Monday, October 24, 2005
Who Has More To Gain (Or Lose)?
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.
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.
