no line item on a P & L for the lost productivity and sales from hiring a substandard employee. If there were, hiring would suddenly become more important. If a manager's bonus was tied to his staffing effectiveness, you'd see him seek out the training. Both the cost and the time-to-hire are valuable pieces of information, but what matters most is the quality of hire.
Low turnover numbers, without taking into consideration job performance, can be deceiving. It all depends on who's leaving. Turnover should be tracked not by voluntary and involuntary, but rather by percentage of high performers who move on. Effective exit interviews should be used to gather the "real" reason top performers leave. Only accurate feedback can result in changes that improve retention. Luring back the departed best is always a good way to increase a company's High Performer percentages.
If you'd like to improve your hiring effectiveness, here are some things you can do now:
* First, gather as much past department, or company, hiring results as possible. Break current employees into three performance categories: High, Average, and Poor Performer. Current evaluations can be a simple way to do this. Then divide the total number in each category by the total number of company employees, to determine your percentage in each group. It doesn't include recent turnover but it will give you a baseline to compare future hiring results with. Many company percentages create a bell-shaped curve with 20% on each end and 60% performing at an average level.
* Take the time to survey those currently involved in your company's employee selection process, as well as those being groomed for promotions involving this responsibility. Find out in detail about prior training, i.e., legal, basics, behavior-based, etc. Years of experience does not always equal good hiring skills. Learning ineffective interviewing techniques from the onset then practicing them over years is not a substitute for learning how to do it well. At the Hire Authority web site under "Learning Center" you will find an Interviewer Questionaire you can use free to survey all of your interviewers to determine their prior training in hiring High Performers. Establishing an across-the-board training program that gets everyone on the same page may be what is best. Once you get the survey information, you'll know if that's a good next step for your company or not.
* Track effectiveness going forward. Have each interviewer sign-off on their decision to hire. Create a simple form (contact Hire Authority if you need assistance). Turnover numbers should not lump top performers with the poor performer turnover. It should be broken into at least two groups: those rated average and above who left, and those rated lower. Include the interviewer(s) responsible for the hire. Hiring will never be 100% effective. Every interviewer will have a mis-hire now and then. For those responsible for several, make additional training mandatory. Every job opening is an opportunity to fill the position with someone who will outperform the one before.
To become the best, a company must hire people who will find a way to succeed despite what others conclude are insurmountable obstacles. Interviewers must learn techniques that will better enable them to distinguish top performers from the pretenders. By surrounding yourself with the best, you and your company become the best. The Hire Authority web site has additional helpful articles.
IF BAD HIRES SQUEAKED - To learn more about this author, visit Carol Quinn's Website.
Like this article? Share it with your friends
March 2009 might seem like a rather odd time to write an article on hiring when so many companies are not. Determining the need to improve upon one's hiring process, and making the changes, is something that can be done right now. Consistent marginal performers presently on board got there somehow. They weren't good hires that suddenly changed after their start date. Poor performance can be traced back to incorrect assessments and the ill-fated decision to hire. Yet many companies only address poor performance with employee counseling and discipline stopping short of fixing the real problem - how they got hired.
* How Effective Are Interviewers At Hiring High Performers?
When the economy is robust and the unemployment rate is low, the supply and demand model favors the applicant, not the employer. Companies can struggle just to fill all their openings. However, hiring High Performers does not require a flood of applicants. If you do need more, you can always get creative. In any labor market, one of the best ways to increase the pool to choose from is to turn your current employees into extended recruiters. Create a referral bonus program and get the word out. Make a big deal about each bonus you pay and it will catch on. But even with quantity, there are times we mistakenly hire poor performers thinking they're good choices. The opposite occurs as well. Without realizing, we say, "No Thanks!" to applicants that would do a good job. More important than a quantity of applicants is our ability to accurately recognize quality. Discerning the difference between who is motivated to do the job and who is motivated to get the job involves more than just assessing a candidate's skills. Without knowing how to properly identify the best, many unskilled interviewers are forced to rely on their gut to tell them which candidate is best. This produces good results sometimes and bad results other times. Improving your selection process involves improving the effectiveness of your interviewers.
* Many people believe that their years of interviewing experience automatically make them an effective interviewer.
This one is my personal favorite. The biggest roadblock to improving hiring is convincing interviewers they need training. More managers come to workshops kicking and screaming in defiance, stating they have too many important things they need to be doing, but leave professing it was the most valuable training they ever had. If a company is already filled with top performers, then indeed, interviewer training is unnecessary. However, if you track and review hiring stats, many companies find they have too few top performers. And, it's no wonder. Typically, 80% or more of those making the hiring decisions have had little or no formal training on how to hire the best. For those who have had some training, it's usually just the legal do's and don'ts, and some interviewing basics.
Many interviewers bring with them what they learned at prior jobs. When one company asked their interviewers to send copies of their interview guides to HR, they received 75 different ones. There was no consistency. Another company had a standard interview format but their training focused mainly on how to keep the company out of litigation. They provided no specifics on how to hire high performers. Since the full cost of bad hiring are typically not tracked, it's hard to say which costs more - poor performers or lawsuits. It's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil, even if both wheels need it. If only bad hires would squeak a little louder.
