The current economic situation just underlines the need for organizations to develop sustainable talent strategies to minimize the trauma of poor economies; maintain a top notch, committed and skilled workforce; and encourage the development of new skills among those already employed rather than the mass hiring of new workers.

It is more obvious now than ever before that the need for semi-skilled labor is ending and that most organizations will need a highly skilled workforce to be competitive.

Successful organizations have a core of skilled people who generate revenue, create new products and services, and interact with customers in a deep way. Finding these people is very hard, and the supply is diminishing and will continue to do so as the Baby Boomers, who make up a disproportionate part of this supply today, eventually retire.

Organizations have four basic tools at their disposal to deal with people: the ability to attract and acquire, the ability to develop and provide competency, the ability to engage and excite so they are committed, and the ability to measure performance and provide feedback to adjust recruitment and development practices.

By developing the right integration and balance between each of these tools, there can be employment harmony and much less binging and purging of people when economic winds change.

One might expect human resources to step up and claim responsibility for this, and a handful of HR chieftains have tried to do this. Unfortunately, HR is mired in legalese, labor law, and in a general belief that their role is to make people happy and feel good, no matter what the business reality might indicate. HR has consistently failed to show strategic initiative and a “can-do” spirit. Many, some say most, HR people are process-police who focus on doing something “right” rather than on doing something that has an effect on the bottom line.

HR professional organizations are constantly presenting seminars and rolling out speakers extolling the need to be business-focused and to earn a seat at the decision-making table. Yet, HR remains disconnected from business and is rarely listened to for strategic people advice. Rather, they are expected to execute the decisions made by real business people.

A small number of organizations are instead putting people without HR backgrounds or credentials into roles where they will have responsibility to craft these people strategies. The people assuming the Chief Talent Officer role are often people who have demonstrated their business credentials, perhaps by running a business unit or by their involvement in product development or customer service. Many of them have also spent time building work teams, grappling with the internal people issues in teams, and who have an understanding of the external trends and issues that are changing the nature of work and the ways people want to engage in work.

A successful Chief Talent Officer has to be far more than a recruiter or a trainer or a process integrator. A talent officer is the general and strategist in charge of the supply of what is becoming the rarest resources an organization has — skilled, committed workers. Their job is to understand the objectives of the company, architect the strategy to find or develop the people who will be needed to meet business objectives, and redeploy people efficiently and effectively when their initial objectives are achieved without losing them to the competition.

While more efficiently finding existing talent is a great skill for a world-class recruiter, it is not enough for a talent officer. Their focus will have to be on creating a net increase in the supply of people in any needed job category, instead of just being better at getting at the existing supply.

And, while being well versed in training technology and being able to creatively and quickly build skills or re-skill a workforce are wonderful skills for a training manager, those are not enough for a talent officer. They will have to architect systems and tools to assess and continuously train people to fill jobs we haven’t even thought of yet. Effective talent officers will be partnering with vendors, working with high schools and colleges, and marketing to the community the benefits of gaining the skills the firm needs.

And, while being somewhat familiar with the corporate business objectives and the global talent pool is important, it is not enough for a talent officer. They have to understand the global workforce and know where to move work or people. They will have to do that according to their firm’s business goals.

A talent officer has to influence management to implement the integrated people strategies that will keep a sustainable workforce in place no matter what happens to the economy. This is not an easy job but the integration of recruiting, development, engagement, and performance is what talent management is really all about. Those organizations that get this mix right will enjoy long period of employment stability, harmony, and productivity. We have some examples today: Toyota is one. Toyota retrains during slow times, has had very few and very small layoffs, and focuses on process improvements and job enlargement rather than mass hiring. IBM, over the years, has also focused on internal mobility and employee development rather than on mass external hiring. These sustainable practices are good for the economy, good for people, and good for profitability.

By 2020 these roles will be common in large companies and many smaller ones will use consultants to help them architect similar strategies.

Employee-productivity differences have attracted their share of researchers. Most agree that folks in the top half of workers out-produce the bottom half by about 2:1 (i.e., it makes no difference if people are shuffling papers or making widgets). And, when managers and knowledge workers are examined separately, the productivity ratio rises to 3:1, 4:1, or higher (i.e., responsible jobs have bigger ratios).

Productivity is more than a mental exercise. It shows up as absenteeism, errors, reduced throughput, turnover, low morale, rework, an excess number of employees, and so forth. Productivity losses are also sneaky because they are not easily seen; yet, they translate into hard cash: between 20% of base annual payroll leaked for unskilled workers to 50% for skilled and managerial employees — enough to separate a successful organization from a flop.

Converting payroll leakage into gross sales can be an even bigger eye-opener. Twenty percent leakage, for an organization that pays out 1/5 of its gross sales in salaries and benefits, would require a 500% sales increase to balance the books. Want to do more scary math? Calculate the incremental sales necessary to offset a 50% leak in managers and professional salaries!

Enter Financial Chaos and Uncertainty

We are in serious financial times. Opinions vary, but experts estimate our financial stress will last throughout 2009 and perhaps into 2010. The prosperity party is over. Like the dot-com bust, the world changed virtually overnight.

We cannot do much about external economic factors except dig in and wait. But, we can do something about employee productivity, especially when it comes to intelligent downsizing.

Ah’ll be Baack!

There are two ways to downsize. Most managers are accustomed to the Rambo model: plunge into the organization armed with rocket launchers, machine guns, and grenades terminating anyone in the line of fire. At the end of the rampage, the gross payroll body count is reduced; but, since both high- and low-producers are terminated without regard to skills, the organization continues to live with its 20% to 50% cash hemorrhage. Rambo-sizing is the norm.

What about examining employee performance before making termination decisions? Everyone knows performance recommendations are part fact and part fiction. Promotions and performance ratings are almost always based on personality and popularity — not specific skills. Just examine organizations that Rambo-sized their workforce in the past. What effect did it have other than forcing fewer people to spend more time at work? Termination decisions done without future planning are like bloodletting to rid the body of bad humours … they are more likely to kill than cure.

Planning Ahead

If management takes the time and HR is able to competently manage the solution, downsizing can actually help the organization get healthy and stay that way. It’s more like Mr. Spock than Rambo. It is rationally based. It begins by clearly defining the skills the company wants to leave in the past and acquire in the future. Here is an example.

We’reAllThatMatters is a legend unto itself. Employees generally want to work there because they can brag about the big-name. Unfortunately, people (read customers) outside the organization have a different opinion. Employees often treat customers rudely and without respect. For example, even if We’reAllThatMatters’ buggy bookkeeping system overcharges a customer 400%, employees treat anyone who complains as if it was his or her fault.

Now the organization must cut back its workforce due to economic conditions. Should it Rambo-size its employees? Should it ask managers for their subjective opinions about who stays and who goes? Should it amputate whole divisions? Since We’reAllThatMatters’ has been around some time, a majority of terminated employees may be over 40, raising the possibility of a nasty class-action suit. What to do?

Rambo-sizing would be a serious long-term mistake. The payroll would shrink, but both skilled and unskilled employees would suffer the same fate. Customer-sensitive as well as customer-insensitive employees would be terminated equally. We’reAllThatMatters’ payroll would shrink, but payroll hemorrhage would continue unabated. Logical-sizing would be different.

We’reAllThatMatters would a take hard look at itself and honestly calculate the financial impact of poor customer service on future business. It would then develop some key job profiles containing both technical competencies to do the job as well as customer service competencies it wants to build and retain. When this is complete, it would move on to the next step.

Employee-Level Evaluation

Individual employees would have his or her performance objectively evaluated using the list of necessary competencies as a target. For example, customer-centric skills might be evaluated by gathering past examples of service (e.g., similar to behavioral event interviewing), reviewing performance appraisals (to the extent they might include relevant information), giving tests, administering surveys, and so forth.

The secret to success would be to evaluate the skill set of every employee using an objective standard based on the organization’s tactical plan. Results for each employee would be anonymized and independently reviewed by a few highly competent managers. Employees who matched the profile would be retained, and those who did not would be reassigned or laid off.

Smart-sizing could be done with competencies such as analytical skills to develop better problem-solvers, initiative to encourage operational improvements, teamwork to develop better internal working relationships, creativity to foster new ideas and designs … the list goes on.

Final Question

However, there is a price to pay. HR has to develop the skills to help managers analyze and clarify the skills needed. It has to become proficient in accurately measuring competencies (real ones, not garden variety stuff), and it has to professionally manage the process. Managers have a price to pay too. They must have the patience to work through the details of smart-sizing, dedicate the energy and commitment to making sure the process is followed, and be able to clearly define the future at the employee level.

The outcome of this initiative is a smart-sized operation; in other words, the skills of the employees are intelligently aligned with the objectives of the organization. Overall, this should result in fewer employees doing more work (because each employee will be more skilled), less turnover (because employees will be more satisfied), fewer mistakes, better quality, and so forth.

The final question faced by everyone in the operation is whether saving 20% to 50% of base payroll is worth abandoning Rambo-sizing for smart-sizing.

Our part in this is developing a new method of assessing Managerial Fit when hiring from the outside. We all know that the development skills of the manager are critical in ensuring a new employee’s performance, so this might be something useful to consider whether you’re a recruiter or hiring manager.

In this same vein, using the concept of Managerial Fit and Situational Leadership might also be something to consider if your company is increasing its emphasis on internal mobility. It could help increase the number of top-performing current employees transferred into significantly different roles.

The concept behind Blanchard and Hershey’s leadership model is that the manager needs to adapt their style based on the current skills and developmental needs of the subordinate. The model categorizes management styles into these four levels:

• S1 – Directing: providing specific guidance for the task with direct and immediate follow-up. This is useful technique for a subordinate who has little skills in the area of need and lacks confidence.
• S2 – Coaching: providing an appropriate level of training and follow-up, but giving the subordinate some latitude in getting the job done. This is a very interactive two-way approach which is also useful where the subordinate needs external motivation to complete the task as well as some training.
• S3 – Participating: the manager assigns the tasks, provides some direction, but leaves how the task is done up to the subordinate. This technique is appropriate for a skilled person who might need some support and guidance in getting the job done.
• S4 – Delegating: in this case the manager assigns the tasks with the expectation that the subordinate will get it done with little follow-up. This is an appropriate technique to use when the person handling the tasks is fully competent and highly motivated.

The Situational Leadership model defines the developmental needs of subordinates into four broad categories based on competence, confidence, and motivation to do the work.

As you’ll see, these classifications are very-task oriented, so a person might vary in ability and motivation from strong to weak across all job needs. This requires a successful manager to adapt to the subordinate’s needs given the specific task.

This is critically important from a hiring perspective, since many candidates are hired without a clear understanding of real job needs.

Here’s a quick description of the four development levels of the subordinate:

• D1 – Low Competence, but High Motivation. The person wants to do the work, but requires significant direction and training. An S-1 Directing style of management is best for this type of person.
• D2 – Some Competence, but Lacks Motivation. The person can do the work, but needs external support to complete it successfully. An S-2 Coaching management style is appropriate here.
• D3 – High Competence, Variable Commitment. The person can do the work, and is highly motivated to do most of it. An S-3 Participating Style is best here, with the manager providing support for tasks the subordinate doesn’t find satisfying or where the person lacks confidence.
• D4 – High Competency, High Motivation. An S-4 Delegating is required here. The manager needs to provide minimal direction and follow-up. These people are the ideal hires for critical tasks where time is of the essence or where training is not available. However, too much direction and follow-up can be demotivating to the person, so the manager’s style is an important consideration when hiring someone at this level.

In some form, lack of Managerial Fit is often cited as the primary reason why new hires underperform. This is primarily due to the fact that most interviewers emphasize skills, behaviors, and generic competencies rather than motivation and specific competency to do the work. The Situational Leadership model offers a means to address this huge void.

Measuring manager fit can be relatively easy to assess if a performance profile is used when taking the assignment rather than a traditional skills and experience-based job description. A performance profile defines the top six to eight performance objectives required with the tasks classified into levels of importance.

For example, a critical task for a product manager might be to complete the product design spec with engineering and marketing within 90 days after starting. A less critical task might be to upgrade the product launch process within six to nine months. By categorizing tasks this way, candidates can then be assessed based on a competence, confidence, and motivation scale by task. Managers can then determine if their management style fits with the candidate’s development needs.

At the extremes an S-1 Directing style is a terrible fit if the candidate is an extremely competent and motivated D-4. Equally bad is the combination of an S-4 Delegating Style with a D-1 candidate who, while highly motivated, still needs lots of training and support.

Rather than describe each combination, here’s the 1-5 ranking scale we’re starting to use to better assess managerial fit:

• Level 1 – Bad Fit: on the critical tasks the candidate’s development needs are inconsistent with the manager’s situational leadership style or time needs are too pressing.
• Level 2 – Adequate Fit: the new employee is competent and motivated on some of the critical tasks and the manager is capable of supporting the new employee on the others.
• Level 3 – Good Fit: the new employee is competent and motivated on most of the critical tasks at a D-3 or D-4 level and the manager is capable of properly supporting the employee on all of the other and less critical tasks.
• Level 4 – Very Good Fit: there is a great match between the new employee’s developmental needs on all of the critical and non-critical tasks and the manager’s preferred situational leadership style.
• Level 5 – Perfect Fit: not only is there a great match between the new employee’s developmental needs and the manager’s situational leadership style, but the fit enhances the capabilities of both from a team standpoint.

Download our sample 10-Factor Candidate Assessment template as a starting point and incorporate Managerial Fit as one of the 10 factors. Here are a few ideas on how you might want to begin assessing managerial fit:

1. Complete a performance profile for the job and classify each objective as absolutely critical, somewhat critical, and less-critical.
2. Determine the manager’s preferred or dominant manager situational leadership style for each task and if there is time for much training or coaching. If not, you’ll need to hire someone who can deliver the results with limited management direction. This is a critical issue, so don’t minimize this point.
3. During the interview, get detailed examples of something comparable the candidate has accomplished for each critical task. This allows you to determine the developmental needs of the candidate for each task. Our two-question Performance-based Interview has been designed with this task focus in mind.
4. Be very careful about hiring someone to work for a manager who is heavy on the Directing and Coaching style. Highly competent and self-motivated people are turned-off when given too much direction.
5. Assess managerial fit using the above 1-5 ranking scale.

As a recruiter, I would expect my candidates to be a D3 or D4 on each critical task, unless the job allowed for sufficient training and coaching. In this case I would offset experience and high motivation with high potential and high motivation. I’d be OK recommending someone who was less motivated if the tasks were not critical to ultimate job success.

I’ve used this model in the past to walk away from certain assignments where I knew the lack of managerial fit was a recipe for failure. In this case it had to do with working with very dominant entrepreneurial leaders who were looking for top performers, but weren’t willing to give them the latitude to succeed. This is one of the reasons small companies never become big until the founder leaves.

Email me directly (lou@adlerconcepts.com) if you’d like to participate in a few trials on using Situational Leadership and Managerial Fit as the basis for better assessing competency. This is an important management development area that can be used not only for new hires, but also for increasing the success rate for employees transferred internally.

Join talent acquisition strategy expert Mitzi Adwell of The Newman Group and competency expert Cara Capretta as they shed light on best practices for applying a competency-based approach to your talent acquisition processes.

If you want to avoid many of the interview errors that have been outlined in the previous three installments in this series, it’s important that you take the time to educate managers about interviewing.

I’m not talking about a day-long training session; instead, use a reminder sheet, e-mail, or website with warnings and tips delivered just before the start of interviews.

Be sure to educate managers about:

1. Overconfidence. Most of the mistakes that managers make during interviews are caused by cockiness and a level of self-confidence that leads them to believe that interviews are easy and picking the very best is something that every manager can do. This overconfidence causes them to omit the needed structure from interviews and to stereotype and generalize. Training or education can’t eliminate this bravado, but reminding them right before the interview of the typical errors that can occur is always a wise move. Don’t give them a manual; keep it short and in bullet-point format. Don’t preach, just educate and remind them of the errors that have the largest impact on hiring quality candidates.
2. Supporting innovators. If you’re looking for innovative new hires, make sure that hiring managers are aware that in a rapidly changing world, innovation is critical to the results of any business. It’s also important that they understand that most interview processes are not particularly “friendly” to out-of-the-box thinkers. Before the interview processing begins, remind them that these candidates may dress and act differently during interviews and to not reject them due to outside-of-the-norm behavior. In fact, encourage them to look for it and weight it heavily for positions that require innovators. A second factor to remember is that innovators might mentally “drop out” of the interview as soon as they get the feeling that they aren’t wanted or just don’t fit. Teach managers that selling these highly desirable innovators requires the interviewer to take a different approach.
3. Diversity. Our global world means it’s important to be aware of the different ways that diverse and “international” candidates behave during interviews. For example, anyone who has traveled extensively knows that some groups of people are less aggressive, and for example, may provide less eye contact or ask few or no questions during interviews. Design the interview process so that diverse people are given a chance to demonstrate the unique perspective that they bring to the job. Next, tell hiring managers that they must be tolerant of “diversity” both in EEOC and the international context. Finally, do not screen them out early just because they don’t fit your present culture. In fact, postpone any “fit assessment” until the final selection step to avoid losing these important individuals.
4. Over-valuing experience. One of the new realities of business that I find most hiring managers fail to grasp is the fact that the value of long-term experience has steadily decreased as the speed of change has proportionately increased. When information and approaches that work change dramatically every year, having a great deal of barely relevant experience from several years ago just shouldn’t be weighed more heavily than current knowledge. The key learning here is to warn hiring managers not to ask for “too much” experience and to more heavily weigh what they can do now versus in the past. If you don’t, you’ll end up screening out lots of very competent people just because they don’t have the mythical but frequently “unrealistic” five to 10 years’ experience.
5. Avoiding stupid things during interviews. The number one cause of “offer rejection” is the way that applicants were treated during the interview process. Many times, interviewing managers are the primary cause of high offer-rejection rates. Warn them of the negative impacts of taking phone calls during interviews, canceling and rescheduling interviews, appearing disorganized, or even asking illegal or silly questions.
6. Anticipating well-prepared candidates. It’s now easier to prepare for interviews, anticipate questions, and find the right answers. Do the same research to minimize the use of questions where literally everyone knows the correct answer to give before the question is even asked. Also, consider some of the alternative competencies or approaches outlined in the next section.
7. Making the process less adversarial. Many managers think of the interview as an investigative process. Instead, encourage them to focus on the positive aspects of every candidate (we all have faults). Remind managers to ask them upfront if they have any questions or concerns about the process and encourage managers to generally make the process less adversarial and more of an information-sharing process among equals. In addition, remind them that currently employed top performers will drop out early if they’re not treated with respect.

Alternative Assessment Approaches

Most interviews are pretty straightforward, with interviewers looking for specific skills, knowledge, and experience. However, there are other things that you can assess during interviews that many people forget. While some might seem unusual, I’ve seen each of them work in practice. Try considering:

1. Next job assessment. In situations where employees constantly move between jobs or when rapid growth (and the resulting fast promotion rate) is expected, managers need to add an element to interviews where the candidate is assessed for the current opening as well as for their potential or capability to handle the next job.
2. Do they accurately forecast? In situations where you’re looking for “forward-looking” individuals, spend some time to find out how often they think about the future and what they predict will happen in both your job and your industry. Ask how often they think about future changes (if they answer never, be wary). Then ask them to forecast the major issues and opportunities that will occur in their function, at your firm, and in your industry during the next two years. The forecasts are generally less important than the process that they use to identify upcoming issues.
3. How they learn. If you’re looking for continuous learners, ask candidates to walk you through the steps they will take in learning about new issues and solutions.
4. Spotting weaknesses in the process. If identifying problems in a process is a key success factor for this position, consider giving the candidate a process or a solution that the company currently uses. Next, ask them to identify potential problems, errors in judgment, weak assumptions, potential roadblocks, or omitted steps. Since you already know the process, it’s relatively easy to know whether the points they identified are valid or not.
5. Idea generation for the best new ideas. Many interviewing managers fail to realize that interviews can be beneficial in capturing new ideas as well as assessing candidates. Ask the candidate for their ideas on a key problem(s) that the candidate will actually face during his or her first month on the job or in a problem area that the organization is struggling to innovate. If the candidate has no new ideas, you know you’re in trouble. But if they have ideas on their own or from their current work, even if you don’t hire this particular candidate, if you take good notes, you are likely to get a significant number of new ideas at the end of the interview process.
6. Find “A” player identifiers. Simply ask each candidate to tell you their own list of key identifiers that they would use to differentiate between “A” and “C” players in their current job family. Use it in order to see if they know what an “A” player, and later, compare their list to the list compiled by your own “A players” to improve your assessment process. In addition, ask them to highlight how they meet each of their own “A player” criteria.
7. Assess their ability to work in a team and with others. There are few jobs in the corporate world where an individual can survive as an individual contributor. So give candidates a real problem (that requires teamwork and cooperation) that they would face during the first month on the job. Ask them to walk you through the steps on how they would handle the problem. If they minimize or leave out steps where they would be expected to coordinate, consult and get input from others. In addition, you can ask the candidate to list the situations where they would purposely act on their own to see if any run counter to corporate expectations.
8. Assessing cultural fit. Interviewers can, of course, ask the candidate directly if they believe they would fit the firm’s culture. Unfortunately, almost everyone answers yes to that “obvious” question. An alternative approach is to provide the candidates with a list of cultural factors and force them to select and rank the top five under which they do their best work. They should also be asked to rank which are intolerable. The forced-ranking process requires the candidate to first identify their own cultural needs, and second, it tells you whether they will be able to tolerate some of the “negative” existing conditions that might be present in this department.
9. Verbal simulations during the interview. The best way to assess people is to put them “in the kitchen,” but given the difficulty or unwillingness to create realistic simulations, the next-best approach is to give candidates a verbal simulation during the interview (although verbal simulations can be done equally as well over the phone). Give the candidate a job-related problem and ask how he or she would handle it. Probe why they took that approach. Focus your assessment on the steps they take or omit, the critical questions that they raise, as well as the potential problems that they anticipate.

Action Steps After The Interview Is Over

After you complete an individual interview or the interview series, there are some action steps you should not omit, including:

• Feedback to keep them interested. Give active interview candidates periodic updates on where they are in the process and include at least some general feedback on how they are doing. Never keep applicants in the dark or force them to call to find out how they are doing. When they complete each step in the process, tell them what they did right and what to do “more of/less of.” Consider adding a password-protected website so applicants can track where they are in the interview process.
• Colleague calls to help close the deal. Having one or two selected colleagues who attended the interviews call them directly after the offer to encourage them personally to accept is a powerful way to differentiate your firm and to dramatically increase offer acceptance rates.
• Keep in touch with excellent candidates for future hires. Provide finalists who you didn’t hire (you can’t do it with everyone) with immediate and accurate feedback in order to give them an opportunity to improve and reapply at a later date (perhaps Tiger Woods was ahead of them, and on any other day, they would’ve gotten the job). Whenever you reject star candidates (or when star candidates reject your offer), don’t cut off all communication with them. Put them on your “friends of the company” newsletter mailing list, offer them product discounts, etc. Get their permission to continue to send them announcements when there are relevant future job openings.
• Measure satisfaction. Because applicants might also be current or future customers, it’s important to ensure that they were treated up to their expectations. Provide candidates with anonymous satisfaction surveys one to three months after the interviews are over and remember to reward managers and recruiters with high scores. Also, survey the managers involved in the hiring process to see if they were satisfied with both the process and the output. If you are really serious about quality, consider using “mystery shoppers” to find major errors and crummy hiring managers. This may involve hiring temps as “planted candidates” or making a deal in advance with a few “actual” candidates for them to fill out a detailed questionnaire about the strengths and weaknesses of the process (that you guarantee will not be opened for three months).
• Feedback loop to continually improve. You can begin improving the hiring process by asking new hires on orientation day “what worked” and “what didn’t work”, as well as what final factors convinced them to accept. In addition, connect your metrics on the turnover rates of new hires as well as their on-the-job performance rankings to see if those who score highly on interviews actually turn out to be long-term top performers. The fancy legal term for this is validation, but it’s just a good idea because more often than not, interview scores turn out to be weak predictors of job success.
• Assume failure. Assume upfront that some percentage of new hires will be mistakes, and as a result, have a formal process for the early identification of bad hires.

Conclusion

We all know that no matter how much assessment we do, some of the candidates who make it through the process and get hired are ultimately going to turn out to be turkeys. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the ultimate reason is that many interviews are inconsistently executed and rely upon subjective evaluation of candidates.

Add structure to improve the validity of interviews. Consistently execute this structure, which will ensure that the process doesn’t cause qualified people to drop out because it is painful/ugly, and also get managers to pay attention and realize they are not natural talent scouts.

If you follow any of the guidance provided in this four part-series, follow the guidance about testing and repeating what works.

Our recently completed 2006 Recruiting and Hiring Challenges survey revealed some significant conflicts between recruiters and their hiring managers that aren’t abating. Between 50 and 60% of the survey respondents indicated these were significant problems at their companies:

• Most hiring managers were not able to accurately assess candidate competency.
• Most hiring managers were not able to recruit top performers.
• Too many hiring managers overvalued skills and experience and/or were unwilling to be flexible regarding the selection criteria.
• Few hiring managers were willing to spend time reviewing real job needs.
• Little feedback was provided from hiring managers after candidates were interviewed.
• Very few managers were trained to interview candidates, and none were trained on how to recruit candidates (over 75% of the respondents indicated this was a problem).

And the list goes on.

Not surprisingly, separate surveys of hiring managers indicated these problems with their corporate and third-party recruiters:

• Recruiters were not responsive in delivering quality candidates on time.
• Few recruiters understood real job needs.
• Few recruiters were capable of accurately assessing candidate competency.

While it’s sad to say that both groups are 100% correct, collectively these problems impact a recruiter’s productivity, on-the-job effectiveness and job satisfaction. Worse, they impact a company’s ability to consistently hire top people.

The underlying cause of these problems is that recruiters are considered vendors in the hiring process by their clients, not as partners. As vendors, managers expect recruiters just to deliver good candidates quickly based on box-checking the requirements on the job description. Managers don’t want to provide the time or feedback because they don’t believe it will do any good. Making matters worse, these managers believe they are extremely competent in assessing competency and hiring top people, so all the recruiter needs to do is deliver the candidates.

Given that most corporate recruiters have too many requisitions to handle, this sorry state of affairs continues ó with the perspective judgment of both recruiters and managers validated each day. To break out of this endless second-guessing and disappointment, recruiters must become partners.

The biggest change you’ll observe in moving from a vendor to a partnership relationship is a huge reduction in the number of candidates needed to be seen for any position. This by itself will increase recruiter productivity 20 to 50%. The reason: Top people who don’t have perfect credentials or who don’t have perfect interviewing skills won’t be excluded for dumb reasons. Here’s how to pull this off.

Five Critical Things Recruiters Need to Do to Become Partners with Their Clients

1. Know the job. Recruiters who don’t know real job needs get little respect from their clients or their candidates. To change this right away, start your next assignment by telling your hiring manager client that you’re throwing the traditional job description into the trash. A statement like this will clearly express the point you’re making: “This is the most useless thing I’ve every seen. I thought you wanted to hire a top performer, not some dodo.” Wait a few seconds for the shock to wear off, and then add, “If you want to hire a top person, you need to tell me why a top person would want this job.” Now you have control. Over the next 15 minutes, have the hiring manager tell you some of the big challenges involved in the job and some of the reasons why the job is important to the company. Ask the manager what a top person would need to accomplish in order to get an outstanding performance review after one year. If the manager says the person must have five years experience in a certain area, ask “What will the person actually do with this five years of experience?” Once this is clarified, ask, “If I can show you someone who can do this work, would you meet the person if he or she had less experience than the five years?” You will get a yes to this question. Job descriptions that describe what candidates need to do, rather than list what the person needs to have, are called performance profiles. Preparing performance profiles is the first step you need to take to become a true partner with your clients.
2. Quickly find top talent. There have been about 20 or so articles written on sourcing top performers this year alone on ERE. The theme of them all ó don’t post traditional job descriptions! Make sure that you follow this advice. Instead, post a marketing version of the performance profile you prepared when you took the assignment. Start with a compelling title like “This CRM Job Rocks!” Then make sure the copy is exciting, focusing on what’s in it for the candidate, not the company. Tactics like this could fill a book, but the real point is that if you want to retain your partnership status you must deliver top people quickly. From what I can tell, most companies have set up their sourcing processes to find average people slowly, so you might want to conduct a major process reengineering overhaul in this area. In the short term, ask your clients where the best people might go to look for the compelling job you jointly created when you took the assignment.
3. Accurately assess candidate competency. When you took the assignment, you found out what a top person needed to do to get an outstanding performance review. When interviewing, just reverse this process by asking candidates to tell you about some major projects where they received outstanding performance reviews. Then spend fifteen minutes digging deeply into these projects. Do this again for a few other major accomplishments spread out over the past 5 to 10 years. This technique will give you all of the information you need to determine if the candidate meets your job needs. (Here’s more information on this performance-based interviewing process.) The real point here is that if you want to become a partner, you’ll need to demonstrate that your candidate has achieved great success doing work comparable to the work that needs to get done.
4. Defend your candidates from dumb decisions. If you’re tired of getting good candidates excluded for an apparent lack of skills or the wrong experience or the wrong education, you need to take the assignment exactly as described in step one. This converts the decision to see a candidate from one based on skills and experiences to one based on performance criteria. By itself, this will dramatically increase the size of the pool of top performers. Then use the information obtained during the performance-based interview described above to defend your candidates from superficial, narrow or emotional decisions. Even better: lead a formal debriefing session where managers need to justify their rankings, good or bad, using specific examples of performance. (Here’s a form you can use to lead this type of group session.) By implementing this type of open and evidence-based assessment process, you’ll be able to more accurately assess your candidates against real job needs ó not some ill-advised standard or preconceived ideas of competency.
5. Close the deal. If you can’t get top performers to accept your offer, all of your previous efforts have been wasted. Good recruiting skills can offset the need to pay premium salaries ó if you can demonstrate that the job offers both short-term stretch and long-term growth. Using the in-depth interviewing process described above, the interviewer will quickly see the gaps between the candidate’s accomplishments and the real job needs. The interviewer and hiring manager need to team up here (in partnership fashion) to present these gaps as opportunities for growth and learning.

