If in the next 18 months, you were going to lose 46% of your new hires - would you change something with regards to your recruiting methodology?
Based on a new 3-year study completed by Leadership IQ, this isn't just an anomaly...it's the norm. Surprisingly, only 11% fail due to a lack of technical skills, meaning the candidate's interpersonal skills (or lack thereof) contributed to their failure in the position. (As a side note: The majority of those that fail can't accept feedback, can't manage/understand emotions and lack motivation.)
As per a previous blog I wrote, make sure you understand the questions you are asking and know the answers you are looking for - sticking to this will increase your success rate in finding the right candidate. But there are a few other recruiting blunders you can avoid:
A weak job description/posting. There is an art to this: post too little and a credible candidate is most likely going to look the other way. Instead, you are going to be flooded with unqualified candidates. Post too much: a credible candidate is likely going to get bored just reading it (and may even think they are under qualified for the role.)
The job posting needs to give a good understanding of what the company is like and it needs to balance qualifications and responsibilities of the position, all wrapped up in a tight package.
Speed Interviewing. Unfortunately speed interviewing is not as successful as speed dating (and I guess I don't really know how successful speed dating is either...but I digress.) I know you're busy - but trying to squeeze in a bunch of interviews in between conference call calls, client meetings, employee sessions and networking events is just a recipe for disaster. If you want to really watch out for key signs like motivation, receiving feedback and emotional tendencies you can't be worrying about the next fire-fighting session you're about to encounter.
Taking time to to really analyze the interview afterwards, and write notes about the candidate that will help you reflect later on when selecting the best candidate for the position.
Using only one source. I get it - job boards are expensive. But choosing between workopolis or monster and simply waiting for candidates to come in isn't how you would do sales, so why is it the way you would want to attract a great candidate? Your friend here is SOCIAL MEDIA - twitter, facebook, and their more professional cousin, linkedin, is a great way to advertise (and best of all...it's free!)
Social Media also connects with candidates who aren't really looking, but if they see your tweet, status update, or network activity, they might think twice about it and actually apply.
Keeping "hush-hush" about the position. Sometimes it's part of your strategy to stay quiet about a new position...but for the most part, be open and honest about what you're looking for internally. Not only are some of your best candidates probably sitting right in front of you and ready for the next challenge, your employees are also your walking billboards/advertisements.
Formalize a recruiting referral program, and you will get your employees searching for top notch employees who fit the culture and the mold of the company. Based on experience, most employees won't refer candidates unless they are great, as they are putting their neck on the line for the candidate.
Only hiring for technical ability. As I said above, only 11% failed due to a lack of technical skill. But an amazing "techie" (who knows it) can have enough arrogance to bring down an entire organization. You can train the technical, but it's a lot more difficult to train the interpersonal side.
Why ruin an entire department/organization by bringing in a skilled employee who doesn't realize the size of their ego?
Simply put: recruitment is an art (and even a little bit of a science). It takes time for mastery. If you need help - there are many great professionals out there to support you and if time is of the essence, it's also a great return on investment.
http://www.elevatedhr.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment