... thinking ... (out loud)

recruiting – lost before you start?

I make no apologies about the following. It's one of my "hobby horses".

I regularly hear managers complaining of problems with recruiting, the poor service from many recruiting agencies in the areas where it counts (and speed is NOT one of them).  Occasionally, the conversation moves to the worst results possible from recruiting – where they end up with something much worse than poor performance …

Recruitment is an industry that has only one entry hurdle that I can see - the gall to do it in the first place.

This is frequently supported by a second commercially useful attribute - selling skills - the sales gift of the gab.  That unique ability to find the right words and best-practice phrases that convince clients that here is the magic recipe that will infallibly attract an abundance of candidates desperate to join …. 

The combination of selling skills and gall are used by many recruiting companies to play (or should that be 'prey') on one particular weakness of 21st century management – time (or lack thereof) - the reality of managers handling a volume of issues, with stretched or inadequate resources and always with insufficient time.

Everything is rushed.

Thinking, conversations: sacrificed to the great imperative - do do do.

If you can do it faster, it must be better because it is out of the way sooner.

If you don't do it faster, you know somebody else will and you will get left behind…

All reinforcing the unquestioning presumption that managers need speed and certainty in everything they do.

It is no surprise then that as an executive recruiter, I am occasionally on the receiving end of new clients who treat recruiting assignments as one of these narrowly defined tasks to be completed in minimal time.

But here loiters the recruiting worst case scenario.

A number of managers I know have succumbed to the time-pressured temptation,

that it's better to get a reasonable person on board as soon as possible rather than waiting and hoping to get a better candidate later.

I know this has turned out to be satisfactory quite frequently. Some however, pay for this…

In six months, the short term benefit gained from the 'earlier starting reasonable' candidate will be forgotten.   What will not in many cases, is the slow realisation that the new recruit who “seemed-all-right and worth a go” in interview and who was rushed into the role, is in fact,

mediocre.

This is one word that should strike fear into all managers, and describes the worst-case recruiting scenario; something that can slowly become evident over many months. This is the cost to pay (and pay and pay) for having rushed and,

employed someone who was available quickly,

is not as good as you wanted or needed,

but not bad enough to fire.

 

Let me introduce

Guideline 1:  Recruit in haste, repent at leisure.

 In my experience, the amount of research and effort put into a recruiting assignment, especially at the start, more reliably dictates the quality of the outcome.   The better the effort, usually the better the calibre of appointment.

There are a myriad of recruiting agencies of vastly varying skills and experience which delight in working with clients in the high-speed, time pressured way.   (It suits their high speed cash flow!).   

Throw plausible applications and candidates until something or rather someone sticks.
Job done, send invoice.   Next job.   Hope that the guarantee period or probationary period expires before any problems are discovered, or more likely the disappointed hopes set in.

When it comes to mediocrity, the recruiting agency is usually safe. It is a slow sentence in more ways than one.  A form of dementia.  It drives many managers mad.

 

Guideline 2

Don't attach yourself to a recruiting company or agency. Find an experienced recruiter whom you trust and follow that person wherever he/she moves. 

An experienced recruiter will have sufficient life experience and commercial experience to understand your perspective and needs, and will know how to translate this understanding to potential candidates.

So I recommend loyalty to the recruiter more than the company she/he works for.

 

Guideline 3

If a recruiting company comes to pitch,

find out who would do the actual work. 

This may be the only time you will see senior management.
See Guideline 2 above: find a recruiter who you trust.  And who does the work personally.

 

Guideline 4

Recruiting is much more than putting a body in the chair. 
Good recruiters invest the time to learn,

• the organisation's culture,
• the personalities the appointee must deal with,
• spends time investigating major relationships that impact the position,
• is able to précis and debate what are the key factors that influence success in this position.
• How will you know whether the individual is doing a satisfactory job? A great job?
• What style of manager are you and how do you in turn prefer to manage the new person joining the team?

The questions go on - well they do for good recruiters.   Questions that demand time from BOTH you and the recruiter.

Guideline 5

Mediocre versus calibre candidates.

Mediocre candidates want a job - they don't care which one.   

Calibre candidates usually understand their value in the marketplace.   They're not looking for a job, but that next right job.  Here recruiting is a two-way street,

• Why are both you and the position you are offering of interest to the candidate?

as much as,

• Why this candidate is of interest to you?

For calibre candidates, the quality of the briefings and discussion provided by the recruiting consultant and in interview with the prospective employer are crucial.   The subtleties, the insights of significant relationships, insights into how performance is measured, what is happening over time, current market trends for the company etc become the basis of the lure to attract them to the role you seek to fill.

Recruiting good candidates is like trout fishing …. slowly, carefully, well prepared, no rough edges….

It takes time.

 

Guideline 6

And it takes time at the start of the assignment.

This understanding,

• is reflected in the advertising,

• is reflected in the position specification and briefing notes, and

• is reflected in the questions asked and responses given in discussions in interviews, not only just by the recruiter but more importantly, by the company's interviewing managers.

 

You can't achieve this standard once the assignment has been advertised.

 

Don’t flatter yourself - you definitely cannot do this type of thinking in an interview with a calibre candidate.   Working out your thinking on the run tells a quality candidate everything they need to know but don't want to hear.   Here is a company that hasn’t done its thinking in advance.   They do it on the run, reacting to the pressure of the moment.   What does that say about their planning?   Their approach to strategy?   Their approach to management?

 

For a small Victorian based government agency, I was involved in recruiting some 90% of their staff over a number of years. The CEO worked with me in advance to work out what mattered most, the type of people he hoped to attract.    He allowed me to be a common point of reference in each recruiting assignment, so as to,

• protect the organisation's culture and positive dynamics by seeking new staff members who would add to the already strong attitude of willingly working with others, working to a defined strategy and getting tasks done, whilst

• hunting for difference - different backgrounds, new skills and experiences to add to the diversity already inhouse.

We found some great people to join this highly regarded, high performing agency operating with a consistent emphasis on what is important.   Stakeholder feedback of the agency and its staff has been consistently outstanding.

For me close to a dream client.      

Thank you, Ian.

 

Cheers
Nic

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­____________________________

 

Since 1997, nic eddy + associates has been working with CEOs and senior managers to achieve greater value with people - both inside and outside their organisations.

 

Helping to identify what allows good performers to excel.

 

Helping to design jobs that focus on "what matters most".

 

Helping to recruit carefully the right people for those jobs.

 

Helping to unpick some of the operating "rules" that subtly impede workflow.

 

Helping to improve the understanding of CEOs, Managers and their staff in how they each prefer to interact with others.

 
Please call me on 0418 511 002, or send me an email at nic@eddy.net.au to discuss how I can work with you to realise a better return on your resources and time.

For further information, also see www.eddy.net.au

 

people do what it pays them to do

 

There is a saying I use to remind myself to think carefully about the complex motivations behind the behaviour of any person.   A little reminder to myself that I find slows my tendency to jump to a conclusion - that I understand fully what's going on, and am sufficiently informed to judge how important some issue or event might be considered by someone else...

 

"People do what it pays them to do.”

For me this suggests a straight forward equation:

if the benefits outweigh the costs,
then people act;
if not, they don't.

Quite simple really.   

Well actually, no.   Assessing motivation is anything but simple.   
My litany has to be qualified by 2 important, but anything other than simple, corollaries,

Corollary 1

"How a person determines what is a benefit (or a cost) and how they value each benefit (or cost) is personal, not universal." 

Worth remembering that not everyone responds equally to the same stimulus.

• Money? Sure everyone wants it, but its effect as a motivator varies enormously.
• For some, a major driver is status; others it’s all about work value.
• Some are motivated by change in their work environment, and yet others by the fact that things don’t change.

For most people, it really is a mixture of all of the above and more.

 

Corollary 2

“A person's motivation in any one moment is almost always not just a simplistic reaction to what is happening at that moment.    
Rather, it is the sum of their reaction to the moment measured against all the facets that makes them human."

With work colleagues, I at times have little idea of what is going on in their life – our relationship is primarily defined by the work place.    I am conscious that I may have a very incomplete understanding of what their recent history might be; what prior experiences have significantly shaped their attitudes; subtleties of culture, values etc that in turn shape how their thinking generates presumptions, assesses motivation. 

And it is so easy to presume you know - to project one's own value system as the basis for assessing and interpreting the motivation of others.

Example 1

A newly-appointed manager was commenting on how one of his subordinates was anything but enthusiastic.   He found her unresponsive, demotivated.   She did what was asked but no more.   Just didn't join in ....

His initial conclusion?    The subordinate obviously wasn't all that interested in her work.   

Fortunately he was wise enough to seek additional information from the HR Department before he sought to act.

Being new to the company, the manager was the one person who did not know the heavy burden his subordinate was carrying away from work, with quiet dignity.   No one thought to inform him.   
Great induction, guys.

The manager's initial conclusion, based on the incomplete information available to him initially, was certainly plausible but not the only one possible.   He re-learnt an old lesson - that it pays him to not jump to conclusions that he understands everything affecting his staff ... but to pause and question before acting.

 

Example 2

I encounter versions of the following scenario frequently in the workplace.

A strongly extroverted manager who prefers to think out loud, talk face-to-face about issues and decide what to do there and then.   Some of his team enjoy the dialogue and face-to-face interaction with the manager.   Their contribution is immediate and welcomed.

In the mind of the manager, these staff members are obviously performing well ... .

However, the balance of his team are not extraverted but introverted.   They prefer to think before they speak, and prefer time to consider their opinions.   They see the manager's approach to decision-making as gung ho, sloppy and the speed of his discussion alienating.  They felt the manager was missing other options, potentially jumping to conclusions, responding without sufficient thought.

These team members consider themselves disadvantaged by the strength of the manager's personal preferences in how he works with others as well as by what they see as an unnecessarily precipitous, shoot-from-the-hip management style.

Clearly, the manager is assessing contribution and individual performance through his own strong preferences rather than concentrating on work outcomes, strategic thinking and valuing difference.   A strong personality who is yet to learn how to get the most out of all of his people.

I usually get called in at the end of the first round of performance appraisal process ....

 

Example 3

A year or so ago, I was on an interview panel – one of three interviewing a candidate who on paper was a very good match to our selection criteria.   The candidate presented as a personable, vivacious woman with ready wit and evident intelligence, supported by good research prior to interview.

She was skilled in the way she influenced the panel, using highly polished interpersonal and verbal skills, her physical beauty and vivacity.    I could feel her attempt to persuade us to ignore any doubts and accept her point of view.

And this is for me a key interviewing skill – to retain the mental separation necessary to examine the dynamics in the discussion - to recognise the subtleties and embedded presumptions of what is said and the manner in which it communicated. 

Our unanimous opinion was that this candidate was ambitious, talented but not perhaps a great team player.   

For the panel, it paid us to be cautious in who we added to a team already operating well.

For our candidate, her vivacity, good looks and evident intelligence have resulted in her learning that it pays her to be as she is.


Cheers
Nic

the art of obtaining constructive feedback

These days at least 95% of applications for a new job are received by e-mail.  Personally, I do not think it too much to ask of executive recruiters that each applicant receives both:

• an acknowledgement of receipt of his/her application by return e-mail; as well as
• provide a second follow-up outcome email – a simple "thanks but no thanks" for those who made an effort to put their hat in the ring but were not successful.

After sending a recent ‘thanks but no thanks’ email, I received two phone calls in quick succession.   Both candidates missed making the final interview list and rang to seek feedback on their respective applications.   

The difference in their approach to the same conversation made an extraordinary difference to the outcome. 

‘Tony’ was the first to ring: what happened in the first seconds of his call gave great insight into the art of how (not) to obtain meaningful feedback ...

He launched into the conversation,

"I would appreciate receiving some frank feedback.  Given my significant experience, I am amazed that I was not offered an interview."

  His request for feedback was fine but I distinctly recall the words ‘significant’ and ‘amazed’ were accompanied with a tone of voice that suggested a prickliness of someone ready to argue the issue.

His phone manner recalled my hesitation when reading his application originally regarding his written expression …a sense he was not shy in stating how confident he was in his experience and what he had to offer.   There is a balance in all things, if you get my drift.   On this occasion however, he was clearly not the best candidate in either experience or qualifications. 

Irrespective of how good or bad I might be at providing feedback, in those opening seconds he communicated one basic point.   His primary emotional reason for the call was not feedback but to reassure himself of his intrinsic worth; the very reasonable need to be acknowledged as valuable and experienced.

My response was caution: I was conscious of immediately being careful with the words I chose in reply.    I felt he wasn’t listening for learning but possibly for ‘ammunition’ to mount an argument.   I became guarded, less frank, and potentially less useful.

After his phone call, I sat and thought about Tony and his approach to the phone call.   I had to laugh at myself: I undoubtedly have approached similar circumstances in the same frame of mind.

For Tony, what would usually be the aim of seeking feedback on his application?   Clearly, to find out more of what the recruiter is looking for so as to improve his résumé and hence, increase the chance that the (next) recruiter is persuaded to ring and ask for an interview.

Tricky things, résumés. They need a lot of work to get right.

Literally five minutes later, ‘Greg’ rang to thank me for informing him of the outcome of his application (he thanked me) and politely asked for feedback on his application.   He asked open questions about content, layout - he raised issues, seeking my opinion.   He had clearly prepared in advance, thought of what he wanted to know, areas to explore.

It was more than that though.   Preparation is important but it was his attitude that was the key.   Greg clearly communicated to me that here was someone keen to do better and here was a recruiter he could tap to do so.    I was struck by his intelligent approach to the conversation …. and no, this was not because I like the sound of my own voice...    His attitude immediately created an ease in speaking with him.    He did not challenge what I said; rather he listened and then asked clarifying questions.    It was well done.

Oh yes, I made careful notes on his file regarding both his preparation and obviously sound inter-personal skills.   If he applies for another position I am managing, I will have good reason to pause and think more carefully.   After all, I now have first-person information in addition to his résumé to motivate me to call!    And I'll bet his résumé improves too …

So let’s go back to the start.   

Because it is before the request for feedback is made that the probability of realising the potential of constructive feedback is won and lost.

Thought # 1 is clear – asking for feedback is usually a good thing.    The response to requests for feedback is generally positive.   We all like to offer our cent’s worth and most of us are very willing to do so with little prompting …

Thought # 2 – one agenda and one emotion at a time!    With Tony, his opening words introduced other emotions, other motivations over and above seeking feedback.    If you are not ready to listen then wait until you are.

Thought # 3 - feedback is as good as the motivation of both parties allow.
With Tony, I didn't even have the opportunity to be useful (or not!): he wasn't listening.    Greg on the other hand was all ears …

Thought # 4 – if you seek feedback, then your role is appreciative enquiry – that is shut up and listen!    Asking for feedback infers you value the opinion of the other person.   That they have a valid point of view, a position of authority, or experience that generates respect.   If it is worth asking, then it is at least worth listening.

Thought # 5 – in constructive feedback, preparation and then ‘open’ questions generate more information and are not perceived as defensive or laden with other issues.  This is a one-off opportunity to collect new data - your primary task is to listen.   Thinking about what is said should be reserved for later, after you have had time to consider what was said and why.

Thought # 6 – take notes and say so – it is much harder to argue when you are also trying to write notes of what is being said!       Besides, this greatly assists your own post-discussion debrief.    In this case, these were my opinions that were sought; both Tony and Greg are welcome to agree or disagree, use or not at their leisure.

Thought # 7 – emails are cheap – send a thank you!!!

Tony may not have helped himself, or maybe he did the best he could at that moment.    However, he and Greg certainly reminded me that preparation and attitude in how I approach such a simple task dictates ultimately the value of what I receive.

 

Cheers
Nic