The complete guide on how to use stay interviews to improve retention
Many firms use exit interviews to find out why employees are leaving their jobs. Unfortunately, asking an employee on their last day “why are you leaving?” doesn’t provide useful information in time to prevent the turnover. A superior approach that I’ve been recommending for over 20 years is a “stay interview.” I alternatively call it a “pre-exit interview,” because it occurs before there is any hint that an employee is about to exit the firm. A stay interview helps you understand why employees stay, so that those important factors can be reinforced.
Definition: A “stay interview” is a periodic one-on-one structured retention interview between a manager and a highly valued “at-risk-of-leaving employee” that identifies and then reinforces the factors that drive an employee to stay. It also identifies and minimizes any “triggers” that might cause them to consider quitting.
The Many Benefits of Why-do-You-Stay? Interviews keep reading…
How much recruiting can be done virtually rather than face-to-face? Video interviewing, online simulations, talent communities, and the use of tools such as Twitter or Snapchat are heatedly debated for their value versus a face-to-face encounter. Is one way better than another?
What’s the real story? Can a recruiter effectively recruit top-quality people from entry level to mid and senior levels without any in-person interaction? keep reading…
HireVue’s $25 million investment announced this morning comes from the legendary VC firm, Sequoia Capital, and earlier investors in the video interview firm. But in a larger sense, the credit goes to broadband Internet, without which, candidates would still be traveling to in-person interviews and companies would be spending tens of thousands and more on recruiting travel.
It wasn’t that long ago that a company with a strong, but remote prospect, had two choices: Fly the candidate in; or, arrange for a video interview at a business center. Today, thanks to the ready availability of high-speed Internet service in most urban, and many rural areas, employers are saving real money and time.
Perhaps even more importantly, video interviewing expanded the field of potential candidates beyond the geographical limits imposed by budgets or candidate unavailability. Candidates who might have once had to forgo an opportunity because of work or family situations can now interview from their living room. keep reading…
Many business leaders take a gut instinct approach to selecting talent. This means they know in their gut what they want their candidates to look like, but don’t take the time to fully develop a profile of the ideal person into a measurable description. Even if the ideal candidate is described in a job posting or a job description, it is often vague and lacks clear direction. In a recent exercise with a group of business owners and executives, we explored some of the qualities they looked for in candidates. I made two distinct observations and came to one conclusion. keep reading…
You know what they say: The resume may get you the interview, but it’s the interview that will get you the job.
And nowhere is that interview tougher than at McKinsey & Company. The big-time consulting company ranked first on Glassdoor’s annual list of the companies with the toughest interviews. It’s the third consecutive time for the company, which is one of those “distinctions” you aren’t going to see mentioned on the company careers site.
But no reason not to crow a little about that. Even the many who flunked the interview rated it a positive experience, which is a lot more (like more than two times the percentage) of those who thought the Paycom interview not only tough, but a real downer. More than half the candidates — many who didn’t get an offer, but some who did — rated the interview experience at HR tech firm as a negative. keep reading…
Rather than make sure all interviewees are on the same page with the company, Adi Bittan, a startup co-founder & CEO, actually wants to see how they disagree.
Yes, Bittan, CEO of a company called Owner Listens, deliberately puts candidates in a position where they’re at odds with someone, just to see how they handle it.
Bittan and I talk about this in the video below. We also tackle why Silicon Valley seems to hire the young, and why she is more open to older workers.
Lastly, we talk about something she feels is a misperception about working parents. It’s about 11 minutes long, below. keep reading…
In Part 1, I explained that job skills walk around on two feet; past achievements are less important than the skills used to accomplish them; employers rent two-legged skills to do specific jobs; and headhunters produce about the same hiring quality as internal recruiters. I suggested readers Google “Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures”and follow the SIOP.org link; and, read how applicants feel about organizations that follow best-practices.
In Part 2, I’ll continue the discussion.
If you want to learn whether HR is doing a good job screening candidates for critical job skills, ask the hiring manager. keep reading…
Two comedians are talking…
“Do you test applicants?”
“We don’t use tests.”
“Oh. You hire everyone who applies?”
“No … just the ones who pass interviews.”
“You know, interviews are tests.”
“We don’t use tests.”
