Hiring Today? Don’t CYA.

I’ve recently observed a series of hiring processes in firms from mature to entrepreneurial.  What these disparate firms had in common is that, despite claiming they had significant gaps in their capabilities and needed to hire fast, whatever the level of person sought the speed of the hiring process was glacial.
 
This sloth was routinely accompanied seemingly by the appearance of anyone who could be remotely involved in the potential hire’s work environment appearing at some random point in the process. People turning up disinterested, clearly not briefed, asking the same unfocussed questions, often giving the impression they are just `meat in the room`.

And, along with this significant opportunity cost, then there was commonly stop-start hiring.  This is where a company is all over the candidates like a cheap suit for weeks, demanding endless meetings then disappears at the point a job offer should be being made only to reappear asking for yet another meeting, followed by yet more silence as the delay causes a turf war to erupt between HR and finance.  The job then vaporises, only to remain posted on the corporate website ready to dash the hopes of more applicants.

Lack of clarity

The associated lack of clarity shown to the candidate as to how many interviews and exercises will be needed to have been gone through before a decision can be made benefits no one. The `could you just come in one more time there is someone else we’d like you to meet` request is highly frustrating for the interviewee who rapidly runs out of fictitious dental appointments, imaginary plumbing malfunctions or the sudden need to `work from home` to cover their increased absences from their current place of employment.

Often this inability to set expectations is accompanied, from the candidate’s viewpoint, by an apparent lack of accountability on who owns the process - recruiter, HR or future line manager. Delay at all stages in process in receiving feedback routinely involves the passing of the buck to someone else that the candidate may have never met.

Law of diminishing returns

The fact is that, in these situations, the law of diminishing returns very rapidly sets in and real reputational damage may result from such behaviour.  Ineptitude aside, this lamentable approach is primary driven by CYA.  CYA, if you hadn’t guessed, stands for Cover Your A*** (or A** if you are reading this in North America).

In short, even if it’s disguised as facilitating `teamwork` or `involvement`, the real purpose of this sort of behaviour  is to ensure, that, if the hire doesn’t work out, everyone can point at each other safe in the knowledge that they all - explicitly  or implicitly - agreed to the on-boarding decision. Everyone's a*** (or a**) is covered.  

Putting off the best candidates

To be fair, though, fear of the increasingly constrictive labour laws in Europe and often farcical restrictions on what can be asked at interviews and of references in the US often adds to the self-induced paralysis. 

This approach, though, adds little if no value to the process.  In fact, it might have a negative effect, giving the potential hire the distinct impression of a culture not in control of itself or that of uncaring or incompetent potential colleagues. 

The endless meetings too can also particularly put off the best candidates who are likely to be busy in their current job because they are the top performers. Meanwhile, bereft of information, candidates who stick with the process are left unfairly to wrestle with the challenge of chasing the opportunity concerned whilst not wanting to look desperate or annoying.

Weaselly feelings

It also pretty much the case, that, along with CYA-style recruitment, ultimately comes lack of clear feedback  to the unsuccessful candidate as to why they were not selected for the role.  This is because the more people - many of whom will be untrained as to how to interview - see the candidate the more objective feedback is diluted and the more `feelings` come into play.  `It was a really hard decision, but we just felt one of the candidates was a better fit`, is a typical weaselly comment in this situation once the candidate or their external recruiter has chased repeatedly for a response.

Or the candidate gets no feedback at all or receives  comments sounding like they are from no one who was in any of the interview rooms because the company doesn’t care to get organised to do the decent thing or because it’s so difficult to assemble a coherent response from a disaggregated team they have to make it up. It's also indicative of the interview process being a time-wasting smokescreen to cover a corporate requirement for external candidate interviews when an internal candidate was lined up for the post all along but had to be proved to be the `best candidate`.  Again, that benefits no one.

The three meetings rule

To get over this my recruitment rules are these: There should actually be a job available with a clear job description and list of the SMART competencies and potential experience required to be successful in the role so what is being interviewed for is unequivocal.  There should never, ever, be more than three meetings in no more than three weeks and this should be stated to the candidates from the start.

For more junior candidates, the first encounter should be with HR or a recruiter for initial screening.  The second should be with the person’s potential manager. The third should be not be a formal interview but should be a `fit` session with the team with whom they will be working and where anyone junior or senior can issue a veto on the hire.

For the most senior appointments the order should be partially reversed after initial screening , starting with the Chair or CEO - if it a board level appointment to establish suitability - before meeting other board members and non-execs to establish team  fit and with HR picking up the `hygiene factor`s at the end. That’s it.  Rejection can happen at any of the three stages.  If not, the process ends with a job offer.

In both of the above situations companies should also be prepared do what most employers fail to do, particularly those with a disorganised recruitment process - due diligence. It doesn’t have to be a Kroll-style investigation. Simply tactfully asking around and a few web and social media  searches can tell you a lot about what lies between the lines of the cv or behind the polished interview skills and allow interviewers to home in some realities that might be deal-breakers.

Full feedback

It all cases, should the candidate not be successful, full, frank and constructive feedback against the job specification and competency requirements must be given as each candidate should still wish they had been offered the job and will tell others so. They may also be prepared to apply for another position at a later date if the fit wasn’t right first time.

And if you get it wrong, it’s not the end of the world.  Probationary periods should be just that.  To ensure an individual doesn’t `accidently` exit probation, the person hired should be subject to more regular reviews during that period than post probation.  If someone isn’t working out, invoke the terms of the agreement, part company before acrimony sets in and start the three-stage hiring process again.

Lamentably, the companies that don’t have the courage of their convictions in the first place are often the same ones that don’t have the spine to rectify their mistakes later, so letting the bad apple rot the corporate barrel.  And that’s a sure-fire recipe for driving the best people out of the company and the inevitable corporate decline that follows.