Perfect Labor Storm 2.0

Is Your Email Address Sabotaging Your Career?

When it comes to hiring, employers and candidates insist that first impressions still matter.  But apparently the brain hasn’t gotten the message when the lips are moving and fingers are typing.  Quite a few candidates are doing some pretty stupid things these days regarding finding a job.

Let’s start with what is the possibly the very first point of contact between a candidate and a company – the email address. The just released HR Magazine (May 2011) included an interesting article about how a cutesy, clever, or freaky email address might create a bad first impression with the employer.  For example, a few of my favorite inappropriate email addresses submitted by candidates applying for jobs at my clients included “[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ... and that’s just scratching the surface.  With high unemployment and employers practicing very selective hiring practices, turning an employer off with a provocative email address might not be the best way to get the hiring manager’s attention.

A recent study took this one step further.  Researchers rated the email addresses of30,000  job seekers applying for entry-level, non management jobs in the U.S. What they found was a potential link between crazy sounding email addresses and low scores on pre-employment tests.

For example:

• Cutesy and inspirational addresses and those with a money them scored slightly lower on pre employments assessment tests.
• Candidates whose addresses were rated inappropriate  scored lower.
• Candidates with appropriate email addresses scored higher in conscientiousness, professionalism, and work-rated experience.

I’m not suggesting – nor did the article – that employers should use email addresses as a screening tool.  But when combined with a pre-employment test assessing a candidate’s honesty, integrity, and work attitudes, the email might trigger greater scrutiny during the interview and subsequent background checks.

The study should prompt candidates to think twice about the email address they attach to the resume  they attach to the job application.

Interviewing Tips for Hiring the RIght CFO

The economy is picking up steam and opportunities for CFOs to hire, as well be recruited by others, seems more likely.  An article posted last week in PC World and CIO offered interviewing tips for and from CFOs to help hire the right person the first time.

Nearly all the CFOs interviewed agreed: they wanted “a highly motivated self-starter not afraid to make an occasional mistake, with a strong commitment to collaboration and being a team player, a willingness to take responsibility for failures and successes, and the ability to keep focused on goals while maintaining passion about their work and the company.”

But wanting, finding, and then confirming those traits and skills requires more skill than ever before on the part of the interviewer. The hiring insights included interviewing tips from quite a few CFOs, recruiters and management experts.  Thanks to Focus, a business research site, I had the opportunity to participate and contribute to this article.  You can read the full article at “Hiring Insights From, and For, CFOs” or continue here to read the highlights.

One of the biggest challenges confronting managers hiring for any position, not only CFO, is that out of work candidates have plenty of time to prepare for the interview, often more than the managers doing the interviewing.  And at the C-Level and senior management levels, nearly every out-of-work exec has had some outplacement counseling which includes … yes, that’s right – interviewing skills training.  Little if any time is invested by hiring manager to update their hiring skills. When it does happen, it’s generally a few minutes here or there or one bullet on the long list of annual HR training updates. That puts many human resource professionals and especially the senior managers interviewing for the new  CFO at a distinct advantage.

In addition, many interviewers tend to do most of the talking.  “A good rule of thumb is that a good interview is 70 percent listening and observing,” was a point I made for the article.  Vibrant Mobile CFO Jeff Babka agreed and offered his own interviewing tip: “I first make sure that they understand the job, the company, our culture and my style. Then, I say, 'Look, tell me what you think I should know about you that would make me want to hire you. Start wherever you want in your life, end up wherever you want….”

Another common mistake is that managers use recommended interview questions as a checklist.  They ask one question and evaluate the candidate’s response. Then they move on to question 2 and repeat the process.  Then comes question 3. When the run out of questions or the candidate stops talking, the interview is over.

But an interview isn’t a test.  It can’t be scripted.  An effective interview should be dynamic.  It’s a conversation where the candidate should be doing most of the talking. “Interviewers have to keep probing….Interviewers tend to stop when they hear the right answer…[when] I'm looking for is to have someone tell me what some of the challenges were during that process, were you able to repeat that, did other departments repeat that success? I can go into an interview with one question and keep asking more questions about that question."

Hiring the right CFO is part science, part art.  Interviewing remains a critical component of hiring for open position. The uptick in hiring is a good sign for our economy but it will put undue pressure on the managers who are doing the hiring. In many situations, the candidate is a much better storyteller than the manager is a listener.  The article on hiring insights for CFOs offers several additional recommendations.  Read the full article here.

55 percent of employers using social networks to check on candidates.

More employers are utilizing social networking sites to screen potential employees. Forty-five percent of employers reported in a recent CareerBuilder survey that they use social networking sites to research job candidates, a big jump from 22 percent last year. Another 11 percent plan to start using social networking sites for screening.

Of those who conduct online searches/background checks of job candidates, 29 percent use Facebook, 26 percent use LinkedIn and 21 percent use MySpace. One-in-ten (11 percent) search blogs while 7 percent follow candidates on Twitter.

