Firing Up the Hiring Machine

Firing Up the Hiring Machine

by Frank Connors and Rich McGourty

A genie appeared and offered to grant a hiring manager three wishes. The manager's wishes: "I want a rich pool of candidates, a cost-effective way to reach them and an efficient method of receiving their applications." In 2010, these wishes have come true, but with two catches: debilitating volume and vulnerability to "decision traps."

Consider the following example:

A small consulting firm lost a key administrator and posted a job description on Monster, CareerBuilder and Craigslist to find a replacement. Within three days, more than 400 resumes came streaming in at no apparent cost. The real work began with the first catch to the genie's three wishes - volume.

Recruiters and HR departments are buried under resumes, not unlike elite universities that receive applications by the truckload for just a few openings. The universities have standardized tests to assist in the initial sorting and are prepared to commit significant time, energy and manpower to review each individual. But that's a commitment of resources few businesses can afford.

Typically, talent managers use carefully crafted criteria to help sort the applicants so they can focus on the most promising ones. Obviously, this is the right move, but it is time-consuming, and it places additional pressure on the hiring process.

For a long time, the recruiting and hiring machinery of most organizations has been - for lack of a better word - mothballed. Throughout the turmoil of the past couple of years, companies have deeply scaled back hiring. Resources that were dedicated to recruiting and hiring were reallocated and don't seem to be coming back. Managers are essentially trying to make game-changing hiring decisions with rusty machinery that squeaks.

On the positive side, forward-thinking companies have been oiling up their hiring processes for some time now. These companies have reallocated resources back to the hiring function and have been readying a pool of assessors to help make the right hiring and promotional decisions.

If a company's hiring process is swamped - or a little rusty - it is at risk for the second catch - an increased vulnerability to what social scientist Russo and Schoemaker called decision traps. In their book Decision Traps: The Ten Barriers to Brilliant Decision-Making and How to Overcome Them, they described errors that can happen outside the awareness of those making the decision. Four of these traps have particular relevance for talent managers today.

1. The Anchoring Trap

Recently, talent managers have struggled to assess candidates who have been laid off from previous jobs. These difficulties also apply to those who have been unemployed or underemployed for extended periods of time. What might historically have been considered a red flag is now a common reality. Yet when a candidate has been laid off, often it is still the first piece of data that hiring managers mention, and it can dominate the discussion. An organization's talent managers may not overtly convey a dismissive attitude toward these candidates, but they also may not know how to weigh this information and not default to old stereotypes while deliberating a decision.

These individuals may fall prey to the anchoring trap when disproportionate weight is assigned to the first significant information received. Initial impressions can anchor subsequent thoughts and judgments. Anchor traps can occur in response to any number of facts about a candidate. While being laid off could be a meaningful piece of information, it is far from a defining indication of the quality of an individual's work - particularly in the midst of this period of high unemployment.

Recommendations:

a) Be open-minded.

Without discounting people's reasons for leaving an organization or ignoring prolonged periods of unemployment, fully explore candidates' contributions at previous companies, paying equal attention to their accomplishments and struggles.

b) Be careful describing a job candidate.

Avoid overemphasizing a single fact that might skew the decision-making process and ultimately lead to the wrong call. Highlighting a particular fact can make it difficult for subsequent assessors to develop a complete picture of the candidate.

2. The Status Quo Trap

As organizations grapple to fill positions that are finally beginning to open up, many executives would prefer individuals with a skill set geared toward today's business environment. Yet talent managers often hire people similar to those previously in that position. In doing so, they miss a golden opportunity to get more value from a role.

For instance, if the CFO in a professional services firm is hiring an accounting manager, she may talk about finding someone who could take the position to a different level. A fixation on finding a candidate who knows a specific accounting system and has a particular academic degree could lead to a safe but underwhelming hire. The CFO has a profile in mind based on the past. The status quo trap she fell into blinded her to the value of hiring a candidate with a different but potentially business-enhancing skill set and perspective.

There is strong pull to maintain the status quo because breaking from the status quo means taking action. When we take action, we take responsibility, thus opening ourselves to criticism. Unfortunately, in many businesses, mistakes due to an action taken tend to be punished more severely than mistakes due to inaction.

Recommendations:

a) Use the recession as a chance to upgrade.

Don't assume the new person must have the same skills and background as the person being replaced. Orient the decision to the needs of the business going forward.

b) Consider individuals from different industries or with different degrees.

They may have highly relevant but undervalued skills. Do not close the door because their background is atypical for the position.

3. The Framing Trap

Two hiring managers at different organizations spoke about upcoming assessments for key roles.

Hiring manager No. 1: "We absolutely need to get the right person for this job."

Hiring manager No. 2: "This job has been vacant for way too long. We need to get it filled."

The words of these hiring managers create dramatically different mindsets for the talent leaders assessing candidates. A poorly framed request can undermine even the best hiring process. In this instance, hiring manager No. 2 communicated only the urgency of the situation. The urgency conveyed may lead the talent manager to favor a candidate despite significant flaws. If the request is reframed to balance urgency with the need to hire a superior candidate, the talent manager can pull back from making what might have been a bad hire.

Recommendations:

a) Avoid conveying a willingness to accept a weaker candidate.

No matter what urgency exists to fill a slot, communicate the intent to find a superior candidate.

b) Make the task manageable.

Because the sheer number of applications will require a first or second culling, the criteria applied to these application reviews should be carefully thought out and unambiguous. Avoid asking talent managers to "eliminate the weak candidates." This type of direction is too vague. Specify past experiences, training and job responsibilities that are a good fit with the job.

4. The Sunk Cost Trap

The sunk cost trap in hiring is triggered by a combination of fatigue and reluctance to admit a mistake. The fatigue is understandable. The high volume of applications imposes a lot of work on busy people. Once a group of candidates has been identified for an interview, there is a natural hope that an offer will be made to a splendid person. After all that work, who would want to go back to square one and start over? Too often, the offer goes to the best applicant even if that individual is not a superior candidate.

The reluctance to admit a mistake follows the same pathway. Hundreds of applications are viewed, and time-consuming phone interviews are done to identify a small group for more comprehensive, in-person interviews. At this point, not only has a great deal of time been sunk into the process, but the judgment of those involved is in play. Starting over because a suitable person was not found casts doubt on those who choose the finalists. If considerable time and professional judgment have been invested in a hiring process, the sunk cost trap has been set.

Recommendations:

a) Maintain a high bar for the hiring decision.

Talk about it. Return to the position criteria, and consider the candidates in light of their fit and their ability to contribute to the business.

b) Be on the lookout for a sunk cost bias in anyone assessing talent.

Talk to them candidly about this and, if necessary, reassign responsibility for the hiring decision.

c) Assign a person to be a devil's advocate.

Ask the devil's advocate to make sure fatigue or professional ego do not compromise the decision.

Understaffed talent and business line leaders have a great opportunity to upgrade talent, but they are finding the realities of the labor pool difficult to navigate. The sheer volume of candidates is an obvious problem. Less obvious are the decision traps that can compromise the hiring process. The anchor trap, status quo trap, framing trap and sunk cost trap individually and collectively can turn hiring opportunities into costly and unproductive exercises. While the process of finding the right individual for an organization is always littered with pitfalls, an increased awareness of these traps can go long way toward getting it right.

[About the Authors: Frank Connors is a consultant and Rich McGourty is a senior consultant at Vantage Leadership Consulting LLC.]