HRevolution

Is there a reason one party determines the timing, structure, and process of the hiring decision? Of course – they’re doing the hiring. But is the one-sided control working in their favor, or could they do better with a little less control? Nobody likes control more than a bureaucrat, and HR is a bureaucracy. Ceding control would be difficult choice. So, why might a company make this choice? Let’s look at it from another point of view.

As recruiters, we hire many people in a year. Candidates do a lot less interviewing than we do hiring. We have the advantage. We control the process because it’s the most likely way of getting the outcomes we want. However, good managers often place the onus on the party with the most to gain (or lose). This is a good way to focus energy on a desirable outcome. Whom, do you suppose has the most to gain by getting the right fit, the candidate or the company? Generally, employees don't have multiple streams of income, but companies have many employees. An employee is dependent on their income, but a company can weather some turnover without much difficulty. Clearly, the candidate is impacted far more than a company where employment is concerned. But you wouldn't know it by the way we behave. Yes, companies do invest in training, and yes, they are impacted by a bad selection. But in a speedbump sort of way. For the employee, a job has far greater implications, both financially and personally.

The fact is, if you give control to the party with the most to gain, you stand a good chance of improving results. A person who has done the hard work of self-exploration and understands what they want is more likely to recognize the right role and is far more likely to become engaged that role. I’m not suggesting we sit back and allow candidates to pick their jobs without regard to our needs, but we need to structure more of their capabilities into the framework. The E-factor is not structured in today. It is structured out. Selection tools focus on skills and titles. Inserting the E-factor into the initial matching process would facilitate improvements across the board.

So, why wouldn't a job board have every candidate just complete an aspirational profile and conduct searches based on their desires? Not a search for a job title, but a series of more insightful questions involving career path, meaningful interaction, or larger mission? Aspiration-based search instead of a job search. This is what the market needs. Find me some angel funding and I’ll show you how it’s done.

Some might object to the characterization that we've structured the candidate out of selection process. While they are the object of the process, we do control their entry, exit, and nearly every step in between. Yes, they are willing participants, but we direct the game. Sadly, most candidates are treated as supplicants rather than applicants.

What we have today is a process with companies running ads (initiating the search) and candidates responding to them (reacting). Nothing wrong with that, but imagine yourself as a candidate for a moment. If you do a search on Monster and start poring through the jobs, how many interest you and how much? Most of us get numb very quickly. What's missing? The part about what they want to do (and decent search technology).

This stimulus and response pattern is initiated by the hiring entity. They define the position and write the ads. From the job description, to the skills desired, the salary, and culture, everything is described by what one party wants. What the other party desires isn't structured into the initial call. It is assumed, and the assumption is flawed. Job hunters respond to that call. The leading ATS vendors actually give applicants fields to complete so they can glean skills. Applicants try to use the same verbiage and style and we all wind up talking biz-speak and doing a dance designed by compliance geeks. It is a lopsided game with the company choosing the field, the jersey colors, and whether they want to kick or receive. It is designed for the company to cast a net, and sort out the losers. One party hunts, the other party (ironically called jobhunters) is fairly passive.

What's interesting, is that candidates who are actively hunting, that is truly engaged in the hunt, are more desirable. Particularly if we have what they're hunting for. But the current framework isn't conducive to such a hunt. Go on one of the major job boards and try a search based on your aspirations. It can't be done easily. The best one can do is a keyword search. Even the best matching engines (which haven't penetrated the job board market) bias toward skills, not aspirations. Once again, the language (the playing field) has been determined by one party.

So, we're attracted to hunters because of their capacity to engage in their search. They know what they want and are determined to get it. This is engagement. Before we determine how to select for this trait, let's examine why its so hard to find it now.

First of all, self-analysis is hard work. Not everyone does it willingly. It's easier to take a job (or stay in one) than ponder what you really want. Self examination may force you to admit dissatisfaction. Nobody likes to do this, so we avoid it as long as we can. It's easier to "look on the bright side" than dig into one's own quiet life of desperation. This is human nature. Unfortunately, we avoid this task until we need a job. By then we're in no state of mind to do it adequately and we need money. Instead, we just get a job. Again, this is human nature and we can't change it. We might be able, however, to structure some good know-thyself tools into our processes. So far, we have structured them out.

The current rage in recruiting is to focus on skill first, then design behavioral interviews focusing on the E-factor. Assessments might also help. The problem is once they've applied for a job, you have to expect them to tell you it's what they've always wanted to do. That's what you want to hear (but shouldn't always believe). Such an expression prior to the application would be more reliable. Further, if a candidate's job search were predicated foremost on what they want, they would target jobs based on those interests and aspirations. This sounds simple, but is actually the reverse of what exists today. When we conduct a search, we are defining our needs as clearly as possible and starting the hunt. We've structure around our needs adequately but our candidate counterparts are dealing in a something of a vacuum. The job market, and our recruiting processes have largely structured out candidate desires.

