CANDIDATES' EXPERIENCE

Sixth publication in the Culture Transformation series

I don't recruit

I often hear from CEOs and business owners that they don't recruit and that recruitment is not their responsibility, because someone else, HR, takes care of it.

So what is the situation with recruitment? Do executives and managers recruit or not? Should they do it or not?

An analysis of their statements confirms one thing: there is a lack of understanding of the role and process of recruitment, the function of HR in the organization, and a lack of knowledge on how to build a consistent employer brand.

It doesn't sound too good, but I've heard this opinion several times, and what's more, in several cases I've heard that managers are unable (unwilling or perhaps unaware) to decide who to hire.

These statements are confirmed by research from the Gallup Institute, whose experts are not to be argued with. Their report from many years ago already showed, that over 82% of managers select team members poorly, and 70% destroy the organization with bad recruitment. These data give food for thought and confirm, that it is people who build companies and contribute to their success. If this is the case, why don't they develop their recruitment skills? Why don’t HR departments, in many cases, attach importance to the quality of the employee acquisition process, and why do managers hire people without business and life experience as HR specialists, HR Business Partners, or Recruiters?

I know, these are strong words and uncomfortable for many, but if we want to increase our competitive advantage, especially at a time when employees still rule the labor market, we need to take it on the chin and make changes, even if it means increasing costs.

Here is further evidence that a good employee is an investment, that pays off and thus affects the business:

• A well-paid employee contributes 10% of annual revenue to the company (Oracle)

• A candidate who has gone through an unprofessional recruitment process stops buying and recommending the company's products (Coalition for Friendly Recruitment)

• Disengaged employees cost the US economy over $550 billion (Gallup Institute)

• Employee turnover decreases by 28% (LinkedIn)

• Recruitment costs are cut in half (LinkedIn)

So, if executives and managers do not recruit, i.e., do not participate in the hiring process, then in my opinion, they clearly contribute to the slowdown of business, leading to the collapse of the organization.

Of course, many career websites provide information about the recruitment process, which looks something like this:

1. Send us your resume

2. We will review it and if you meet our expectations, we will invite you for an interview

3. Recruitment meeting

4. Feedback

5. Meeting with your supervisor

6. Decision

Candidates also have their own expectations. From my conversations with people looking for a job or wanting to change jobs, it looks like this:

1. The applicant sends their CV in response to an advertisement, that roughly matches their skills, abilities, values, and financial expectations.

2. They expect a response and a fair assessment of the documents they have sent.

3. They participate in a professional interview, which starts on time with a competent person who knows their stuff and understands what the job entails.

4. They receive a response after the meeting, along with feedback.

5. If this stage or stages are successful, has another meeting with the supervisor

6. The candidate and employer either reach an agreement or they do not, and if they do not, the candidate also receives a response after the meeting along with feedback

Is that right? So far, yes. Well, in many cases, this is a theory, that has little to do with practice. Why?

1. The documents are verified either by a recruitment system or AI, or by a person who knows something about recruitment and the position (from the description received from the future supervisor), is in the process of gaining experience in HR or recruitment, and has the basics but is not advanced.

2. If all goes well, the candidate receives an automated, often impersonal response, just to confirm that the CV has been received. Usually, there is the proverbial silence on the airwaves.

3. After screening the applications, the recruiter calls with an invitation to the first interview.

4. The candidate has perfected their tricks, knows 1,000 or more answers to recruitment questions by heart, has taken the tests several times, so they are no problem for them, they know whether to be a lion, a shark or a dove, and they know how to sell a pen or a refrigerator to Eskimos. The recruiter makes strange faces when asked questions about the nature of the workplace and gives stock answers to questions about company culture, benefits, etc. Business goals are irrelevant at this point, and performance will be evaluated based on annual reviews or a handshake from the CEO. Simply WOW, but everything is done by the book.

5. After six months, an automated response appears in your inbox saying that your qualifications do not match the position or expectations. If you are unsuccessful, a nice lady calls you with an invitation to another interview. How nice! Note: Nothing may appear, and you may wait and wait... and wait.

6. The meeting with the next person seems to be good, businesslike, there is chemistry, and a message appears – we will contact you in a week.

7. A week, two weeks, three weeks pass and there is silence... finally, there is a message in your inbox saying thank you, but your qualifications do not match the position or expectations. The candidate calls the recruiter to get feedback on what went wrong – they are not there, they call the potential supervisor (if the meeting took place) – they are not there either. Second and third time – no one is there. Silence as thick as a blanket.

8. The candidate becomes angry with the company for treating him this way, for not respecting him and avoiding something simple. The applicant stops valuing them as a customer, stops recommending them – he puts them on his blacklist, and what the heck, if they avoid contact, they are not worth his attention, just as the candidate is not worth their attention

And now, behind the scenes of a meeting with a supervisor

During a meeting with a supervisor, the candidate once again begins to use tricks and acquired knowledge, the potential boss is satisfied, feeling that he has bought an applicant who says what the boss wants to hear – there is chemistry. The market and business hold no secrets, the candidate presents ideas and new solutions. WOW! And the boss has several such conversations. The boss feels dizzy, confused – who to choose when all the meetings were similar and the candidates are practically the same. Finally, the boss gives up, goes to the recruiter and says: “Recruiter, who should I hire in the end??!!” And the recruiter replies: “Boss, the one who suits you best, the one you had the best conversation with.” And so the decision is made on who to hire.

Wait a minute. STOP!!!

According to the statements, the boss does not recruit, does not participate in the recruitment process. He is right, because the interview he conducted was not a recruitment interview, it was a pseudo-recruitment interview.

It doesn't matter whether we run a large company or a small family business, a non-profit organization, or whether we are a representative of a government agency or a growing start-up, recruitment concerns every supervisor and is crucial if we want to achieve success and stand out in our industry.

Recruitment is only the top of the iceberg, because it is followed by the fulfillment of a promise. What good is it to us if we find the perfect, dream candidate, but the organization does not have a culture of respect for employees, and a philosophy of “if you don't like it, you're free to leave, because there are dozens of people waiting to take your place” is this a norm? What good is it to us if values are not respected? I guarantee we will lose them sooner than we think, and that costs a lot.

What will we gain from an employee who, despite a great interview, turns out to be a bully, an unscrupulous supervisor, encouraging other team members to engage in a rat race? What will we gain when they want to get rid of people who are not their own? We will gain nothing and win nothing; in fact, we will lose, and why? Because the recruitment process did not go as it should have.

So what should we do about recruitment? The answer is simple – we need to go back to basics, find a few days and refresh our knowledge. This is possible, and no tricks used by candidates will charm us. What's more, we will increase our chances of finding the perfect new team members.