 

Why did 35 percent of employers find that caused them to “knock-out” candidates after searching online? The top examples cited include:

• Candidate posted provocative or inappropriate photographs or information - 53 percent
• Candidate posted content about them drinking or using drugs - 44 percent
• Candidate bad-mouthed their previous employer, co-workers or clients - 35 percent
• Candidate showed poor communication skills - 29 percent
• Candidate made discriminatory comments - 26 percent
• Candidate lied about qualifications - 24 percent
• Candidate shared confidential information from previous employer - 20 percent

Fourteen percent of employers have disregarded a candidate because the candidate sent a message using an emoticon such as a smiley face while 16 percent dismissed a candidate for using text language such as GR8 (great) in an e-mail or job application.

On the other hand, 18 percent of employers found online screening helpful and they hired candidates using the information as part of the selection process.

The top examples include:

• Profile provided a good feel for the candidate’s personality and fit - 50 percent
• Profile supported candidate’s professional qualifications - 39 percent
• Candidate was creative - 38 percent
• Candidate showed solid communication skills - 35 percent
• Candidate was well-rounded - 33 percent
• Other people posted good references about the candidate - 19 percent
• Candidate received awards and accolades - 15 percent

 Is it fair and valid to use information found on a social networking site to hire or not hire?  What relevance does what one does on their personal time have to do with ability to perform at work?  What do you think?

What to look for in talent assessment tools?

One of my connections on LinkedIn recommended that I read a blog post about how to evaluate personality assessments. This particular post did a great job of describing succintly and accurately what a business should consider when selecting personality tests. I've summarized and added comments to the post below. To read it in its entirety, you can click on the link below.

Personality assessments on their own can help you hire effectively, manage employees better and implement better organizational development strategies.

The following steps need to be taken care of when selecting a pre-employment assessment test company:

1. Rating scales:

The assessment company providing the tests needs to address the number and type of ratings scales they are using. The more rating scales, the clearer the picture. 

That last statement is particularly important. Our pre-employment (and pre-promotion) tests (Clues, Prevue, and ASSESS) assess candidates on 6 to 20+ scales.  While each of these assessments are accurate in their own right, the more scales the "clearer the picture."  That's why I consider Clues as a screening test - excellent at weeding out the highest-risk candidates - and Prevue and ASSESS as selection tests - highly accurate at evaluating candidates against a very precise benchmark or set of competencies. 

2. Time

Amount of time it takes to take the test. How long?

It all depends on the what is (are) being assessed -

• Team assessments: 30-60 questions. 10-15 minutes (up to 5 scales)

• Pre-screening assessments: 60-120 questions. 20-35 minutes (up to eight scales)

• In-depth pre-employment/screening assessments: Above at least 164 questions. 35 to 90 minutes (up to 12-16 scales)

3. Qualified Test Interpreter

Human behavior – it’s complex.  Many times a business decides to save a few dollars and construct a test on their own. Without validity and reliability research on the predicatability and relevance of the scales, home-grown pre-employment tests may be innaccurate and do more harm than good by screening out qualified candidates or demonstrating bias against minorities.

4, Job Survey

Link everything: from profile data to resume and job description.

Personality alone is not enough to predict future performance.  It is important to analyze a candidate’s past performance and his/her potential to meet future performance expectations. To do this, a manager must understand the current and future job and then match the abilities and competencies of the individual to the criteria.

5. Distortion

An in-depth assessment allows you to understand if someone is trying to “beat the system”. The assessment will have enough variations to sort between “smart impressions” and honest replies. 

In our systems, these scales are called Social Desirability, Good Impression, and Positive Factor.

6. Career Development

Personality tests also help gain important information on a candidate’s inclination toward a particular field.

A personality test can give you an indication of which jobs match the candidate’s personality type and which careers they may have an aptitude for. You do need to remember that the test results are only an indicator and should not be relied on as an absolute assessment of which career is best for the person.

8. Strengths and weaknesses summary. Personality testing is a proven and effective way to create highly functional teams. This starts with a summary of each person’s strengths and weaknesses. Once you know which personality types work best together, you can mix and match your people so that you get the most out of each of them. For every strength a person possesses there is a corresponding weakness. Being assertive is a strength. However, a person can be too assertive and off putting for some people or in some situations.

9. Detailed interview questions. The assessment company you choose should help you create tailored interview questions based on the candidate’s specific personality. The purpose is to probe facets of the personality you need more details on. Many employers are now doing “behavioral interviews”. Rather than focusing on resume and accomplishments alone, use the personality test as a jumping off point to ask open-ended questions that will cause the job candidate to describe real circumstances and their responses to them.

Ask them to describe in detail a particular event, project, or experience and how they dealt with the situation, and what the outcome was. This type of interviewing is the most accurate predictor of future performance.

Read the original post:

What to look for in talent assessment tools and companies?.

 

Overabundance of resumes creates resu-mess

An overabundance of resumes is prompting employers to change the way they review applications and interview candidates. For individuals in search of a new job or career, it is as easy as Copy, Paste, and Submit.