We could complain that it's the candidate's responsibility to define their needs and act accordingly. And it is. But that won't solve our problem. If we want to staff effectively, we need to address it.

So how would we select for the capacity to engage on the job? One way is to simply recognize it. (Another way - testing for it - will be covered in the future).

Over the years I've been intrigued by a small number of candidates who demonstrate the same trait; they know what they're looking for. On first contact I would go into the pitch, only to learn the candidate isn’t interested. Despite my perception that there may be a match, they have a few specific questions, the answers to which determine whether we move forward or not. They aren't interested in a sales pitch. What they are focused on is specific and related to their needs. It may be relationship selling versus new business sales, or a position that leads to an international role. In every case, these candidates are quite clear on where they are going. They may be flattered by my interest, but they are screening me and pursuing their goals. Ironically, we use the term 'jobhunter' for our prey, but we all know who is hunting whom. When we meet one who has turned the tables they are always more interesting than the rest of the sheep. Certainly there are control issues here, but it is the clarity of purpose and focused pursuit that makes these people attractive candidates.

So, what if all candidates were like this? What if all candidates did some self analysis, defined their aspirations, and sought employment based on them? We assume they do, but we're wrong. Most people look for employment based on income needs and what their skills might qualify them to do. Add geographic restrictions, a couple of company names and a title or two and you have the average job search. But candidates who really think about what they want and go look for it are few and far between. These people have truly engaged in their job hunt at a more personal level. And to recruiters, they really stand out. We might admit that we always want what we can’t have, but the truth is we are drawn to these candidates because of their focus. What makes these hunters attractive is the level of engagement in their job search. It is important enough to think about and really work toward specific goals. This is precisely what we seek in employees – the ability to get really involved in the task at hand. The trouble is once candidates have done so it's hard to tempt them with (our) positions that don't fit their objectives. The candidate who actually hunting is demonstrating their capacity for engagement. This is what we want most. Once the trait (and its desirability) is recognized, we need to consider ways to select for it.

Why is engagement important? Actually, I just threw it out to illustrate how selection could be improved from a school-of-thought approach. Now that I think about it, the E-factor is important. There must be a subconscious component at work here.

Managers tell us:
• Engaged employees are more productive
• Engagement creates retention
• Engagement stems from some interest and a desire to act on it
• Engagement is not static, but changes over time
• Its easier to manage people who share interest in the work than selling them on something they're not innately drawn to

When all is said and done, engagement is a higher form of motivation. Although not recognized as such, it is the holy grail for hiring managers. For an engaged employee, compensation, job descriptions, and political boundaries are secondary. They still need attention, but they aren't the reason we go to work in the morning. With strong engagement there is some latitude with secondary issues.

If we apply something akin to Maslow’s hierarchy to employment, a candidate’s economic needs would be at the bottom, geographic issues and social needs directly above, and engagement factors at the top. As with the Maslow model, a high E-factor would need alignment among the lower factors for a match. But, given the potential for fantastic gains, how is it that we're not selecting for engagement? Or, at the very least, testing the model? A ‘school of thought’ approach would require study and support for hypotheses supporting a "theory of engagement" that suggests engaged employees create better business results. It would make a nice PhD thesis.

So, I've decried Skill Based Hiring (SBH) and called for a 'school of thought'. Too much emphasis on skills brings mediocrity to the workforce in exchange for lower onboarding costs. Skills do not correlate with inspiration. And short term costs savings are less important in long term roles. A 'school of thought' is needed because there isn't one. Our hiring processes are little more than a collection of habits (reactions to labor laws designed to protect the disadvantaged) that aren't terribly effective for companies or candidates. Even recruiting teams demonstrating 'best practices' all day long will end up with one winner and a collection of unhappy losers. The fact that this is generally accepted doesn't make it a good practice. And labelling it a 'best practice' shouldn't excuse anyone from looking for a better method.

What would a better approach look like? Let's suppose our theory is that engaged employees are better employees. This is our school of thought . We want to select employees who have this capacity. We’ll call it the E-factor. How might we approach selection?

First, we would define engaged as a combination of motivation and interest in the position (or the product, service, the industry, the mission, or something else). We would then assess candidates' general capacity for engagement and their likelihood of engaging in our particular role. This would be a critical focus of the selection process. Today the selection focuses on skills and experience. A few rote questions about why a candidate wants the job doesn't address the E-factor. (And everybody knows how to answer them anyway.)

