A Fear of Machines in the Hiring Process?

photo by racatumba

We recently created a poll on LinkedIn (requires login) asking people whether they’d be willing to take a 25-minute assessment when applying for a company if it helped identify how well they fit to the company’s culture.

After 118 responses only 11% have said they would not complete an assessment because either they felt like it wastes their time or because it could be used against them.

But the comments from some of these 11% are interesting.

“…it all seems to me to be a substitute for quality in the recruitment decision making process.”

“Why wouldn’t the Interveiwer [sic] be capable of determining these things and compiling a valid report of interveiw [sic]?”

Why is it that the use of analytics in the hiring process causes some to react negatively to the HR people behind them?  Operational line managers who use numbers to improve their decision-making ability are lauded for their objectivity and quantitative prowess.  And yet in a function that is rife with subjectivity a handful of folks find it reprehensible that a good hiring manager can’t figure what makes complex human beings tick strictly by using their gut instinct and some well worded questions.

Hiring without objectivity is ludicrous.

It is subject to too many biases to count.  Height, weight, attractiveness, firmness of handshake, attire, gender, race, eye-contact…and that’s just the beginning of the visual biases before the candidate opens her mouth.

The Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra (courtesy of Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink) noticed this after holding auditions behind a black curtain for the first time.  Historically, the best musicians had always been men.  Lo and behold, once they held auditions behind a black curtain and the ‘interviewers’ were judging them solely on the sound of the music, it turned out that the best musicians were actually evenly split between men and women.

Quantifying the hiring process is only one piece of the puzzle.  It is not and nor should it ever be the ultimate arbiter.  After all it’s people and not the machines that have to work with the new hire.  But adding some objective rigor into a process long dominated by subjectivity can only help. Particularly given that collectively hiring managers are barely better than the flip of a coin.

Ultimately, it’s to the benefit of both parties.  It provides an inside look at what a company’s culture is actually like (not just what they post in the lobby) and can make expectations and behaviors known at the time of hiring.  Two things that people often struggle to put into words even when they are defined. It also helps people avoid landing in jobs where they stand little chance of succeeding.

Are people’s fears justified?  Perhaps, if objective measures are used as a short-cut.  But the real ire should be raised over how much we tolerate mediocrity and subjectivity in today’s existing hiring practices.  Just because we don’t have a machine saying that we weren’t hired because we had a limp handshake doesn’t mean that it’s not the case or that we shouldn’t be furious.  Even though we can’t see the bias, it is still there.  Don’t blame the machines for making one part of the process transparent…finally.

Being The Change You Want

photo by keela84

ChangeThis has posted another excellent set of presentations this month.  One that deeply struck a chord is Flow, Flee or Fight.

As always, it’s worth the full read, but for those leading teams and running companies there is a lot to be gleaned by reading between the lines.

1. Engagement is fluid and ever-changing. People are constantly evaluating the level of effort they should exert.  The outputs will typically match the inputs.  When they feel appreciated and when they feel their work is valued and valuable they increase their effort level.  This is not saying people are lazy.  Just that they work by the Golden Rule.
2. People are present, but not there. Most of your workforce shows up every day and does what is expected of them.  But most have a lot more to give.  Your job is to extract that available effort.  To do that you have to remember that effort is like a tap and you’re not in control of when it flows.  You can only make sure that everything is in place for the tap to work.  One place to start is by assigning work that may be just over the head of your employee and make yourself freely available to support.
3. Change and disagreement is good. Often, those who push back are actually engaged.  They push because they care (not always, but give the benefit of the doubt).  So be cognizant of how you handle disagreement.  Create the structure that gives people the ability to push back against the status quo.  It’s your job to listen and figure out what is best for the company.  Sometimes it’ll be necessary to have people move on, but having the value system in place so that people can voice what isn’t working for them is crucial.  As is having the system in place to end the disagreements and get back to work.

Following the golden rule never hurts.  If you start to treat people as you’d like to be treated and start listening to what they say, but also for what their actions are saying then you’ll be in a better position to harness effort and channel the ‘negative’ energy into something positive.

What Employees Want From Jobs

photo by jspace3

Thanks to Lijit I can see what folks are searching for when they arrive.  “What Employees Want From Their Jobs” has been hitting the top of the charts frequently lately so here goes:

It depends.

Horrible answer, but people are all working for different reasons.  The best employers try to get to the bottom of what indviduals want rather than looking at their workforce as a single entity.  I’d recommend you start by asking them.  Ask them repeatedly and don’t accept their first few answers.  Most people haven’t actually thought much about this.  Press them.  Then ask again.

So contrary to what I just said, I’m going to try drawing some broad generalities as a starting point.