You see, it’s a crazy conversation you hear in the corporate attorney’s office as often as the HR department. Everyone seems to forget that testing and assessment are just different terms for evaluating whether someone is job-qualified … like interviews. And, if an organization has more than one candidate lined up for a job, by definition they will use some kind test to separate those they think can do the job from those who cannot. FYI … research shows everyone’s favorite tool, the interview (aka test), tends to discriminate against minorities.
Remember: If you have more candidates than jobs, you use tests. keep reading…
Ask a roomful of recruiters if hiring managers can occasionally drive them a bit batty, and hands rise faster than you say black hole.
You know the drill: managers who are unresponsive, unprepared, waste time, and don’t get back to candidates. Or, those who ask illegal questions, or just cringe-worthy ones. Tell me about yourself!
Or they say this: “I need to see 137 more resumes!”
Recruiting Toolbox’s Carmen Hudson, speaking at the ERE conference here in Chicago, gave recruiting leaders some advice on improving the manager/recruiter relationship.
Her suggestions: keep reading…
For today’s roundup we tackle two important subjects: The behavioral interview, and thinking inside the box.
Indeed you read that correctly. We go inside the box with Ikea to assemble a team of sales associates, warehouse workers, cashiers, oh, shoot, the entire collection of workers it takes to make one of those gigantic blue and yellow warehouse cum showrooms operate.
But as that is actually instructional, we’ll start off with interviews. keep reading…
Hiring is like meeting a new guy or girl you like for the first time. This wonderful person walks into your office and the two of you make a perfect connection right off the bat. You like the other person’s vibe, how the person looks, and he or she seems to fit all your necessary requirements. You know how many business owners and hiring managers say, “I just really like the candidate, I think he (or she) will do great!” (I am pretty sure you have all either said or heard someone say something exactly like this before.)
In relationships, it’s called the infatuation stage; in hiring, I call it the hiring by gut stage. keep reading…
Mark Murphy wrote a terrific book on interviewing for attitude, which I highly recommend (also see this interview). His company, Leadership IQ, conducted an impressive survey discovering that 46 percent of new hires failed within 18 months, and that 89 percent of the time it was for attitude, not a lack of technical skills.
Interviewing for attitude presents a dilemma: Most people are on their best behavior when interviewing and even during their first 6-12 months of employment.
You may not realize you have a problem on your hands until the new hire has been trained and is a fully functioning part of your team. Knowing you’ll have to begin the selection process all over again — a long and costly procedure — makes it harder to part with the employee. Meanwhile, the good-natured people on the team have to pick up the slack, putting strain on your best people and leading to harmful side effects. Burnout, discontent with management, and customer service deficiencies are likely to develop.
Since this is a major problem in many organizations, guerrilla tactics are needed. keep reading…
News flash: Men, it isn’t just your feet that bad shoes are killing. Who knew that choosing your shoes unwisely could kill your chance at getting a great job?
Before I get into the sole of this post, please know this is serious stuff to Allen Edmonds, maker of men’s business and casual shoes. How many other shoe companies do you know would commission a survey of 1,037 working men and women on the subject of professionalism in footwear?
The company must have broken down the respondents into hiring managers, and young male execs, since one of the key findings was that 80 percent of the managers consider the shoes worn to an interview to be “extremely important.” keep reading…
You’ve probably had it happen to you at the start of an interview. You extend your hand and in return you get a wimpy handshake, a “fist-bump” substitute, or a wet clammy handshake that is an intermediate turnoff. Although weak hiring handshakes are quite common, to most they may seem like an insignificant part of interviewing. But everyone involved in the hiring process needs to take notice and be aware of the high negative business impact of handshake bias.
Assessing a candidate based on their handshake is a major problem because we know that many interviewers make an initial decision on a candidate within the first two to three minutes, and we know that the handshake and their appearance are the two most powerful elements that contribute to that powerful first impression. The fact that assessing handshakes is a major hiring decision factor is not just conjecture; research from Greg Stewart of the University of Iowa demonstrated that those with the best handshake scores “were considered to be the most hireable by the interviewers.” Handshakes also proved to be more impactful than “dress or physical appearance.”
