hiring

A reader writes:

I am an office manager in a small (we are talking 5-7 employees) business, and have been for the last 4 years. When I was hired, it was with the understanding that I would be leaving and starting my “career” as soon as I graduated from my master’s degree program (totally unrelated to anything I am doing here). My boss has been more than understanding about this, and we have been really open about it. My graduation is in May, and I plan to phase myself out of this job (ie: hire a replacement and train them) by September. My idea is to hire an admin assistant to help me out with the overwhelming work load while I am still here, and then they would naturally progress into taking my position when the time comes. I would be able to train them etc.

The problem is, my boss has a really difficult personality. Prior to my starting this job, no office manager had ever lasted more than a year, and so far every admin I have hired (over the last year or so) has either quit or been fired due to personality conflicts. They report that he is demanding, has over-the-top expectations, and a lack of professional work behavior (he often walks around just bothering people and saying “GET TO WORK,” despite them being clearly hard at work, and nothing is EVER good enough). My fear is that I am going to hire someone, spend a ton of time training them and then they quit because he is difficult to work for. This pattern has occurred more than once. I don’t want to find myself having to stay at this job (mostly out of guilt) longer than planned because of this issue.

My question to you is, when interviewing for the job position, do I screen for thicker-skinned people or do I just find someone who can do the job and hope that they don’t end up feeling the same way? Do I offer them some kind of warning, or do I just pretend everything is easygoing? Also, before you ask… I have tried to talk to my boss about this, but he says that people are too sensitive and he doesn’t want to lower his expectations. Ugh.

Be straightforward with your candidates. By doing that, you’ll be doing a favor to both the candidates and your boss. Candidates can self-select out if they think they’d be miserable, and hopefully your boss won’t end up with someone who quits after a few months.

Ideally, you’d find a way to talk about your boss’s more difficult traits that’s honest without being disrespectful to him. For instance, you might say, “There are plusses and minuses to this job. Bob’s working style isn’t for everyone. He has very high standards, and he can be demanding — some people say too demanding. He doesn’t give a lot of praise, and if you take this kind of thing personally, it might not be for you.” Ideally you’d also follow that up with what’s good about Bob (assuming there is something) — but paint as full of a picture as you can. There really are people out there who can deal with this kind of thing (you did, after all), especially if they hear it up-front and know what they’d be signing up for.

At the same time, though, be aware that people often put on rosy-colored glasses and hear what they want to hear, especially when they want or need a job. So really pay attention to their reactions. Do they seem to really hear what you’re saying, or are they just rushing in to assure you that it won’t be a problem without having processed what you’ve said or thought it through? Do they seem put off? Pay attention to your gut on this.

Also:  Take a look at why you have a different relationship with your boss than others do.  (At least it sounds like you do; you don’t say you’ve been miserable, and you seem to have a pretty honest relationship with him.) So think about why you were able to last when others weren’t. Is it due to certain personality traits? If so, screen for those in your candidates. Is it due to some particular strategy you used with him? If so, be clear with candidates about what works and what doesn’t work. For instance, I used to work for someone who I had a great relationship with, even though lots of people disliked him. The difference was that I was always candid with him, didn’t get intimidated by him, and knew how to disagree with him without being argumentative, and as a result, we got along fine. The few other people who applied this formula also got along with him. Is there some formula like that that you can pass along?

You can be totally honest about that too — i.e., “I’ve watched other people not click well with him, but I’ve never had many problems. I think it’s because I did X, Y, and Z, so one thing to think about is how naturally that approach comes to you.”

Overall, truth in advertising is key here. You owe it to candidates not to mislead them, and you owe it to your boss to try to find someone who will be a good fit.

But beyond that, what you don’t owe is sticking around longer than you’ve planned because your new hire doesn’t work out. Make your own plans and stick to them, and be up-front when you’re hiring, and you’ll have met your obligations to everyone.

{ 59 comments }

A reader writes:

I’m an HR Director for a manufacturing company. We see a lot of turnover, and I have an open job listing with the Employment Commission in our state. We take applications at our office, as well as a separate location in our city, but have pre-set days that prospective employees can drop off completed applications. Our employment ad states that we will not do interviews when people drop off their apps, and that we will not take any phone calls about job openings.