• Control of their destiny. One needs to know what constitutes excellent performance and what it will take to get a raise, promotion or more responsibility.  Further they must have the leeway to perform excellently.  When politics, bureaucracy and subjectivity take the control out of their hands rewards are perceived as arbitrary.  Randomness isn’t exactly inspirational.
• Trust.  Be an ‘insider.’ Trust in your people to hold sensitive information close to the vest.  Bring them into the fold.  Being on the ‘inside’ and breaking down the ‘us vs. them’ barriers is a great way to establish allegiance.  In particular, give them the information that impacts how they do their job or could fundamentally change their world.  Poor communication begets poor action.  It fosters resentment and ultimately makes you look bad anyway.
• Compensation fairness. It’s usually not about how much one is making as it is about the perceived fairness of what they earn relative to others.  Often salaries are a function of what gets negotiated initially.  And new employees are often ‘valued’ more than existing ones (3% annual raises don’t add up as quickly as job-hopping).  Assume the information will leak.  Admins and communal printers are quite efficient at identifying inequity.
• A challenge. More often than not, people want a chance to grow.  They want to stretch themselves, learn and try new things.  Find ways to give them the chance to fail but give them the support to maximize the chance they won’t.
• Important work and a chance to shine. Not everyone likes the spotlight, but everyone likes to feel like they’ve done a great job on something that really matters.  Ensure people understand how what they’re working on helps the company accomplish the big goals and then find ways to get them the credit they deserve in a way that suits their personality.

A job is a lot more than a paycheck, a bowl of M&Ms and health insurance.  Intrinsic rewards are far more meaningful and lasting.  If you see your team as more than cogs in the wheel and want to build a sustainable business then focus on what those intrinsic rewards are for each individual.

Visible Leadership

This has been sitting in the queue for a little while, but I wanted to point to a great post by Fred Wilson on making all big decisions only after a face to face interaction.

His context is checking references, but I’d like to expand upon it further.  This post was a screaming reminder of how important our physical presence is and how it changes the tenor of our conversations.

Leading teams requires face to face communication.  Leadership is about more than the content of the communication.  A well crafted email or IM is great.  But that rarely inspires someone to go the extra mile.

photo by seite-3

Leadership is bequeathed based on how you make the other person feel.  It’s far easier to show appreciation, respect and interest in another when you’re communicating with both your actions and your words.

1. Walk around. Don’t underestimate the power being the one who takes the initiative.  It’s a humbling move that says you respect the other person enough to make the effort to see them.
2. Leave your door open. Your physical space says a lot about your approach to work.  A closed door gives off the aura that you’re guarded.  Information can then only flow outward when you open door.  Find ways to make yourself even more accessible.  Is it reasonable to sit with your team?
3. Be present and interested. Approach people even when you don’t have anything business related.  If you’re only around when you need something then it creates a very transactional, one-way relationship.  You’re not an airline and they aren’t your customer.  Care a little.
4. Ask for their opinions. It’s work.  You don’t have to be drinking buddies, but it’s hard to respect someone when they don’t care about what you have to say.  Solicit their opinions in an informal setting – like when you’re hanging over their cube.
5. Show thanks. When a job is done well, thank them.  Yes, it is their job to do their job.  But showing appreciation doesn’t kill you and shows that you recognize when they put in some good thinking and effort.

Our communication patterns have changed.  It’s way too easy to use email or IM out of a misguided sense of efficiency.  But…

Don’t forget your shoes.  They are the most important weapon in your leadership toolkit.  Wear them out.

Secrets, Like Water, Flow Downhill

photo by The Rocketeer

It never ceases to amaze that ‘leadership’ teams continue to hoard information and attempt to keep secrets from their organizations.

The rationale is (pick one or get creative and combine a couple):

• It’s sensitive information
• If it gets out someone may get hurt
• It has the opportunity to be misconstrued
• Nothing is final, things could change
• ‘They’ don’t really need to know
• It will be disruptive, people will lose focus

Information is power and it’s human nature to try to stockpile power.  But it’s also human nature to want to let others know that you are on the inside.  That is often a more powerful motive.  Thus, information leaks.  ALWAYS.  Admins talk.  Executives tell their non-executive friends.  They tell their friends.  Before long everyone knows.

So why aren’t we more transparent?

Presumably you hired people to join your team because they were competent, responsible and had a lot of value to bring to the company.  Shouldn’t you trust them?

Let’s look at the pros and cons.

Pros

• There may be some things where knowing will cause more damage (nuclear passcodes are all that is coming to mind)

Um, help me out here…

Cons

• You become a boss who is to be obeyed rather than a leader who inspires people to follow willingly
• You look like a fool and, like the boy who cried wolf, don’t get the benefit of the doubt again
• People share the valuable information even more widely because it’s taboo
• You fail to get potentially valuable inputs from people lower in the organization
• You treat people like children, they’re going to act like children
• The ‘us vs. them’ gap widens dramatically and work becomes just a job to ‘them’
• People are more hurt when you don’t show trust in them than in whatever the news holds

Your company’s goal should be to best your competition.  To do that you need everyone pulling in the same direction.

Hoarding information only succeeds in creating rifts and demotivating.  Often what you were trying to prevent (hurt feelings, misinformation, information finding its way out of the company, etc.)  happens anyway and in a far more severe manner.

People have active imaginations and will create a situation far more dire than the one from which you were hoping to protect them.  Or they’ll put their own spin on it and pass it along.  Remember the game of telephone you played as a kid?  Or when you don’t give people the trust and respect initially they won’t be likely to respect your desire to keep the information private once they know.

So let it out.

• You’ll ensure everyone knows the same thing
• That all the information is as accurate as it can be
• You can share the caveats that should come with the information
• You reinforce the fact that you all play for the same team
• And, shockingly, by sharing you’ll ensure that the information is more tightly controlled outside of your organization