If you’re a recruiter with too many reqs to handle, you won’t be able to invest the time necessary to become a partner with every client. Regardless, you should try the techniques described above on just one or two assignments. You’ll quickly see improvements in productivity, effectiveness and job satisfaction. This is what happens when recruiters become partners with their clients. Hiring top talent will never become a systematic business process until this occurs.

For the most part, applicants were still interviewed by managers and hired or fired on the spot. For most employees, work was still often simple and labor intensive. As you can imagine, new employee skills were only tested on the job. Throughout this time, interviewers’ primary objective was to screen out blatantly unqualified candidates (i.e., people they either disliked or who drooled on the paperwork) and forward them to the hiring managers. Without any special training or education, their interview questions sounded something like this: “Tell me about yourself. Why do you want this job? Do you have any relatives who work here?”

As you can imagine, new employee skills were only tested on the job. Time went by, and interviewers became more confident, often to the point of believing they were trained psychologists. The personnel department even creatively renamed itself “human resources.” Questions changed slightly and became something like this: “What color do you prefer? What is your greatest strength? If you could be an animal, which would it be, and why?” As you can imagine, new employee skills were only tested on the job. Nothing much changed except interviewers sounded sillier, and applicants read advice on how to fake well and get the job. But would anyone be surprised to learn that research shows that interviews are most predictive of future job performance only when they meet three criteria:

1. The interviewer works from a competency-based document that outlines the skills necessary for job success or failure. This is not a job description and it is not a job evaluation band. It is a list of measurable competencies based primarily on interviews with successful job holders.
2. Interviewers have learned to phrase questions in such a way that answers are difficult to fake and examples are job-related. They have learned that past job behavior – not necessarily job performance – is a very good predictor of future performance. (Just like speed, strength, and reflexes are good predictors of winning at tennis.)
3. Finally, each interview question must have a scoring guide consisting of desirable and undesirable answers. An interview is not a conversation to get to know someone. It is a verbal test. It has something to measure (required job skills), something to ask (structured questions), and a standardized answer key (right and wrong answers).

Structured interviews are usually called “behavioral” because they attempt to discover the specific behaviors associated with job performance. The assumptions, as mentioned before, are 1) if learning difficult information is an important competency for the future job; and 2) if the applicant says he or she learned in the last job; and 3) if the applicant can demonstrate that learning was successful; then 4) the interviewer can assume the applicant would probably be successful in the new position. What you should remember:

• Interviews are tests and subject to all the conditions of a good test.
• Job descriptions and job evaluations seldom provide enough information on which to base an interview.
• Interviewing is not a learn-as-you-earn activity.
• If skills are not accurately evaluated pre-hire, then the job will evaluate them post-hire.
• Few people have the skills necessary to do a competent interview.

If you forget the above, remember that poor interviewing leads to increased turnover, lower individual employee performance, and higher training expenses.

• Recruiters seldom do the basics.
• Recruiters are often treated like second-class citizens.
• Companies=people=companies.

These are great points. And they are excellent examples of garage-door feedback.

Why Wonder?

“Why wonder?” refers to not knowing. In the case of garage doors, it refers to keeping out bad things and letting in good ones. That is, you don’t have to wonder if your garage door is keeping out rabid raccoons, teenage pranksters, and the occasional space alien.

Most homeowners would agree that these are undesirable garage inhabitants. In the case of recruiting, it means wondering if the recruiter is submitting unqualified applicants, people who require additional training, or employees who may quit prematurely. You know, undesirable organizational inhabitants. Professional recruiters may also wonder if buyers think they are really worth their fee.

You’ll Know!

“You’ll know!” refers to feedback. In the case of the garage-door gadget, it means seeing a light flash either red (open to alien visitors) or green (closed and secure). In the case of recruiting, it means getting a resounding “Way to go!” a grudging “At least I didn’t have to do it,” a “I sure wasted money on that one!” or a “Why should I pay an independent recruiter for something I could do internally?”

Feedback tells us how we are doing.

Key Points Revisited

Without people, companies are just a collection of buildings, property, and equipment. People quality=company quality. Although it takes employees to fill the buildings, manage the property, and operate the equipment, it does not take an expensive consultant to illustrate that employees are seldom equally productive (any more than it takes a meteorologist to warn that waving around a metal golf club in a thunderstorm can quickly lead to becoming a charcoal briquette). We respect firefighters who put out fires, doctors who cure illness, and engineers who build bridges that do not collapse. Would we feel the same about them if firefighters only put out half the fires, doctors only cured half their patients, or half our bridges had structural failures? Both research and practical experience shows about half the people hired fail to meet performance expectations. Who do you think brought those hires into the company in the first place? Feedback, both positive and negative, should be taken seriously.

If hiring managers know that their internal or external recruiters bring them employees with variable skills, or if recruiters know they seldom follow the basics, then any lobby for respect and recognition will invite the same warm welcome as our rain-drenched, club-waving golfer. Ka-Pow! So what are some recruiting basics? Well, on the surface, they are very simple. There are three steps: 1) know job requirements; 2) accurately measure each applicant; and 3) follow up.

Know Job Requirements More often than not, job requirements are based on discussions with managers and job descriptions. What could possibly go wrong? Well, how about recruiters tossing qualified applicants over the wall and hiring managers tossing them back, complaining they don’t meet the profile. Why does “wall tossing” happen? Job descriptions are generally artificial and out-of-date, and managers often don’t do the subordinate’s job. Think about it. Unless your manager has done your job, how much does he or she really know what it takes? The idea that any manager is going to thoroughly know a subordinate’s job is often sheer fantasy. Job holders are the only ones who can explain day-to-day competencies; managers define what to expect. It’s a nice, neat package. (It helps to think of a job competency as a snippet of behavior or specific skill associated with successful or unsuccessful job performance.) In short, job competencies do not come from HR. They do not come from job descriptions, and they do not come from managers. The best source is interviews with job holders.

Accurately Measure Each Applicant

Interviews are inaccurate. In addition to not knowing clear job requirements, interviews are prone to personal interpretation and fabrication. In fact, every interview book or article I have read advises job seekers to say or do anything to get the job. The odds against the interviewer are substantial. However, what do we say to interviewers who maintain that they are completely objective and able to consistently spot applicant fabrications? Nothing. We need to have them stuffed and sent to the Smithsonian. What, you say? Tests are too restrictive and inaccurate? Sorry, folks; interviews are just another form of tests, and poor tests at that. Imagine this scenario:

Patient: “Hello, Doctor.”

Doctor: “Hello, Patient. What is your greatest strength and weakness?”

Patient: “I work hard, eat healthy food, and get plenty of rest.”

Doctor: “How would a collection of your best/worst friends describe you?”

Patient: “I tend to take my work home with me.”

Doctor: “Show me your last three years’ earning statements.”

Patient: “Here you go.”

Doctor: “Looks good to me. When would you like to become an astronaut?”