That being said, I still get a lot of phone calls every day from people just wanting to know the status of their application. We probably take in over 100 applications each month, so it’s just not reasonable for me to take or return these calls.

Would it be rude to include in my voicemail something to the effect of “If you are calling to check the status of an employment application, we do not give out status updates. If you are selected for an interview, you will be contacted directly by the manager hiring for that position”?  I just get tired of the constant interruptions.

Not rude at all. It’s actually helpful to provide that information. I’d make the language friendlier though, in recognition of the fact that these are people who are really anxious for the opportunity to work for you, and it doesn’t take much to make it a little warmer. I’d record a message like this: “If you’re calling to the status of your employment application, thank you so much for your interest in working with us. Unfortunately, because of the volume of applications we receive, we aren’t able to give status updates, but if you are invited for an interview, you will be contacted directly by the manager for that position.”

Even better, if you know that anyone you’re moving forward will be contacted within X weeks, change that last sentence to this:  ”Unfortunately, because of the volume of applications we receive, we aren’t able to give status updates, but if you are invited for an interview, you will generally be contacted within X weeks of submitting your application.”

Also:  Send these people rejection notices. They are taking the trouble to apply — i.e., expressing interest in helping your company — and it takes only seconds to let someone know that you are no longer considering them.  100 applications a month is actually a very low number, so we’re talking about five minutes a month to make sure people know when they’re no longer in the running.

{ 26 comments }

Employers are notorious for forgetting that they actually owe some consideration to the people who apply to work with them. Too many of them act like they’re doing job candidates a favor by deigning to look at their applications, let alone interview them … these employers are wrong and they suck.

Over at the Intuit QuickBase blog today, my column is about what kind of treatment employers owe job candidates. We’re talking rejection notices, not misrepresenting the work, not requiring an unreasonable investment of time just to apply, and more. You can read it here.

I realize, of course, that none of you have any opinion on this topic whatsoever…

{ 144 comments }

Even though building the right team of people is one of the most important things managers do, way too many managers get it wrong. They give lip service to the idea that having the right people is key, but then they don’t do the things that should stem from that belief, like firing employees who aren’t meeting a high bar … or learning how to find the right people in the first place.

Hiring is hard though. And despite what you’d think by the way some employers do it, good hiring doesn’t just mean asking a bunch of perfunctory questions and then hiring the person you like the best.

Over at the Intuit QuickBase blog today, I talk about things you can do to hire better.  You can read it here. (And even if you don’t do any hiring, you should read it anyway, because reading stuff about how to hire is a good way to get more insight into what interviewers want from you.)

{ 14 comments }

A reader writes:

I’m a hiring manager in the creative industry. As part of the review process, I’ll do a quick Google search of each applicant. This usually brings up LinkedIn and/or a portfolio website. Sometimes, I’ll stumble across a cooking blog or travel photos on Flickr. I believe it’s important to maintain a work-life balance, so it’s nice to get a glimpse of what applicants are interested in outside the office. The Google search has always been a positive experience, until now…

When I Googled one of the frontrunners for a position, I didn’t find a LinkedIn profile. Instead I found a MySpace page that was covered in party photos where the applicant looked like she had way too many. The page also had what appeared to be professional boudoir shots. Pretty darn close to completely naked, and I have seen quite enough of this applicant’s butt crack. It also doesn’t help that the headline of the MySpace page was “~*ShAkE iT oFf*~”. (Seriously? This is coming from an applicant who is likely in her early 30s.)

I’ve interviewed this applicant in person, and I am absolutely sure that was her in all those photos. You’d think that someone applying for a marketing/design position would realize how important it is to have maintain a positive online presence. I realize I stumbled upon her *personal* page, but I didn’t exactly have to do much snooping to get there. Just a quick Google search of her name and email. No privacy settings. Everything on display.

This applicant was in the top 5, and I was originally planning on asking her to come in for a second interview with the team. She was professional and polished when I met with her. Fairly solid qualifications and experience. However, her page demonstrates a serious lack of judgement. Our clients might stumble across her page, and who knows how she might be behave at events where alcohol is present.

Would you move forward with the second interview? Should I mention that we came across her MySpace page and that it could be hurting her career? How would you handle this situation?

