Yes, I know the element of luck…but the record still ‘ain’t half bad’, ya know? I’d take it.

You must be a sharp and straight up guy to to know how things happen and admit when it isn’t all your wonderful personality, exceptional brains,fantastic experience, etc., but a little dumb luck mixed in. Don’t change!

Call me when you’re in the Sun Diego or Las Vegas or Austin area.

JCA

No, its not technology, but 5 hits in a row IS LUCK. You hit streaks where you do nothing different, but it builds confidence and expectations (’Wow, 2 in a row, lets try 3′)

Actually it was 6 of 7 (!) – the miss was I deleted my one candidate hired, but it was a PL where 13 had been submitted by another(former)AE here. It was 5,1 & 1 with another (!)hit (we call them ‘Bingos’) with an offer being prepared. Good inventory, and one was, ‘You mentioned you had a guy in Canyon Country a while back’ for a job that I didn’t know was open.

The key is, and I probably mis-spoke, it was 6 PL where they hired the only candidate THEY AGREED TO INTERIVEW, not presented (sorry). I didn’t count cancelled JOs, or when they hired an internal, lost or delayed the project (its construction), etc. And when they have a ‘planned but unmanned’ project, urgency can contribute to these streaks.

If you find them, they should interview them. Well, not quite, maybe 2 of 3. Great clients will infact interview every one (I have a couple of those). As an average, over 10 years here its 6:1 JO/PL, 7:1 SO-1/PL, and 4:1/PL SO-2+, more like 3:1, 4:1 and 2:1 for more seasoned folks with over half the candidates presented interviewed.
Jon, the #s guy

I just lost a bet with my Associates re how long I could keep my mouth shut and not respond to this informative chit chat (see previous email).

I was really pleasantly surprised to read that anyone in the Recruiting business had hit a 1 to 1 ratio of candidate submittals to hits!

In the contract engineering business many years back, when the ratio was 7 to 1 industry wide among CE firms (NOT among ‘permanent placement’ agencies which was more like 15 to 1), our best ratio over a given period of time was, if memory serves, 1.3 to 1. For you to achieve, even for a short period, 1 to 1, is incredible, and shows that you probably (am guessing here) know the technology of the industry & discipline, understand the corporate ‘culture’ (new buzz word I guess), can properly ‘interpert’ those incoherent ‘job descriptions’ from HR (unless you are dealing with real hiring Managers directly), and finally can ‘interpert’ the EEE of your Candidate in real time terms.

The personal ‘chemistry’ aspect is, unfortunately, a final and important aspect. I am not saying that some chemistry between a hiring Manager and her/his direct report is not a factor, but it can, and does, frequently override the reality….in both directions. I have seen totally unqualified Candidates hired due to chemistry, and totally qualified Candidates not hired due to chemistry. In fact, when HR first became a factor in the process, qualified Candidates were shot down for totally irrelevant reasons.

As you are based near one of our facilities (S.D.), contact me some time and we’ll discuss our (patent applied for) ‘Relevant Obstacle Survival Technique’ as utilized in Recruiting (it has many other applications).

I would like to share one example with ya’ll of an extremely sharp Personnel Manager named K.D. McKenna (retired) who was with ‘General Electronics Laboratories’ in the Boston area back in the early 60’s.

Kenny had a req from Marketing for a Technical Sales type with EEE in electronic components to cold call on systems manufacturers. After screening OUT (our real job in Recruiting) many candidates, Kenny narrowed it down to 3, and he scheduled all 3 for a noon appointment. At 11:45, Kenny had his Receptionist, Secretary, and 3 Assistants go to lunch, leaving their respective office doors open, but shutting his.

He then waited till the 3 Candidates arrived and took a seat in the reception area. After 10 minutes or so, 1 of the 3 had enough gumption to knock on Ken’s door to find out who was around and what was gong on. You know which 1 he hired!

By the way, whatever you are doing to achieve a 1 to 1, DON’T CHANGE IT! The number of ‘fees’ is NOT what’s important, it’s the low submittal to hit ratio which counts with the Employer, and the no nonsense, dignified treatment of the prospective Employee which really matters…especially if you want to use the term ‘Professional’ as a Recruiter!!!

End

Interviewing is certainly an inexact science, though handled correctly, it is still the best indicator of potential success of the candidate interviewed. Why not look at today’s interview model as the culprit, rather than interviewing, in general?

Why do we need the opinions of 3+ peers, 3+ subordinates, and bosses more than two levels above the candidate position? Is there anyone brave enough to say that it’s possible many of these interviewers not only lack interview skills, they may lack objectivity, as well? And while all these people are involved, usually requiring a 100% thumbs up vote to hire, what is the buy-in of the manager? It is no longer their decision to make, nor their butt on the line to ensure that person’s success. When did we stop requiring manager’s to take responsibility for their decisions?

You want more successful hires? Train basic interview skills to Managers. Make them responsible for the decision they make. For non-Manager positions, have candidates interviewed only by their prospective Manager, that person’s boss, and an HR ‘interview guru’, whose job it is to keep the interview in line, and rate and train interviewing skills. For Manager and Director positions, add someone from outside the department who is typically considered a mentor, and who has demonstrated objective capability.

Dump the panel interviews. Dump the all-day marathon interviews. Dump the hourly staff interviews (they are not paid to make these decisions for you, and all you do is give them a false sense of power, which you will not support when push comes to shove!)

Interviewing should be handled with a Capitalistic approach. Those who do it well should be rewarded. Those who do not should be sent back to Remedial Interviewing, or not involved in the process, period.

When interviewing becomes a social project, as it has in most of corporate America, the result will never equal the expectation.

Our jobs as ?professionals? are to find ways to get through the defenses and get to the information. Preparation is key. Know what you want to accomplish, and guide the talent to your goal.

I think the flaw in interviewing is that we, the interviewer, can become complacent in our approach. There is information that can be derived from a good interview. Interviews are used in law enforcement because it is a way to find facts that are hidden. The talent are on a fact finding mission as much as we are, ?Quid Pro Quo?.

Preparation, practice, and developing our skills as professionals are the keys to successful interviewing. The honest truth is if you are not a good interviewer, than how can you ever become a great recruiter. The ability to evaluate talent is a key skill.

Since the last 5 placements I made (5 different cos) involved only one candidate each, I am a very big fan of prep, deliverables on both side of the table, ‘gut feel’, chemistry, etc. & I’ll match my candidate longevity against anyone’s. I wonder what happened to, ‘If the chemistry is there, it will happen if they have 60-70% of what the perfect candidate needs (skill wise)’? And if the chemistry is wrong, they can have 100% and not get hired. Your system (whatever it is) could do wonders for office morale.

On your 1st 1-10 list, which I wonder what it is all leading up to, (suspense is great hype for part 2), on #1 are you going to measure chemistry in a tube and deprive interviews with potential bosses and co workers? And I agree with #2-9 and #1-16 on list 2, and wonder where it is all going. I betcha you could make a case that a camel couldn’t make it across our 30 car parking lot in the summer time, in cool Dana Pt, CA.

I love your analysis, though, & seriously look forward to Part 2. -Jon

I believe the problem isn’t so much with interviews as a method, but with how they’re used. If interviews consistently fail to predict performance, it’s because preparing and administering them wasn’t taken seriously enough. Organizations spend months, sometimes years, on creating written tests; many interviews are thought up the morning of the interview. In addition, everyone believes they can interview someone well, but the reality is it’s a skill–and not an easy one.

Which raises this question: If it’s so difficult for people to conduct good interviews, should we continue to place so much weight on them? Probably not. But is this realistic? What is the alternative?