More interviews equals even better hires…right?
I’ve recently heard suggestions that the
more interviews and hoops candidates are expected to jump through…the
better the final quality of hire. Then a similar question was asked on LinkedIn and I thought I would repeat the answer in my blog.
The proposition is WRONG
Very sorry, but it’s wrong. Let me clarify: I have spent the last ten years talking to CEO’s about
hiring and integrating people into their firm faster and more
profitably. Asking a candidate to do more and more tests and interviews simply clouds the process. Two interviews, one assessment and a follow up meeting to negotiate terms is enough. In my experience having a new hire failure or poor hires has more to do
with the lack of interview experience by the interviewer, an inability of interviewer to assess candidates correctly and
poor integration by the business.
Interviewers training
Directors that interview people for a job do so about two or three times
a year. Hardly enough time to gain great expertise or to maintain that
ability. This may be a reason why businesses rely on more and more interviews and tests. However, again in
my experience, tests are only as good as the ability to understand the
results. (Too many people will fix on one statistic from a test and base their
choice on that as opposed to a rounded assessment).
One solution is to encourage interviewers to undergo some training
before undertaking important interviews. Then to have some experts on
the interview panel that can provide focussed views.
Cost of failed hire can be shedloads of money off the bottom line
Interestingly the COSTS of NEW HIRE FAILURE can be huge and my research
confirms Brad Smart’s research that the cost of failure can range from
10 – 24 times salary.
So if you’re hiring at a salary of $45,000, choose a multiple and see how much a new hire failure could cost your business!
Links:
Maria makes more staff redundant
Maria, together with the Sales Director, has visited the sales team in Exeter to close the local office. The rationale is that the office is not profitable and this is true and from a strategic point of view a good strategy for the company.
She did spend some time with each member of the team in Exeter to explain their options and to offer outsourcing advice. She also provided a list of vacant positions in the company but as these were all based in Manchester (the other side of the country) it was not viewed as being entirely helpful, which in fairness was not entirely her fault!
It has been noticed by other people within the company that she is intent on pleasing the new Sales Director at the expense of other alliances such as the CEO and COO. Indeed the Sales Director is adept at playing office politics and is understood to see himself as having far more “business ability” than his other executive Directors. He has actually been heard to say that it is only a matter of time before the CEO will “have to go!”.
I wonder if Maria is pinning her colours to the Sales Director’s mast too early?