* We track time-to-hire and cost-of-hire but we don't track quality-of-hire or quality-of-turnover.
Are we saying fast and cheap hires are always good? Do we really not care about the quality that comes into and goes out of our company? In many companies, there is a lack of accountability for the costs associated with each poor performer hired. It's not tracked. There is no line item on a P & L for the lost productivity and sales from hiring a substandard employee. If there were, hiring would suddenly become more important. If a manager's bonus was tied to his staffing effectiveness, you'd see him seek out the training. Both the cost and the time-to-hire are valuable pieces of information, but what matters most is the quality of hire.
Low turnover numbers, without taking into consideration job performance, can be deceiving. It all depends on who's leaving. Turnover should be tracked not by voluntary and involuntary, but rather by percentage of high performers who move on. Effective exit interviews should be used to gather the "real" reason top performers leave. Only accurate feedback can result in changes that improve retention. Luring back the departed best is always a good way to increase a company's High Performer percentages.
If you'd like to improve your hiring effectiveness, here are some things you can do now:
* First, gather as much past department, or company, hiring results as possible. Break current employees into three performance categories: High, Average, and Poor Performer. Current evaluations can be a simple way to do this. Then divide the total number in each category by the total number of company employees, to determine your percentage in each group. It doesn't include recent turnover but it will give you a baseline to compare future hiring results with. Many company percentages create a bell-shaped curve with 20% on each end and 60% performing at an average level.
* Take the time to survey those currently involved in your company's employee selection process, as well as those being groomed for promotions involving this responsibility. Find out in detail about prior training, i.e., legal, basics, behavior-based, etc. Years of experience does not always equal good hiring skills. Learning ineffective interviewing techniques from the onset then practicing them over years is not a substitute for learning how to do it well. At the Hire Authority web site under "Learning Center" you will find an Interviewer Questionaire you can use free to survey all of your interviewers to determine their prior training in hiring High Performers. Establishing an across-the-board training program that gets everyone on the same page may be what is best. Once you get the survey information, you'll know if that's a good next step for your company or not.
* Track effectiveness going forward. Have each interviewer sign-off on their decision to hire. Create a simple form (contact Hire Authority if you need assistance). Turnover numbers should not lump top performers with the poor performer turnover. It should be broken into at least two groups: those rated average and above who left, and those rated lower. Include the interviewer(s) responsible for the hire. Hiring will never be 100% effective. Every interviewer will have a mis-hire now and then. For those responsible for several, make additional training mandatory. Every job opening is an opportunity to fill the position with someone who will outperform the one before.
To become the best, a company must hire people who will find a way to succeed despite what others conclude are insurmountable obstacles. Interviewers must learn techniques that will better enable them to distinguish top performers from the pretenders. By surrounding yourself with the best, you and your company become the best. The Hire Authority web site has additional helpful articles.
IF BAD HIRES SQUEAKED - To learn more about this author, visit Carol Quinn's Website.
Like this article? Share it with your friends
 | |
 |
No article feedback found. |
| |
Leave Your Feedback |
 | |
| |||
|
To learn more about the Evan Elite Author Program please contact us. |
 | |
|  |
Subscribe to Carol's articles
 | |
|
|  |
 |
|
Carol Quinn Video - Carol Quinn teaches interviewers how to hire the best using Motivation-Based Interviewing (or "MBI"). Videos are based on information in her book "Don't Hire Anyone Without Me! A revolutionary approach to hiring the best."
Tutorial #1: Writing interview questions
Website: www.HireAuthority.com
FREE Newsletter: blog.HireAuthority.com
|
|
|
 | |||||||
|
 | ||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
|
| ||
 |
| Have you written articles that would be of value to entrepreneurs? Become an expert on our site by publishing them! Expose yourself to a wide audience, drive more traffic to your website and get more sales! Click Here for details. |
|
|
 |
| Modeling the Masters: Learn the true secrets behind Walt Disney's business success factors & grow your company! Video produced by Phanta Media |
|
|
 |
"Learn straight from Evan how you can Make a Full Time Income (And More) from a Website"
Click Here To Learn More |
|
|
|
|
Get advice & tips from famous business owners, new articles by entrepreneur experts, my latest website updates, & special sneak peaks at what's to come!
|
|
|
 Home Party Plan Mistakes Business Emotional Intelligence Breakdown, Breakthrough Organized in 10 mins Factual |
|
 | ||
 |
Email The Reporters
Press Release Builder | |
 |
Top 50 Marketing Blogs
Top Blogs To Watch In 2008 | |
| ||
 | ||||
| ||||
|
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Email us your ideas on how to make our website more valuable! Thank you Sharon from Toronto Salsa Lessons / Classes for your suggestions to make the newsletter look like the website and profile younger entrepreneurs like Jennifer Lopez and Sean Combs!
|
|
|