Handshakes become a high-impact problem because handshakes occur in every interview, and a single bad handshake can immediately eliminate a top candidate, especially in entry-level jobs. You should also be aware that handshakes with women candidates leave a bigger impression and have their own unique set of biases. No one has ever been sued over handshake bias but the loss of top candidates as a result of it is real. keep reading…
Recruiting is full of practices that seem to last forever. Unfortunately, many practices endure for years despite the fact that they add no value to the hiring process. I call these well-established practices “sacred cows” because many lon-gtime recruiters and hiring managers vigorously defend them even though both company and academic data shows that they should be discarded.
The need to identify and then kill these sacred cows was reinforced recently by some compelling research data revealed by Google’s head of HR, Laszlo Bock. For example, extensive data from Google demonstrated that five extremely common recruiting practices (brainteaser interview questions, unstructured interviews, student GPAs or test scores, and conducting more than four interviews) all had zero or minimal value for successfully predicting the on-the-job performance of candidates. But despite this hard data, practices like brainteaser interview questions will likely continue for years.
Recruiting Has a Long, Checkered History of Silliness keep reading…
The world hates change, yet it is the only thing that has brought progress. — Charles Kettering
There has been a lot written lately about “cultural fit.” In fact, you could say that cultural fit is the latest rage in talent acquisition.
In an article in the American Sociological Review, Northwestern Professor Lauren Rivera concludes that companies are making hiring decisions today “in a manner more closely resembling the choice of friends or romantic partners.”
The 4 Most-asked Interview Questions keep reading…
You may have suspected that those peculiar interview brainteasers made famous by Google, Microsoft, and enough other companies that Glassdoor is able to come up with an annual list of 25 were, well, a waste of time.
You were right. And no less an authority than Google’s own Laszlo Bock says so. He’s Google’s senior vice president of people operations and in a New York Times interview he bluntly calls “a complete waste of time.” “They don’t predict anything,” he told The Times. “They serve primarily to make the interviewer feel smart.”
So the Google question that made this year’s Glassdoor list — “How many cows are there in Canada?” — has no probative value when determining whether the person being interviewed can do the job. Another of Bock’s frank admissions is that college grades and test scores have almost no correlation to future job performance. No longer does Google ask for college transcripts, except for brand new college grads. For everyone else, Bock told The Times, “We found that they don’t predict anything.” keep reading…
The vast majority of job interview advice is directed at interviewees. We all know, however, that it takes two to tango. Both parties are important. Despite that self-evident principle, interviewers are relatively neglected, and that neglect can by no means be attributed to the great skills they universally employ.
It’s equally obvious that every organization has an interest in making every interview as productive as possible. There are obstacles, however. One difficulty is that there are few reliable guidelines, especially if reliability entails the correlation of interview variables with job performance. Sometimes, that difficulty becomes an excuse: Since the interview is more art than science, we may as well accept its imperfections and settle for a “good-enough” result.
Instead of giving in to that state of mind, it’s at least worth remembering some of the basic principles that help the interviewer do a better job. keep reading…
During a trip to a suburban mall near Cleveland, I saw a man wearing a jacket with a logo for Hyland Software, a business-to-business software developer whose global headquarters are located nearby. In the B2B world, Hyland has a reputation of being a stellar employer with a fun streak. As evidence, it has a giant tube slide in the middle of its headquarters and has earned several top workplace awards in recent years.
Hyland also has a quirk in its interview process. Candidates applying online are required to write and submit a poem. Not an essay, not a biography — a poem. How does that strike you? keep reading…
“Death by interview” is the harsh but unfortunately all-too accurate name that I give to the majority of corporate interview processes because of the way that they literally abuse candidates.
Death by interview is worth closer examination because harsh treatment during interviews impacts almost every working American, simply because each one of us is subjected to many interviews during our lifetime.
The hiring interview shares a love/hate status, where even though applicants initially hope to be granted an interview, once they are finally notified, they almost universally undergo a wave of stress and painful memories that causes them to stop looking forward to them.
“Death by interview” is the term used to describe the drawn out pain that job applicants suffer as a result of requiring an excessive number of interviews, repeating the same questions across multiple interviews. and the unnecessary uncertainty that is part of most interview processes.
Death by Interview Component No. 1 — An Excessive Number of Interviews keep reading…