People still have MySpace pages?

In any case, yeah, drunken photos and boudoir shots (!) — not exactly the online persona that you want to showcase when you’re in a job search.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to remove her from the running based on this. It shows bad judgment, and you’re right that someone applying for a marketing position should be especially aware of how her online presence will influence how she’s perceived. And really, at this point there’s been so much attention paid to how things on the Internet can come back to haunt you that there’s no excuse for any reasonably savvy person to leave this kind of public trail, particularly during a job search.

And while I know that people like to argue that someone’s personal life should have no bearing on their candidacy, the reality is that the Internet is public, and the way you choose to present yourself on it is part of the overall picture you present to an employer. It’s not like an employer sneaking a look in your bedroom window — it’s a public forum that you’re choosing to participate in publicly, and what you do there reflects your judgment or lack thereof.

As for whether to mention this to her or not, you’re certainly not obligated to but you’d be doing her a big favor if you did. I’d say something like, “While we were impressed with you in your interview, we routinely look at applicants’ online presence, and what we found on some of your public social networking profiles raised red flags about judgment and professionalism.  I’m mentioning this because it’s a factor that might be holding you back in your job search, so it could be worth taking a look at.”  Followed by, “I enjoyed meeting you and wish you all the best in your search,” etc.

What do others think? Anyone want to argue the employer should pretend she never saw it?

{ 222 comments }

A reader writes:

I’m currently hiring for a policy analyst position. Our position description says that we expect a graduate degree in public policy or related field, and at least 2-5 years of work experience.

In the stack of applications, we’ve received several from people who have significantly more work experience than I do. In an ordinary labor market, I’d say that they were overqualified, and have the standard concerns — they don’t really understand the position, they will want more money than we can offer. But in this economy, I get that there are people who understand the money and the job, are overqualified, but want it anyway. And I don’t want to discriminate on the basis of age. Any suggestions for how to decide if they’re worth considering? What interview questions should I be asking if I do interview them?

You can read my answer to this question over at the Intuit QuickBase blog today.

And what’s more, three other careers experts are answering this question there today too. Head on over there for answers…

{ 44 comments }

A reader writes:

I am in the interviewing process with a medium-sized environmental consulting firm and they want me to take a test. A 3-hour long test. The HR guy I’ve been in contact with just let me know that it would be a 3-hour long test about half an hour before it was supposed to begin (I’m doing it at my home computer). He is calling it an “assessment” and it’s going to cover my writing skills and my Excel skills.

Why do they need me to do this? What is the point of this test? I graduated from a very good school, did well enough in the interview, and have a respectable work history, so presumably I’m smart enough and already have the basic skills required to work at this place. Why would they have bothered to interview me otherwise?

I’m wondering if you have any insight into this practice? Are they going to use the test results to decide to hire me versus another candidate? To determine my salary offer? I don’t really understand this, as it seems to be a big hassle on their end (it’s taken weeks to set this test up and I’ve been given no information about it) and I’m not really thrilled about taking another test. 

Well, first, the HR guy who didn’t bother to let you know that this would be a three-hour test until 30 minutes before you were supposed to begin it is rude and inconsiderate. He should have given you advance warning about that.

However, the test itself seems reasonable (although a bit long). Employers use assessment tests like this to verify the skills that you’ve so far only self-reported. The fact that you graduated from a good school actually doesn’t verify that you have strong writing skills or Excel skills. Lots of people graduate from school without being great writers; most of them, in fact, since great writing is a fairly rare skill. And Excel? Depending on your major, you could easily graduate without ever once even using Excel.

So the idea behind skills assessments is to find out if you really have the skills you say you have. For instance, I once hired someone for a position that required fairly advanced Excel skills. She spoke confidently in the interview about her Excel experience, and her resume detailed projects that allegedly involved high-level Excel usage. But once she was on the job, she could barely use the program. After that, you can bet I never hired for that position again without having candidates do an Excel exercise that required the skills they’d need to use on the job.

In fact, I never hire for anything now without using one or more exercises that simulate the work the person would be doing on the job. It’s far, far more valuable than simply trusting candidate’s own self-assessments or even relying on their work history, since (a) work history can be inflated or even misrepresented, and (b) their former employers might have very different standards than I do.