Of course, weighting the E-factor against skills & abilities would need to be decided upon. And training costs might rise for those with higher engagement scores and lesser skills. Follow-up actions would test for and benchmark the success (or lack thereof) of the selection process and success would be defined in terms of how productive employees are and how well they have attached themselves to their work. These are all manageble. The real key to assessing engagement capacity is to do it before the candidate has applied for the job. Indicating interests prior to applying for specific roles makes those interests more reliable and avoids political statements of interest. This can be done on a large scale and will be discussed in future posts.

While selection processes would still need to comply with the law, this 'school of thought' approach is not driven by compliance. It is about trying to understand human behavior - what makes people tick - so we can recruit and retain them. Retaining talented people is a by-product of understanding them. We must understand people in order to manage them well. This is what's missing in the human capital arena; we're structuring our initial management task - selection - on constructs like skill-based hiring and legal compliance rather than an understanding of human capital.

It's overdone. This is the practice of selecting people based on their skills and abilities to do the job. In truth, all selection systems do this, but skill-based hiring is a little more detailed, and has been sold to corporations by ATS vendors.

Skill based hiring (SBH) inherently biases to skills at the expense of attitudes. With some good reason perhaps; it is cheaper to hire people who can get up to speed quickly, and minimize training costs. But this savings decreases in importance as the employment relationship lengthens. Further, SBH is likely to bias toward mediocrity since the focus is biased to the short term. The best people move on while the mediocre ones hang around forever. By biasing your selection on skills, you ensure a mediocre workforce in the long run. Remember, interview processes are finite. They are designed to declare a winner at some predetermined point. There is a zero sum component in that time dedicated to measuring one factor reduces time spent measuring others.

The counter argument, of course, is that skill-based selection merely sets a threshold, leaving the remaining interview time to test other factors. In practice, however, skills are assessed, then the manager picks the one s/he likes best. The bottom line here is that, for long term positions, skills should be downplayed. SBH makes them the primary focus of the selection process.

Here's one way it plays out. At the core, the best candidate is someone whose skills are a 100% match the job description. Usually such a person is experienced at the job. SBH assumes they will want to repeat that same job. Why would they? Whether they lack ambition, like the role, or want to slack off for a while isn't covered in SBH. Only that they're the best candidate. The problem is that the candidate's capacity to engage in the job is given short shrift. In my experience, this is the best predictor of success.

If we have the conceit that we're recruiting people for careers, skills based hiring doesn't work for me. There are exceptions, but not as many as the market would have us believe.

Hearing this in church this morning reminded me of the recruiting experience. In this biblical tale a king invites the masses to a royal wedding. But he decides he doesn't like the look of one and has him tied up and thrown out. That's when he utters the famous words "many are called, few are chosen". As recruiters, we know what it's like to be the king. We run ads and screen out the bad ones - often treating them rudely with little feedback or response (things we wouldn't dream of doing to candidates we're interested in).

For most openings, we're seeking just one person. Since this is the norm, I wonder what it might be like to target a single individual, or a single qualified candidate. While many interviewers have learned to make selections with fewer applicants, we're part way there. What would a targeted selection effort need to do order to target people in ones and twos?

Given the labor shortage, this is a practical question. In some areas, this is how it will be. What would have to be done to source only the right candidates? And how would you know they were the right candidates?

I'll give you some idea in future posts.

So, what are the hallmarks of a "school of thought" or a human capital discipline? First off, an HC discipline would need to have some intellectual rigor applied to it. The need is more scientific in nature, as opposed to the bureaucratic reaction to case law we have today.

The principles of objective reasoning need to be applied to a 'school of thought' instead of reacting to legal precedents - like companies changing their employment applications to comply with ADA regulations. Reactive compliance is the driving force. While HR often is not more than a compliance organization, it does aspire to be more. The existing approach is wholly unenlightened and the results show it. Managing our workforce in this reactionary way - devoid of a 'school of thought' - has produced an uninspired, disengaged workforce in America that leads me to believe the majority of people are underemployed.

An HC discipline seeks first to understand human capital. Understanding HC creates a 'school of thought' which allows us to develop more productive situations. Because we seek to understand first then create situations based on knowledge, we can create an enlightened approach to managing people.

While mulling over the Scientific Revolution idea it occurred to me that we aren't really in a situation where a dominant theory exists. What we really have is a collection of practices - responses to labor laws, recruiting needs, administrative responsibilities, and insulation from line employment. We are in what Kuhn called a "pre-scientific phase". The good news is that a proposed theory could take root much faster than if it had to overcome an existing one. We don't even have to wait for everyone to die. Woo-hoo!

On the down side, we need someone to propose a theory.