The tendency to hire on instinct--rather than using a more pragmatic, structured approach--is widespread. Robert Half International studies show that approximately 86 percent of managers make their hiring decision within a few minutes of meeting the candidate. Of course, this decision is made after having also evaluated that person's educational and professional background provided in a resume and perhaps from receiving recommendations from friends and business associates.
There is a valid reason for this instinctive response. As humans, we react intuitively to other human beings. We perk up on meeting a pleasant, confident, positive person, for example. Since we spend most of our waking hours at work and are surrounded by professional colleagues, we want them to possess such attributes. It's only natural to respond more to an individual's persona, than to a series of cognitive calculations.
Does this represent the best way to "hire smart?" Although it will always be part of the decision-making process, to depend exclusively upon instinct when hiring is, in my opinion, asking for trouble.
First impressions can be misleading. Everyone in the personnel services field has seen candidates who, at first blush, make a tremendous impression. They've honed their presentational skills to a fine edge, possess all sorts of seemingly relevant knowledge, and are never at a loss for the right words. They're likable; after all, who dislikes a likable person? In many cases, they've worked for many employers during their careers. Why shouldn't they have? They're good and experienced at landing jobs.
These same people might be 100 percent genuine, exactly the type you want to fill a key job. Then again, maybe they aren't. Maybe, because of a lack of structure in the hiring process, they've simply arrived at the right time. It's been a long search. You're anxious to fill the job and get on with other things. Enough is enough.
On the other hand, what about that good candidate who arrived early in the search and has been forgotten because of a lack of structure in how the search was conducted? It's my experience that the first in a field of many candidates to be interviewed is seldom offered the job. That person is simply forgotten in the maze of more recent candidates.
Were the specs for the position considered carefully, and heeded? Does the candidate really need all that education or that many years of experience in a narrow niche?
Did hidden bias come into play when making the decision? I know of a manager who turned down an otherwise excellent candidate because he parted his hair in the middle. Years ago, another manager refused to hire anyone overweight because "all fat people steal."
Hire Outstanding Employees
Was there a real effort to hire the best, even though that person might eventually pose a threat to the executive doing the hiring? The great retailer J.C. Penney once said, "I will have no man work for me who doesn't have the capacity to become a partner," a sentiment echoed by the inscription on Andrew Carnegie's tombstone, "Here lies a man who knew how to enlist the service of better men than himself." Less secure managers, perhaps unconsciously, hire those who don't pose a threat to their jobs. Astute human resources professionals are aware of this potential and do what they can to keep outstanding candidates in the running with such employers.
The long-term ramifications for companies that allow this ingredient to influence hiring decisions are profound. David Ogilvy, the bigger-than-life genius who helped shape advertising as we know it today, once entered a board meeting at the agency he founded, Ogilvy & Mather, carrying a box filled with Russian dolls. Placing one doll in front of each director, he said, "This represents you." He told them to open the dolls. They did as instructed, removing each of the increasingly smaller dolls until reaching the last and smallest one. In it was a note that said, in part, "If you always hire people who are smaller than you, we shall become a company of dwarfs. If you always hire people bigger than you, we shall become a company of giants."
To ensure that your hiring practices bring in outstanding employees, ask yourself the following questions:
- Did the "cloning phenomenon" play an undue role in choosing a candidate over all others? We naturally like to surround ourselves with people who reflect our attributes, but that can be counterproductive when staffing a company. Hiring clones of ourselves precludes injecting new ideas, which every company needs.
- Was the search too limited in terms of the sources plumbed for the right candidate? That is, was the search restricted to only certain schools? Did you use only newspaper advertising at the exclusion of networking, advertise through more unconventional, targeted media, or use a professional search organization specializing in the sort of candidate that was needed?
- Were the interviews conducted in a proper atmosphere, free from distractions and interruptions? When each interview concluded, was there a system through which relevant comments, impressions, and reactions could be noted? (This is a way to remember the pluses of candidates interviewed early in the hiring process.)
- Were references checked thoroughly? Was only the candidate's list used, or did you go beyond it? If a reference check fails to bring up something unfavorable, it hasn't been thorough enough. Everyone has something negative in their working lives, and someone who will have something to say that isn't complimentary. This means that the "perfect person" doesn't exist, any more than does the perfect job.