So do the exercise. It’s to your advantage too, since if you’re not the fit for what they’re seeking, it’s far better for you to find that out now than to struggle or get fired after you’re already on the job.

{ 72 comments }

In a tight job market like this one, lots of employers forget that they need to actually care about the way they treat job candidates, and the experience candidates have when going through their hiring process. Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I talk about some of the things employers tend to forget about when they’re hiring. You can read it here.

{ 32 comments }

A reader writes:

I’m an HR Manager at a small hotel of about 200 employees. I also have a director of HR. Our department is small. We handle everything between the two of us (worker’s comp, training, recruiting, hiring, firing, reorg, benefits, etc.). We wear many hats between the two of us. 

I have an applicant who calls me every single day and leaves me messages every single day. He is applying for one of the positions I posted and he appeared qualified. I was able to quickly review his application form prior to his messages and I actually placed it in the “Call” pile (he was not the #1 applicant but he was on the qualified pile to call). However, after listening to the messages he left me, I had second thoughts. His messages sounded like he’s almost begging for a job and he would not stop. He mentioned that he has children and that he needed to provide for them – I don’t have kids but if I did and in need of a job, I sure would not mention the munchkins for a mercy plea. His messages sounded creepy.

One day, I made the mistake of picking up the phone and it was him on the other line. He asked me why I wouldn’t give him a chance. He asked me what process we have in place when selecting qualified candidates…blah blah blah. I dealt with this guy in the most professional manner, and it was clear to me that he was not very stable.

I really didn’t want to turn him down right there because he seemed really unstable. He spoke to the front desk and wanted the GM to call him back…. I didn’t want him to show up at our workplace and inconvenience staff.

Is there any advice you can give me about dealing with this applicant? Can you please also give me pointers on how to turn down an applicant in a gracious way? I’m loss for words and I’m sorry you have to read this whole thing but I need to handle this in a respectful manner.

You know how sometimes women complain about overly aggressive suitors, and then it turns out that they’ve never actually told the person, “I’m not interested. Please stop asking me out”?

Yeah. This is you right now.

You have to tell this guy that you are rejecting him!  Tell him now, today. Yes, he’s being really inappropriately aggressive and that’s his fault, not yours … but it’s your fault that you haven’t yet told him that he’s out of the running, especially since it sounds like this has been going on for a while. You should have told him as soon as his messages crossed a line. It is not kind to have let this go on for so long.

As for how to actually do it? The same way you’d turn down any other job applicant, with a regular old rejection email. Something like this:

Thank you so much for your interest working with us. We’ve received a large number of applicants for the ___ position, and unfortunately are only able to interview a small number. However, although we’re not able to advance you in the hiring process, we very much appreciate your interest, and we wish you the best of luck in your job search.

Send this right now. And I hope you’re sending something like this to all the candidates who you’re not hiring. Others may not be placing crazy, overly persistent phone calls to you, but I assure you that plenty of them are anxiously waiting to hear something back.

After that, if he calls you and asks you to explain or reconsider your decision, be polite but firm: “I know it’s a tough job market, but we have a number of well-qualified candidates and we’re interviewing the candidates who most closely match our needs.” And if he tries to keep you on the phone to argue the decision, you need to refuse to engage in that: “I’m sorry, but I’m just not able to give individual feedback to each of our applicants.” (I should note that in general I’m a proponent of giving real feedback to rejected candidates when it’s feasible to, but it doesn’t sound like you want to get into that with him, and you’re not obligated to.)  And don’t allow yourself to be drawn into a long conversation; this should be a few minutes, and if he doesn’t allow the conversation to end there, then you need to end it yourself — politely but firmly.

Now, let’s talk about how to handle this in the future before it ever gets to this point again. If someone is calling you over and over or otherwise behaving inappropriately, don’t just ignore it and hope it will stop. Tell them, plainly, to stop. You need to have sentences like this ready for use: “We will be in touch when we’ve made decisions on interviews or if we need additional information. We’re not taking calls about the position meanwhile.” And if someone continues even after that, “I’ve told you previously that we’re not taking calls about the position. Please do not call again.”

You must be direct with people who aren’t reading your cues correctly. In situations like this, it’s not optional.

Email this guy right now.

{ 70 comments }