As new graduates flood the market and unemployment remains high (especially for recent grads), I found this article by Tom Friedman timely. Friedman writes about HireArt, a start-up firm focused on connecting employers with candidates who demonstrate their job fit through realistic job previews and assessments.
Posts tagged ‘candidate assessment’
I’ve seen a recent flurry of articles about strategies to avoid bad hires, perhaps in response to those oft-cited disengaged employees deciding that the economy has recovered enough that they can take a chance on a new position. In this blog post at Fistful of Talent from Steve Boese, Jonathan Kaplan, founder and CEO of Pure Digital (creator of the Flipcam), is quoted saying “If you hire someone bad, fire them immediately and give them a big severance package so they feel good about you”. At Zappos, call center employees are offered a $1,000 bonus if they choose to leave after their first week of training.
Steve’s post explores different termination scenarios in which he feels that paying severance is a reasonable strategy, excluding the case where the employee is not just a poor fit for the job from a skills perspective but also a behavioral perspective. He rightfully assigns significant responsibility to the employer for not only poor screening and hiring decisions, but failures to onboard, coach and develop new employees.
I’ve blogged about this topic before. It remains relevant because making good hiring decisions is both difficult and important. Picking the right employees requires a combination of clarity on the part of the hiring manager about what’s required for success in the job, an effective working relationship between the recruiter and hiring manager, and the use of appropriate screening mechanisms to objectively determine the right fit for the job.
It seems to me that some of the management omissions that lead to the need to let new hires go quickly are the same ones that create disengaged employees – failure to observe, develop and coach. Depending on the survey you read, 30-50+ percent of employees say they are likely to change jobs in the next 12 months. Paying attention to those smoke signals in your organization may not only help you retain your current talent, but improve your odds of holding on to those willing to join you in the future.
Our board member, David Creelman, provided today’s guest blog post:
This article in Management Issues cites research showing overqualified workers stay as long or longer and perform better than candidates who are supposedly a better fit.
Organizations hiring hourly workers should check if their branding discourages “overqualified” workers from applying or if the selection processes screen them out. If a highly capable individual wants to work in a relatively low-paying job, for whatever reason, you are hurting your own organization if you rule them out.
I once knew a successful corporate manager who, fed up with the stress, threw it all in and went to work as a clerk in a grocery store. He was overqualified but psychologically very happy with the move (his wife had other opinions, but that’s a different part of the story).
There may be a pool of really excellent hourly workers in the marketplace that organizations have been ignoring for the ironic reason that they thought these people were too good.