5 Mistakes Hiring Companies Make When Recruiting
Fri, November 19, 2010 at 12:00 
Over the past 24 years in recruitment, I have probably seen the best and worst of hiring strategies and recruitment errors. In the past, companies got away with making crucial errors in their recruitment processes or hiring decisions because the market was soft and it was easy to rectify the mistake (usually a miss-hire) by finding a replacement. But as the jobs market becomes more and more competitive this is no longer possible, and the cost in time and pain of miss-hiring is no longer that easy to overcome. These are the main pitfalls:
1. Lack of a clear objective
Often, hiring companies aren’t specific enough about the duties, skills, and competencies they need. Concocting “wish lists” of super-human attributes, combined with unrealistically low pay scales relative to expectations of the experience needed, will create havoc in a talent search. Hazy, ambiguous descriptions along with generalities like “good written and oral communication skills” don’t help either. It is much easier to hit a clearly defined target. This does of course mean going back to the basics of developing a job and person specification, but the longer term benefits are real and calculable.
2. Having an unrealistic idea of what kind of candidates might be available and the money it may take to hire them.
There is no such thing as the perfect candidate, and waiting for one is as unrealistic as searching for one. The only way to become realistic about what the market might bear is to research it, especially in this economic climate as it changes so rapidly. Know what and who is available and the commensurate earnings expected and then plan accordingly. The number of quality candidates active in the market is drastically lower than it was even last year. My clients are often shocked that the salaries locked in by inflexible pay structures won’t allow them to hire the quality or experience they wish for. The rules of supply and demand are in play here: Good skills and experience have become a commodity and this is driving up salaries, whilst also limiting the candidate pool. I’m not saying throw all caution to the wind. I am saying be prepared to negotiate to attract the best talent, or be satisfied with the second choice.
3. The confused objectives of too many or inappropriate decision makers
Studies have shown that once the number of people in the interviewing and hiring process exceeds three, the probability of a bad hire is greater. The reason so many people are usually involved in the interviewing and hiring process is that organisations, naturally, want to spread the risk of decision-making. But better hiring decisions would probably be made if only a small number of people (In my view, 2 is optimum) manage the process objectively.
But having the wrong people in the decision making process is equally risky. Most managers will claim that hiring good people is the second or third most important function they have, right behind making a profit. So why delegate screening or interviewing of candidates to subordinates who have no real understanding of the organisation’s needs, or subordinates with hidden agendas? If hiring is one of a manager’s most important functions, he or she should take the time and make the effort to do the whole job from start to finish. How can they afford not to?
4. Processes that take too long.
It used to take about 30 days to fill a vacant position. Now it takes between 90 and 120! And even longer for more senior or complex roles. When the hiring process takes too long, good candidates are lost to more decisive companies, it reflects badly on the hiring company’s brand, and it gets harder and harder to fill the vacancy. The “shelf life” of quality candidates is increasingly short – This has now become a competition! Maintaining the momentum with candidates (Especially after the first interview, when only the one or two “choice” candidates remain) is crucial to keep them motivated about the process. If things take too long to progress, they simply lose interest and wander off to find other employers who respond more rapidly. Slick, quick process impress candidates and make them feel worthy of a job in the organisation. Slow processes that crawl at a snail’s pace, laden with red tape, puts calibre candidates off and might be a crucial element should they have to decide between two job offers.
5. Poor interviewing techniques.
Preparing a list of questions to ask every candidate, recording the answers, and comparing the responses (quickly) equate to efficient and objective recruitment. Sadly, this rarely happens.
It is often down to a lack of experience on the interviewer’s behalf. After all, its not something they do every day. “Tell me about yourself” is the first question down the wrong road. Most interviewers start with random questions to “get to know the candidate” and never recover. They make copious notes, and then three weeks later try to compare the candidates about whom they remember very little.
A structured, disciplined interview technique that is applied to every candidate in exactly the same manner is the only real way to compare candidates. It is so simple and yet so seldom practiced. Tight, controlled interview processes with rigid structures applied fairly across all candidates, in a short space of time, deliver the best results. It might be worth bringing an experienced interviewer into the process and to rather observe than conducting the interview personally – This is a real and practised technique that delivers results when a decision maker lacks confidence or experience to interview.
From Cathy Richardson of Cathy Richardson Associates. Cathy is a successful business owner, blogger and recruitment philosopher. With over 20 years experience in recruitment she is an exponent of best practice that brings value to employers and candidates in equal measures. She specialises in sales recruitment for the Manufacturing industry and associated aftermarket supply chains, is a Fellow of the Institute of Recruitment Professionals and voluntary Regional Director for the South East for the IRP.
Similar blogs:
Reader Comments (1)
Like it!... Yes, these errors are all made by hiring companies, often despite the fact that they have accomplished HR professionals on board who should know better. Sometimes they don't know better and sometimes their advice is simply not heeded because it looks bureacratic. However, if they can make themselves heard, as with the advice on taking the time to prepare the job and person specifications, it pays. Recently on an exercise to find a National Sales manager in Italy I handed a competency based questionnaire to the European Sales Director attending the interviews with me. He expressed his gratitude and commented that in all the companies he had been in he and his colleagues were well trained in product knowledge and sales management techniques but not in interviewing. The standard questions, allowing deviation to explore unique characteristics of the candidates, at least provided a basis for a like-for-like comparison after two days of interviewing had been completed.
Question: Are recruitment agencies any better at it?...except for ours of course...