
- Are you currently recruiting or selecting?
Recruitment is about attracting people, being in a position to work out whether they are what you want and whether they want you. Some organisations have more applications than they can handle without actively looking, some need to advertise, and some use services of professionals and outsource.
Selection is picking, from those you’ve attracted, people who can do the job you need doing.
Decide where you need to spend money, is it finding people at all, selecting ones you want from people you already know, making sure the ones you want also want you or some combination.
- Do you know what you want?
You can talk (and people do, endlessly) about hiring for attitude and training for skill, competence frameworks, the relative values of experience and education or, as Warren Buffet says, factors like intelligence and energy (that you can usually measure pretty accurately and simply) and integrity (which is more important, but a lot harder to measure at all). But if you don’t actually know what you want, you’re likely to end up with someone you find you don’t want, or that can’t do the job that you only discover wants doing when you find they can’t do it.
That means doing some job analysis to identify what you need so that you can match it to what potential hires can supply. Otherwise they may bring in great skills that you have no use for, like fantastic intelligence and energy and lack the one thing you really need, like integrity.
The identification needs to come first – it’s a bit like DIY paintwork, if you prepare properly rub the surface down, clean it etc. anybody can paint it tolerably well. Similarly, if you’ve got a clear idea of what you need in the organisation (whether it is competences, natural attributes, a description of a contribution to the team, whatever) then you’ve got a foundation. If you have a flaky, greasy surface then Rembrandt couldn’t make it look good. In the same way, if you just see what you’ve got and who impresses you when people turn up, you’re not likely to add much to the organisation with the new hire.
And if all you’ve got is a “job description” that requires undefined and potentially vague attributes that frequently represent opposite ends of the scale for real people (like somebody with critical, analytical intelligence that is good with detail allied to a sunny confidence and optimistic outlook and a strategic view) you’re likely to be disappointed with whatever you get.
Do you rely on CVs, resumes and the like for a basic opinion?
They are marketing documents. When coaching candidates, the standard advice is to make yourself sound like superman or wonder woman on your CV, to make sure you get an interview. As a buyer, you wouldn’t purchase just on the company’s marketing material, or even believe most of the claims. Why buy a person on, or be influenced by, their marketing material?
- Analyse your hiring and keep good records.
It’s very hard (for many reasons) to calculate return on investment (ROI) on projects involving people. But keep records of the costs of hiring, the costs of high turnover, of failure to perform and do exit interviews – they tell you where you’re losing people you wanted to keep. The data allow you to work out what it costs to get it wrong – and so how much it’s potentially worth spending to get it right.
Many people think they are great interviewers and selectors of staff, because they don’t have too many failures, everybody they hire performs at least adequately. Of course they don’t know how the people they didn’t hire would have done and usually have no real idea of the performance of those they did, because they don’t have any decent records. And human memory is selective, we remember our successes and forget failures (that’s why all gamblers think they’re making money).
You can try to play safe with selection and hire the people who have done the job before and were paid big money by somebody else, which sounds fine, but it can mean that you miss potential stars who would be great but you won’t give them the chance. It also means that you may hire people who have done the job adequately or badly somewhere else (if they were fantastic, why are they leaving and why are the employers letting them go?). The banks are a good example, they pay the “top people” a fortune because they make huge profits, but, let’s be honest, a gibbon in a nappy could make millions at a bank they have a licence to print money. The real test is whether the second string – or the ones the system rejected for “lack of experience at the top level” – who are much cheaper to employ could make as much or more money, and make it more safely!
Drawn up from an article by Kim Stephenson