No longer do managers receive a dozen or two resumes mailed or faxed from a single ad in the Sunday classifieds. They are greeted daily with hundreds, even thousands, of emails clogging inboxes from Internet job postings. Cancer Treatment Centers of America Inc. received 19,000 applicants for 100 jobs at a new hospital near Phoenix.  The Palm Beach County School District (FL) received more than 1,000 applications for fewer than 100 driver positions.  A recent posting for a Family Dollar Store New York City store manager drew 700 applications in two days.

But more resumes isn't necessarily better. Few managers, human resource professionals and assistants have the time to screen the applications, call the candidates, do the voice mail dance, complete phone interviews, schedule face-to-face interviews, check references, complete background checks and so on.

It is fair to say that reviewing and processing these resumes is like having eight lanes of traffic exiting onto a two-lane side-street. This translates into a resu-mess bottlenock at the hiring tollgate.

Management is at a crossroads. Business just wasn't as complex as it is today. But many organizations still insist on using the techniques of yester-year to solve today's problems. Candidates hire professional resume writers. They search the Internet for information about your company. They download dozens and dozens of answers to the most common interview questions.

Yet managers are still doing interviews on the fly, relying on gut instinct and an exaggerated resume to make the final hiring decisions. What can an organization do to attract more candidates and simplify the complex process of recruiting and hiring?

Simplify the application process.

To first attract and then actually hire the best talent, making the entire application process as convenient as possible is critical. Prospective employees should be able to fill out an application online 24/7. Immediately upon submitting their resumes, these candidates should be asked to complete an automated online interview.  This screening interview includes job specific filter questions (from as basic as "Are you available to work weekends including Saturdays and Sundays?” or “Have you completed a two-year or four year degree?” to “Describe why you feel you are an effective leader and provide an example”).  You can also pre-qualify by asking skill and competency based questions (“Indicate your proficiency using Microsoft Excel”), allowing candidates to self-qualify or disqualify themselves.  For the hiring manager, this means fewer phone calls to unqualified, unmotivated and uninterested candidates and faster access to the qualified candidates.

A well-designed applicant processing system is like the EZ-Pass of human resources. It can help organizations filter and process résumés quickly and provide a central repository for potential candidates. When the system aligns with business processes, it's possible to identify talent more quickly and reduce hiring time. The net result is that you can snatch talented individuals before your competitors do.

Hiring Managers Miss The Mark 50% of Time

Just a few hours after posting about Hiring Managers Miss The Mark, I received an email from Conrad P. Schmidt, PhD, Chief Research Officer & Executive Director at Recruiting Roundtable.

Dr. Schmidt was kind enough to share a study his organization completed in 2008 about hiring decisions. Unfortunately the results weren't much better than those I reported in my post on March 18.

The Recruiting Roundtable study revealed that both organizations and candidates are guilty of making bad choices, with more than 30% of hiring managers and close to 25% of new hires second-guessing their decision.

In one out of every two hiring decisions, the organization or the candidate made the wrong choice, costing organizations millions in lower performance, lower engagement, and higher turnover. In a typical organization hiring approximately 2,500 hires a year, these poor decisions amount to almost $30 million in additional turnover and underperformance.

Both organizations and candidates are guilty of making these bad choices, with more than 30% of hiring managers and close to 25% of new hires second-guessing their decision.

Only 50% of selection decisions are "win-win"-where both the candidate and the organization made the right choice- resulting in lower performing and less engaged new hires, as well as higher turnover.

In addition, one quarter of new hires admit to being less than honest during the selection decision, and only 30% of hiring managers report they were able to obtain accurate information on candidate skills.

Hiring managers miss red flags; two-thirds regret decisions

Hiring managers are missing red flags when it comes to interviewing candidates.  Nearly two-thirds come to regret their decisions according to a new DDI survey, "Are You Failing the Interview?" The survey studied  the interview habits of both interviewers and interviewees. Their responses led to some interesting findings:

Interviewers often make hasty decisions. Forty-seven percent of interviewers spend less than 30 minutes reviewing a candidate’s interview results with others before making a decision. Just think, in the time it takes you to watch your favorite TV show or have an extra-cheese-and pepperoni pizza delivered to your home, employers are making million-dollar hiring decisions.

One of the biggest issues at play is the lack of training and the heavy reliance on “gut instinct.” Although “informal on-the-job training” (48 percent) is the most common way interviewers have been prepared to conduct interviews, “I use my instinct” (44 percent) was selected by U.S. interviewers as the methodology of choice. All told, 58 percent of interviewers report having either no interviewer skills training or relying on their instincts.

Other key findings from the survey:

• Almost half of all interviewers are not formally trained—and it makes a big difference in their decision-making ability.
• Interviewers think they are doing a better job than they really are.
• Common interviewer techniques turn candidates off.
• Interviewers are increasingly relying on information gathered from social networking sites to make hiring decisions.
• 64% of managers fear they’re missing key information about a candidate
• 30-40% of managers don’t recognize illegal questions

To view the full survey, go to "Are you failing the interview?"