Every recruiter who wants to be recognized for his or her skills must become an expert in testing. This includes skilled behavior-based interview techniques, situation-based techniques, pencil-and-paper tests, simulations, case studies, scheduling exercises, and the like. Finally, they have to follow up on each hire, compare pre-hire scores with post-hire performances, and make adjustments as required.

Flies in the Ointment

Of course, recruiters have a few problems to overcome. As cited by Chapman and Zweig in a 2005 article in Personnel Psychology, untrained interviewers “brim” with confidence about their ability to predict job performance; they strongly believe rapport-building and sophisticated questions enhance their effectiveness and professionalism; and they think they can identify the best candidates regardless of the question structure they employ. What does all this mean? The least skilled recruiters are the ones most impressed with their own professionalism. Does anyone see a problem here?

Conclusion

When we started this article, we used the phrase, “Why Wonder? You’ll know!” On second thought, maybe it should read, “You know! Why wonder?” I hope a few people will take the risk to get smart and learn the basics of skill definition and measurement. This is the only way recruiters who take their jobs seriously can gradually earn respect and recognition for their contributions to the overall health of the organization. For the rest – the ones who think professional respect comes from public proclamations and self-promotion – Karnak predicts a bright flash and a loud boom in your future. Don’t worry. You’ll never see it coming.

Here’s a short reading list to get you started here. The books listed below are essential reading for all top managers and recruiters, and the articles will give you instant credibility when you suggest using a different approach as you take your next search assignment. The Required Reading List If you want to be a top 10% recruiter within a year, check these out:

• First, Break All of the Rules – What the World’s Best Managers Do Differently by Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman. The basic premise is if you want to hire and retain top people, you must clarify expectations and then hire people who want to do this work.
• The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Steven Covey. This is a must-read classic. The seven habits represent the traits of top achievers.
• SPIN Selling by Neil Rackham. This is the bible for solution selling and great recruiting.
• Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ by Daniel Golemen. You’ll become an expert on understanding team skills after reading this book.
• Fortune magazine just ran (June 2006) a great series on teams. Every article is strong, especially the one about the Wharton MBA who joined the Marine Corps. Team skills are the hardest to measure during an interview. They won’t be after reading these articles. You’ll also be able to use this stuff to defend your good candidates from poor interviewers.
• Harvard Business Review on Hiring the Right Leaders (May 2006). The authors describe why 30-50% of CEOs hired from the outside don’t make it. The conclusion: The hiring team didn’t match real job needs with the person’s abilities and interests. It offers more proof about why you need to define job needs up front.

The stage has been set. The key to minimizing hiring mistakes and opening the pool to more top people is to get your hiring managers to clarify expectations by defining real job needs. I refer to these types of job descriptions as “performance profiles”. The reference materials noted above will give you the confidence and evidence needed to 1) prove the case that traditional skills and experience-based job descriptions are useless, and 2) get the time you need with your clients to prepare a performance profile.

What Are Performance Profiles?

A performance profile describes the six to eight performance objectives a person taking the job needs to do to be successful. It differs from a job description in that it doesn’t describe skills or traits, but rather what the person needs to accomplish with his or her skills and traits. For example, instead of saying the person must have five years of accounting experience and be a CPA, it’s clearer to say “Complete the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley reporting requirements by Q2.” Once the list of performance objectives is developed, the hiring team should review and prioritize these objectives. This way, consensus is reached on job needs before the search process begins. Clarifying expectations up front not only increases assessment accuracy, but if the expectations are compelling enough they’re also the major reason why top people select one job over another. Compensation also becomes less important if the job is a great fit and good career move. Using the 2-question performance-based interview, you’ll be able to quickly determine how competent and motivated the person is to meet these performance objectives. After the candidates have been interviewed, consensus will also be easier to reach since everyone is using the same benchmark and assessment tools to evaluate them. Use the following steps and questions as a guide to preparing a performance profile with the hiring team.

Introduce the Concept of Performance Profiles

Start the conversation with the hiring manager by reading the paragraph above defining performance profiles and throwing in a few quotes from the books and articles. Then, suggest that it’s better to first describe the job, rather than the person taking the job. If a personal trait (like motivation or degree or whatever) is mentioned, restate that this is a personal attribute, not a performance objective, and for now let’s put the person in the parking lot. This helps reinforce the idea that the job and the personal skills and traits are different – and that confusing the two is the cause of most hiring mistakes. To start preparing performance profiles, first determine the top two to three major performance objectives. Ideally, the hiring manager and members of the hiring team are together when you ask these questions. It will be easier to reach consensus on real job needs if everyone who has a vote is involved in the initial discussion. The recruiter should lead the conversation by asking these questions. Collectively, they’ll help you uncover the most important part of the job and those factors that drive success.

• What are the one or two major accomplishments a strong person in this role should achieve over the course of 6-12 months? (Use a shorter time frame if appropriate.)
• Are there any big challenges or problems that need to be addressed?
• What needs to be improved or changed? How will you know this has been accomplished? How long would it take to accomplish?
• What are two to three other big things that a top person in this job would do on a regular basis?
• What would a top person need to do first in the first 30-60 days to get started on hitting these objectives? These are subtasks that would give you a clue the person is moving in the right direction.
• What do the best people do differently than the average person doing the same job?
• What’s the environment like? (Consider pace, how decisions are made, resources, culture, level of sophistication, infrastructure, and the hiring manager’s style.)
• Why would a top person want this job?
• Why is this job better than competing jobs?
• What will the person learn, do, and become as a result of taking this job?
• Does this job tie into some major company initiative?
• What are the critical technical skills required for job success? Once you have these, ask “What does a person need to do with these skills?” Then, ask if the manager would see someone from you who could do this type of work, but had less experience than specified on the job description. (This is a great way to switch a skill into a performance objective.)
• From the above, what are the most important performance objectives? Select the top six to eight and put them in priority order.

I would suggest that before you ask these questions, you develop some rough answers first. To get these, you might want to talk to some of the best people you’ve already placed in this type of job and get them to help you put together a preliminary performance profile. Just as the meeting is about to end ask, “If I can show you candidates who can do this type of work extremely well, would you see them from me even if they didn’t have all of the skills and experiences described in the original job description?” As long as they say “yes,” you can end the meeting. If they say “no,” start the meeting over again. Here’s what you’ve accomplished with this exercise:

• Demonstrated your confidence and job knowledge.
• Become a true partner in a cross-functional team.
• Switched the decision criteria for hiring a person from skills and experiences to performance.
• Started training managers on how to more accurately assess the candidates you will present.
• Increased the chance that you’ll be able to find more top people, since you’ll have a more compelling opportunity to discuss.
• Increased the likelihood that you’ll be able to recruit and close candidates on career opportunity rather than compensation, since you have something tangible to offer.

Collectively, this is a remarkable outcome. Why don’t you try it when you take your next search assignment?

For example: The “I Know People Who Are Highly Successful Without a Degree” Argument

• As pointed out by one reader, if education is unimportant, why do you suppose smart and successful folks like Gates, Dell, and others insist that their new employees are educated? Education does not make someone successful, but neither does self-imposed ignorance.
• How much do you think the explosive growth of computers contributed to Gates’s and Dell’s company success? Would they have been as successful starting a business in, say, aluminum siding?
• There are exceptions to every rule; that’s why they are called exceptions.

The “Recruiting Is An Art, As Well As a Serious Profession” Argument

• This is a complete oxymoron. A serious profession keeps up with the latest research in the field. It does not depend on short workshops and personal experience. We can learn much from past mistakes and experience of experts.
• Can anyone please explain why some of the most vocal people in this field insist on defending 50 years of error-prone hiring practices based on job descriptions and interviews? Even the greenest recruiter knows they are sorry tools.
• I cannot wait to find a list of serious professions that totally dismiss the value of education.

