Overcoming Hiring Mistake #3: Inappropriate Prerequisites
Did your last job ad
read like a drive-thru menu at a fast food restaurant?
If so, say Vistage
speakers Barry Deutsch and Brad Remillard, you have just committed hiring
mistake #3 -- placing too much emphasis on specific education, technical
skills and industry experience as necessary requirements for the job.
“Most job ads contain a
long list of prerequisites, such as 12 years of industry experience, an MBA,
a CPA, or this skill or that certification,” notes Deutsch. “As the resumes
come in and hiring managers begin the screening process, they check off
those boxes one by one as if they were ordering items from a fast-food menu.
“The problem with this
approach is that it excludes a lot of good candidates early in the process
because they don’t get checks in all the boxes. With competition for top
talent getting tougher than ever, you can’t afford to screen out the best
candidates before they even show up at your door.”
Why do hiring managers
rely so heavily on inappropriate prerequisites?
According to Remillard,
most don’t know how to define the outcomes, deliverables and expectations
for a specific job, so they fall back on the old standbys of knowledge,
skills and experience. Plus, relying on standard prerequisites allows them
to practice the “CYA” method of hiring.
“Suppose I hire
someone, they fall flat on their face, and the boss tells me I’m a bad
manager because I made a hiring mistake,” suggests Remillard. “I can say to
the boss that I did not
make a mistake because we agreed on the prerequisites for the job and I
checked them all off. If the person failed on the job, it wasn’t my
fault.”
Generic vs.
Specific
Why don’t knowledge,
skills and experience lead to good hiring decisions? Because they are
not proven predictors of job
success.
“Just because someone
has a certain skill doesn’t mean they can apply that skill in the way you
need it,” states Deutsch. “For example, suppose your ad lists ‘strong
computer skills’ as a requirement. You get a resume that indicates the
applicant has experience using Microsoft Office tools, so you check off the
box because you want someone with good computer skills.
“But what you’re really
looking for is someone who can use Microsoft Access to enter data about
clients and then create complex merge Word files for a biweekly newsletter.
You need a specific application of a skill versus the more generic ‘good
computer skills.’ Unless you ask, you have no way of knowing whether the
applicant can deliver that specific application.”
The same concept
applies to experience.
“Typically, hiring
managers will say something like, ‘I need someone with 12 years’
experience,’” adds Deutsch. “But what is experience? Does it mean the
candidate has done the same thing for 12 years? Or have they developed new
and higher-level skills on the job? Does it mean the applicant achieved
certain results? Or did they just show up and punch the clock every day for
the past 12 years?
“For all you know, the
applicant could have 12 years of producing lousy results, and a person with
six years of producing good results could be a much better candidate. When
your hiring criteria depend on elements that have nothing to do with
success, all you can do is guess.”
Think Outcomes
and Results
How do you overcome the
innate tendency to look at the wrong criteria? By focusing on outcomes and
results rather than knowledge, skills and experience.
And that, suggests
Remillard, requires defining what success on the job looks like.
“The first step in
hiring top talent is to get very clear about the outcomes and deliverables
you need from the job, so that you can measure someone’s ability to get
results,” he explains. “That needs to happen
before you start screening
resumes, doing phone interviews or meeting people for the first time.
Otherwise, you eliminate a lot of good candidates who don’t have checks in
all the boxes but know how to get the job done.
“The
quickest and most impactful way to improve your hiring process is to teach
your managers how to define success on the job. That involves going beyond
the traditional job description and creating a Success Factor Snapshot™,
which breaks down a position’s requirements in terms of specific, measurable
deliverables, benchmarks and timetables. Once you define the job in terms
of outcomes and results, it doesn’t matter whether someone has two years of
experience or 20. All you care about is whether they can deliver the
outcomes you need.”
To avoid eliminating
top talent, Deutsch also recommends changing your job ads.
Most companies post the
entire job description (or an abbreviated version of it) in their online
ads. Deutsch refers to this as “drill sergeant” advertising, because it
barks at the candidate. It says, “You
must have this knowledge, skill or experience or don’t
bother applying!”
“Drill sergeant
advertising not only reinforces the wrong criteria, it actually drives away
the best candidates,” explains Deutsch. “When they see job ads full of
inappropriate prerequisites, they get turned off by the description of the
job and screen themselves out before you even get a chance.
“Instead, describe the
outcomes and results you’re looking for, along with some of the challenges
inherent in the job. Position the job as an opportunity to achieve at a
high level and make a real difference in your company. You’ll get more
candidates from the top 25 percent of the talent pool, and because you’re
looking for outcomes rather than experience, you won’t screen them out
before learning whether they can produce the results you need.”
Barry Deutsch and
Brad Remillard are Vistage Speakers who give the popular presentation
“You’re Not the Person I Hired.”
Copyright © 2007 Vistage
International. All rights reserved.
If you find this article
interesting, you may be interested in the article from the November 2006
Leadership eNotes. It contains an
article on a key hiring mistake, #2 - superficial
interviewing. Successful interviewing is all about drilling down and
getting to the facts. Learn how to become a great interview detective.
To locate the November 2006 newsletter with this article, click here.
|