Every company wants to hire "stars," those individuals who will become innovative leaders and make a large contribution to the company's future success. Can they be identified in advance? To some extent, but this brings us back to hiring-by-instinct. Although a modicum of gut reaction is to be expected and even welcomed when making a hiring decision, there are ways to codify what inherently is a reactive decision. These involve evaluating two intangible aspects of candidates that transcend the "hard qualifications" of education, knowledge, experience, and skills. They are the candidates' (1) level of self-esteem and (2) demonstrable communication and interpersonal abilities.
Evaluating a Candidate's Self-Esteem
A recent study conducted by David Moment and Abraham Zaleznik at the Harvard Business School underscored the importance of self-esteem in the workplace. They studied people in middle and upper management positions by asking co-workers to rate these executives on their ability to present ideas, lead a discussion, take on a leadership role, and develop friendships.
The findings were broken down into four categories:
- Those who rated high in each area were labeled "stars."
- Those who were high in everything but the congenial categories were labeled "technical specialists."
- Those who scored high only in the congenial areas were designated "social specialists."
- The rest were termed the under-chosen.
The sort of successful executives defined by the Harvard study will conjure for some an image of overly aggressive, egotistical blowhards. Those who see them in that light suffer the same sort of prejudice as the person who views overweight people as being inherently dishonest. It isn't difficult to ascertain whether job candidates possess a quiet, steady faith in them or are of the insufferable variety. People with a healthy sense of self-worth carry themselves with more poise and exude realistic confidence.
From the standpoint of making a hiring decision, however, nothing better indicates a candidate's confidence than his or her view of the world in general. Are they optimistic or pessimistic? Do they view the proverbial glass as half empty or half full? People with a positive world-view are infinitely more likely to be happier, more productive, and more efficient. They are easier to motivate, are quicker to learn and adapt to a variety of situations, and, in general, have greater potential to become stars in a company. In line with this approach to evaluating competing candidates for a job, Robert Half International has always suggested to corporate clients that when all else is equal, choose the person who most wants the job.
Evaluating a Candidate's Communication and Interpersonal Skills
The second, less tangible factor to be considered is a candidate's verbal and written communication skills, along with the ability to interact with colleagues, to inspire confidence from them, and to function as a team player. This can be determined to some extent from previous responsibilities as indicated on a resume, careful questioning during interviews, and checking references.
Whether a candidate is verbally secure is evident during inter-views, but look beyond that. How do others respond to the candidate's approach to people? How does the receptionist or an assistant react to the candidate? Was he or she courteous or contemptuous toward this lower-level employee? Would that receptionist or assistant enjoy working on a daily basis with the candidate? Receptionists and administrative assistants have been known to sink a candidate's chances more often than most people realize. They should be listened to for exactly that reason. Candidates might have impeccable credentials and impressive interviewing skills, but if those credentials don't mesh with a smoothly functioning team, they end up having little value to the company.
Robert Half International isn't alone in calling for interpersonal relations to rank high in employer priority. In 1990 our survey of 200 executives selected from the 1,000 largest companies in the United States indicated that 74 percent felt there was a shortage of candidates with these skills. In addition to our survey, dozens of similar studies consistently rank interpersonal and communications skills at the top of the list of desired traits in job candidates.
Earlier, I characterized certain traits as "intangible," but they don't necessarily have to remain so. A hiring manager can find tangible proof by asking the following questions:
- Was the resume written with care?
- Was the resume proofread for typographical errors and awkward syntax?
- Does the resume mean what the candidate intends it to mean, and is it filled with vague language and unsubstantiated claims?
- Is the cover letter accompanying the resume well written or ineptly crafted?
- Are answers to interview questions direct and cogent, or rambling and confusing?
When faced with a choice of hiring a person who is perceived as representing the weakest in a field of strong candidates, or a person who is the strongest in a weak field, the former is generally the better choice. This doesn't necessarily mean "settling" in the pejorative sense of the word. Remember, the field of highly qualified candidates has dwindled, and it will continue to shrink. Companies that have poised themselves to attract the cream of the crop naturally will succeed in landing employees who are coveted by many. For companies not yet to that point, choosing someone from a field of good people, but who doesn't rank on top, can still represent a quality employee. Given the proper motivation and opportunity, such people are likely to improve and to help a company prosper.
How trainable is the candidate? This addresses the question of how much experience a candidate brings to the company. Hiring a thoroughly experienced person negates the need for much training, but that same person can prove to be intractable when presented with new ideas. On the other hand, a less experienced person might be more malleable, an advantage for a management interested in shaping people to its way of doing business. It doesn't matter which approach is taken as long as it's thoroughly discussed and resolved before specifications for the job are finalized, an area that receives less attention than it deserves.
