What's the "AHA!" REPORT all about?

This series of newsletters contains AHA! information to help people and organizations hire the best employees, make the best promotion decisions, retain the most qualified people, maintain the widest applicant pool, follow best practices, and (if you are subject to US law) remain aware of EEOC hot-spots.

In the News
Library
ERE articles
Media Kit

On the subject of making things easier, I’m reminded of a piece I wrote a while back about hiring managers who do exactly the opposite, on purpose. They make their selection process as difficult as possible with misguided hopes of reducing turnover. The practice is a silly one, not to say counterproductive or even dangerous. The argument goes roughly like this:

To reduce high staff turnover, be a highly selective employer!

Do a phone screen interview; have applicants write an essay; lecture the applicant about your selectivity; look for "good attitude" and good communication skills; authorize a background check, a reference check, and a behavioral and integrity test; conduct a drug test and health records check; do a group interview and observe applicant behavior; give applicants problem solving tests; evaluate applicant leadership; conduct a peer behavioral interview; and interview the spouse. This process will send a very strong message that applicants have to be good to work for your company.

This might sound good, but its pure nonsense. First, "difficult hiring" is seldom the solution to turnover. Second, the only strong message this kind of selection process will send to applicants is that this company is like all the rest.

Common sense tells us we cannot reduce turnover until we know its cause. Is it bad leadership, poor salary, lack of training, insufficient skills, bad working conditions, economic factors, or a poor benefits package? After – and only after – the employer has discovered the root cause of turnover, and if it really is due to a lack of employee skills and motivations, then they should 1) identify which competencies are critical and which are not, 2) find tools that will measure each competency, and 3) validate each tool (i.e., be sure it works) before using it. Everything else is silly.

Point by Point
Let's look at the “obstacle course” process from above point by point:

• "Do a phone screen interview." Screen what? If you don’t know what you’re looking for, what should you ask?
• "Have applicants write an essay." Is writing a job requirement? What topic? Is there a uniform scoring guide?
• "Lecture the applicant." Yes, be sure to talk more than listen. I am sure applicants will be impressed by your difficult, yet obscure, hiring methodology.
• "Look for 'good attitude' and good communication skills." Who hires applicants with bad attitudes or poor communication skills?
• "Authorize a background check and reference check" About what? On what authority? What does this have to do with the job?
• "Give a behavioral and integrity test." Is this part of the job? Behavioral and integrity tests are “iffy” in some states.
• "Conduct a drug test and health records check." Better consult a lawyer first!
• "Do a group interview and observe applicant behavior." What questions should be asked? What and how should you observe?
• "Give applicants problem solving tests." What kind of problems? What kind of tests? Will there be adverse impact?
• "Evaluate applicant leadership." Is every employee really supposed to be a leader?
• "Conduct a peer behavioral interview." What competencies should be investigated?
• "Interview the spouse." Why? Is the spouse going to be hired, too?

I’m not saying that employers shouldn’t test candidates – that’s my livelihood! The best way to make decisions is to know as much as possible about the candidate before hiring. But, all screening must be done for a reason, backed by understanding, conducted according to a sensible methodology, and specifically validated for the job in question.

This field is so deep that more than 225 universities offer graduate courses in it. And, after graduation it still takes several years and hundreds of hands-on applications to really learn what one is doing. Best practices – such as those outlined by the Uniform Guidelines and the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing – are highly developed, and they work. Given all this, the attitude that “we don’t really need to know what we’re looking for, therefore any test or question should work” is worse than useless.