The “You’re Wrong Because You Have Never Done It” Argument

• Think about it. This argument places each person squarely in the world of “I’m the center of my own universe; therefore, if I never heard of it, it must be wrong.” Maybe we should all agree that because most of us never actually studied infectious diseases, doctors who recommend hand-washing must be wrong.
• No two people have identical job histories. Mine includes being a hiring manager, trainer, and psychometrician. This may be different from someone else’s background, but we both share the same problem: separating good applicants from the poor ones. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like a wise person learns something by examining all points of view.

Now, About the Competency Thing

No one should be surprised when I say that describing human behavior is a Tower of Babel. Everyone has his or her own personal definition – even within a single organization. This leads to the wrong job requirements, hiring the wrong people, rejecting the right ones, value-less workshops, and confusing performance expectations. The symptoms of Babel can be seen in every job order where the recruiter and hiring manager think they have a clear understanding about job requirements, but change from one candidate to the next. The symptoms can be seen in cases where a candidate looks promising but fails after a few months on the job. They can be seen when a recruiter defaults to a strategy of comparing one candidate against another, instead of to job requirements. Lastly, symptoms can be seen in the persistence of the wrong-headed belief that interviews are not tests, even though they are used to screen applicants. I wrote several articles about competencies in 2002. The competencies are the same today.

Specifically, the word “competence” is derived from the Latin word “competere” meaning “suitable.” Merriam-Webster defines competence as “having requisite or adequate ability or qualities.” The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as “the ability to do something to a level that is acceptable.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines competence as “properly or sufficiently qualified; capable.” So, what definition is more useful? Defining competencies as a beginning or end-state? Here is an excerpt from what one company calls a “fully-researched, scaled, and validated behavioral and functional competency model.”

Achievement Orientation: Sets highly challenging, but attainable, goals for own organizational area; assesses group performance against goals and identifies areas for improvement; improves inefficient/ineffective work processes; uses positive motivational approaches tailored to diverse individuals and groups to help staff improve performance and maximize results achieved; and, encourages responsible risk-taking to achieve high-quality results.

What’s right with this model? It lets the subordinate know there are certain expectations for the job. It sounds good. What’s wrong with this model? It is confounded with multiple expectations. Objectives are exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to attribute to a specific job holder. It is subject to innumerable forces that either help or hinder accomplishment. And, it tells you little, if anything, about what skills to look for in an applicant. Furthermore, the terms “fully researched,” “scaled,” and “validated” will probably mislead clients into unrealistic expectations. It is the kind of competency model that will initially be celebrated, but will lose credibility within a few years because of its complexity. Now consider this model from another source.

Effectively organizes others: Evaluates processes and results, and makes appropriate adjustments to the plan; sets, communicates, and monitors priorities for activities; ensures that systems are in place to effectively monitor and evaluate progress.

What’s right with this model? It is much clearer. Since is it relatively pure, it can be used to evaluate an applicant’s planning and organizing skills easily, it can transfer from job to job, it is somewhat trainable, it can be easily adapted to a variety of jobs, and it is a precursor to a wide range of job-performance standards. What’s wrong with this model? Managers may think it is too simplistic and it may be harder to sell because it is not filled with buzzwords.

The Luddites

About 200 years ago, unskilled textile workers felt their jobs were threatened by automated machinery. Its supposed leader, Ned Ludd, organized groups of workers to break into factories and destroy machines that made stockings. Unprepared or frustrated folks are almost always threatened by new technology. So, it is not unusual to read so many strong reactions from people determined to defend the only way of recruiting they know. The job is difficult, and if done well, it is even more challenging. But that is the job. And any job worth doing is worth doing well. As I said earlier, education may not be the whole answer, but I am pretty sure that self-imposed ignorance is a lot worse.

INHOIABIDKAIIMBW

Although some authors may not be aware, there are approximately 6,000 members of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology and 235 graduate schools that read and conduct research on best hiring practices. In addition, there are hundreds of independent organizations staffed by I/O psychologists working in this field throughout the world (including the U.S. Department of Labor and the EEOC). All of these folks agree on a few facts about selection and placement:

• It should be based on a professionally conducted job analysis to identify competencies associated with job performance (i.e., ones based on job requirements and business necessity). The careful reader might notice that there are few or no references to job descriptions, top-grading, or reliance on company-wide competencies developed by the HR department.
• It should only use tools that have been shown through professional studies to actually predict job performance. Criterion-, construct-, or content-related validity studies are recommended. Again, the astute reader might notice that the exclusive use of interviews is left unmentioned.
• Any impact on protected groups should be consistently monitored and new tools evaluated for less-adverse impact.

Every reader and recruiting author can read these guidelines for themselves. Nasty-Grams Every time we have the audacity to recommend best practices, we get a slew of Nasty-Grams that go something like this, “You are a foolish person, your Grandma has excess facial hair, and you are politically incorrect!” Other comments are actually wrong-headed:

• Because they are supported by the American Psychological Association, the guidelines are only intended for the mentally ill.
• The guidelines are not actually laws, so we don’t have to follow them. (Although, this is technically correct, I find it a strange argument for not following best practices.)
• Few organizations get sued because they ignore the guidelines.
• The only time to follow the guidelines is when minorities are affected.
• If I follow the guidelines, I’ll end up with clones who all look alike.
• And, my all-time favorite: You are only pushing a sales agenda.

Which part of “best practices” don’t these folks get? Read a Decent Book As for hiring literature: It represents years of controlled hiring studies; each published article is reviewed by a panel of peer experts; and it is good enough to be accepted into the mainstream of academic knowledge. We can learn much from this research, for example:

• Interviewing a broad range of jobholders and managers to fully understand job requirements is better than reading a job description prepared by HR.
• Although there is an entire world of academic hiring research freely available to anyone interested in reading it, many in the recruiting profession treat it like day-old sushi.
• Unresearched personal opinion represents irresponsible advice.
• Hiring is not a learn-as-you-earn occupation any more than is medicine, law, criminal investigation, or accounting.
• Regardless of what some folks personally believe, interviews are tests. What else would a reasonable person call a desire to measure specific job skills, asking questions, and scoring answers?
• Ignoring the impact of best-hiring practices on an organization is akin to refusing to believe in the laws of physics.

How can anyone argue that job descriptions and interviews are the most accurate hiring and placement tools when the majority of applicants readily admit they will say or do anything to get a job?

If Not Competencies, Then What? The big deal about competencies is that they (if carefully crafted and truly understood) form the foundation for hiring, training, and managing.

• Competencies are building blocks of performing a job. For example, what is more trustworthy: testing a bus driver’s eyesight, operator skills, reaction speed, aggressiveness, and driving ability (building blocks); or looking exclusively at accident records (job descriptions)? Building blocks tend to be basic and straightforward (like physical skills), while job descriptions tend to be complicated and involved (like accident records).
• Regardless of arguments to the contrary, competencies always precede performance, just as being able to see oncoming cars helps avoid driving accidents.
• Competencies precede outcomes, not the other way around. Can we tell more about how a player performs by watching a game, or by only knowing the statistics?
• Competencies fail when they are ill-designed; that is, when someone either uses them to describe outcomes or they are applied company-wide across all jobs. Competency-based systems succeed when they are job-explicit.
• Competencies also only succeed when they can be identified and evaluated in a trustworthy and consistent manner.
• Competency-based hiring does not minimize diversity of people; however, it does minimize diversity of job performance. Why? Because it is not based on personal opinion.

Concluding Comments

• Stop believing personal-opinion nonsense; it will only lead to bad hires and bad treatment of qualified candidates.
• Doing recruiting differently is often uncomfortable and actively resisted.
• Go to the library and study any good book on personnel psychology.
• Stop looking for confirmation that job descriptions and interviews are the best way to select candidates. They are as elusive as the magic “eat-all-you-want” diet pill.
• Want to hire better people? Gather the courage to meticulously follow up on every skill. For example, if the job needs planning, and the candidate says he can plan, then follow up to verify that he can plan.
• I’ll grant that professional recruiters usually do a better job sourcing candidates; but, has anyone ever wondered why professionals are often afflicted with the same turnover and productivity problems as the companies they serve?
• Poor hiring practices are expensive! Experts usually estimate that 20-50% of annual payroll can be traced to hiring unskilled people, e.g., ones with the wrong job competencies.
• Who among us wants to admit being even partially responsible for losing millions of dollars each year?

As advisors to a number of leading organizations, it is safe to say that we have seen multiple implementations of nearly every recruiting model and tool available not just in the United States, but abroad as well. That scope of access lends one an insane ability to look at an organization, its characteristics and people, and within seconds assess the probability of success or failure at adopting a new tool or model. For more than nine years, we have observed as organization after organization implemented competency profiling relative to training and development, recruitment, retention, and workforce planning efforts (including succession planning). Early adopters included the throng of U.S.-based industrial giants, most of whom employed hundreds of organizational psychologists. Since then, competency profiling has been deployed in nearly every type of organization, from small high-technology start-ups, to federal, state, and local governments. What has been amazing is that nearly every implementation has followed the exact same path.

What Is a Competency-Based Approach?

Using the language of those who earn their living selling and marketing competency-based solutions, a competency-based recruiting approach relies on using a series of assessment tools that identify not only the technical skills a candidate possesses, but his behavioral competencies as well. A competency is often defined as “an underlying, deep, and enduring personal characteristic of an individual that predicts behavior in a wide variety of situations and results in effective or superior performance.” The approach relies on building complex job profiles that look at the responsibilities and activities of the job and the competencies required to accomplish them. The detailed process looks like this:

1. Define organizational culture
2. Define essential job activities and responsibilities.
3. Define technical competencies and skills required.
4. Define behavioral competencies.
5. Define competencies and behavioral indicators.

This approach is intended to take candidate assessment out of the realm of subjective evaluation and place it squarely under the realm of science, providing organizations with a consistent process and common language with which to assess talent.

If It Works, Why Do So Many Organizations Abandon Their Implementations?

Earlier, we mentioned that nearly every implementation has followed the exact same path. Those of you who have gone down the competency road probably guessed immediately what that path was, but for those of you who have yet to learn your lesson, that path includes internal evangelism, adoption, implementation, confusion, defense, defense, relative clarity, abandonment! That’s right, almost every major competency project we have witnessed has ended in failure, usually right around the three-year mark. For some large organizations the decision to abandon their approach came after investing millions of dollars in new tools, training, job assessment, and technology to power the new model. For one Fortune 500 organization, the 31-month price tag totaled more than $18.6 million. So why, you may ask, do so many implementations fail? The answer to that is long and complicated, but the short of it is that most implementations are nothing more than extremely expensive processes that ensure maintenance of the status quo.

Four Primary Drivers of Failure

Prior to deciding to write this article, Master Burnett and I discussed what we have observed as well as what others in our position have observed. What became clear during the course of this discussion is that most implementations have the following three characteristics that drive failure. Each of these is discussed briefly in the following paragraphs:

• A process that does not re-evaluate how work is broken down into specific jobs to ensure that the bundling of activities is consistent with the available workforce
• A job analysis process that is reliant upon observing incumbents to determine past success characteristics
• A guiding perspective that considers time sensitive team dynamics such as leadership personality, economic conditions, new technologies, and geography irrelevant

Just Because Work Has Always Been Broken Down a Certain Way, That Doesn’t Mean It’s the Right Way!

One of the most irritating elements that we witness during the development and implementation of competencies is that no one ever asks if the way work is broken down into specific jobs is relevant, according to current labor market conditions. New technologies, as well as variations in the supply of labor that impact labor costs, should impact how work is delegated. In the past, it may have made sense to hire a labor generalist that had enough depth in a variety of technical skills to carry out a bundle of activities, but that doesn’t mean that approach will always be the right one. For example, let’s look at financial auditors. Historically, auditors were charged with identifying and procuring information needed, analyzing that information for breaks in patterns, documenting errors, and writing reports. The typical educational profile for an auditor emphasizes the financial analysis skills required, yet one of the job activities requires both personal and written communication skills. A competency profile developed against this traditional job would dictate that strong written communication skills are essential to success irrespective of the current labor market. Financial analysis is an activity that can be accomplished much more quickly using specialists, which are in far greater supply if you remove the language component. Splitting this job could allow the actual analysis to be outsourced offshore, and the use of English-language specialists to document and write all reports ó a combination which would increase quality, decrease cost, and increase volume. While redistributing work may not always be required, the question should at the very least get asked!

Historical Job Analysis

This element is perhaps the most comical. Every vendor of competency-based solutions states that job analysis is conducted against the position itself, not people. However, in reality, the process requires that you look at top performing incumbents to map their behavioral profiles. That’s pretty much where the process stops. Several assumptions are made, including:

• That the top-performing incumbents previously hired possess the right skills and competencies possible. (What if you haven’t hired the best talent to do the job?)
• That because this profile has worked in the past, it will work in the future.
• The present skills and behaviors that map to success are not influenced by team dynamics. (If dynamics were to change, would the top-performer profile change?)

The world is changing at a phenomenal pace, and how we accomplish work is changing just as quickly. Most competency-mapping methodologies rely on job analysis processes that are historically oriented and time consuming. On average it takes 90 days to complete a profile for a single job family. It’s quite possible the job could have changed significantly in the time it takes just to create the profile!

Irrelevant dynamics

A friend recently started a diet plan that is managed by a bariatric physician ó a diet doctor. At the consultation, the doctor placed her on a 1,200-calorie diet, the same diet he prescribes to everyone. He didn’t ask anything about day-to-day activities, exercise routine, etc. Upon hearing this I told her the doctor was a quack and she should seek a second opinion. Since the doctor was a board-certified diet doctor, she opted instead to follow his advice. Weeks later, her hair was falling out, her thyroid was out of control, and she could not stand without getting dizzy — not a good combination for a massage therapist who runs six miles a day and works with free weights for an hour, four days a week! What this doctor did is similar to what most competency projects do. He ignored the dynamics of the situation. On-the-job performance is impacted by a number of factors, including:

• The relationship of an employee with his or her managers and peers
• The economy
• The work environment
• Family events

To assume that a profile will be consistent across a job family is to assume that employees operate in a vacuum controlled environment; something we all know is not the case. I am sure every organization can find at least one example of a top-performing sales professional whose performance declined following the introduction of a new sales manager. Did that top performing sales professional’s competency profile change, or did the dynamics change?

Conclusion

One should never say that’ll never work, and that is not what we are saying here. Failure is a phenomenal educator, so if we learn from past mistakes, maybe we can craft a better solution in the future. Lots of organizations have tried competencies; lots of organizations have failed. This article has outlined three possible causes of failure that, hopefully, those of you who are using or are considering using competencies will take into consideration. One additional element that could have been added is that most employers and managers perceive the systems developed using competencies to be no less subjective or more clear than previous systems, so don’t rely on that as your sole defense.