SEPTEMBER
2000
Our
Readers Write (with good suggestions)
FROM TIME
TO TIME, readers suggest topics for future issues of SRA Updates.
Three recent questions did not require an entire newsletter
each – but reflect the kind of issues that are on hiring
managers’ minds these days.
›
The vice president of research and development for a medical
products company suggested we address how to “put more
fun into the workplace and not lose productivity.”
Increased
productivity has been one of the major factors in keeping
inflation in check, but the drive for constant gains in productivity
can place enormous pressures on employees. Therefore, bringing
fun into the workplace is no laughing matter.
Dot-coms
and other high-tech startups have tackled the burnout potential
of 16-hour days by adopting informal dress codes, installing
game rooms, playing basketball in the parking lot, serving
takeout pizza at night and jetting employees to this or that
resort destination for a fast weekend off. The high-tech approach
may keep workers from going crazy – but does little
for family relationships.
In more
traditional work environments, little things can mean a lot.
They can include occasional employee contests, group outings,
catered lunches (to celebrate a new account, or the completion
of a project), thank-you dinners for two (to reward a particular
employee), compensatory time off (when the midnight oil was
burned), incentive trips and the like. A Cleveland public
relations firm that holds an annual Christmas party, summer
picnic and fall golf outing has taken the novel approach of
letting its employees plan the events – instead of having
management go into a trance.
And don’t
be afraid to innovate. If your organization has gone to full-time
casual days, how about a dress-up day with prizes for the
fanciest attire?
›
The director of human resources at another company called
our attention to an article on the dangers of first impressions.
In the
May 29, 2000 issue of The New Yorker magazine, reporter Malcolm
Gladwell wrote about the growing body of research concerning
the speed with which people size up other people.
In one
Harvard experiment, observers were shown videotapes of teachers
– with the sound turned off – and were asked to
rate them on a 15-item checklist of personality traits. Ten
seconds of video were enough to form an impression of each
teacher. Next, the tapes were shortened to five seconds and
finally to two. The ratings stayed the same. Since then, other
controlled experiments (for example, showing job candidates
meeting an interviewer) have confirmed the Harvard study.
As Gladwell says, “When we make a snap judgment, it
really is made in a snap.”
The problem
with job interviews stems from the fact that once a snap judgment
is made (“I really like John Doe” – perhaps
based on his firm handshake and winning smile), the remainder
of the interview becomes a mere confirmation of that first
impression. For instance, John’s subsequent response
that his greatest weakness is being too demanding of other
people impresses the same interviewer as insightful and clever.
Had John however made a poor first impression, his response
might have struck the interviewer as shallow and rehearsed.
The fact that John made a good or poor first impression may
have little to do with how he will function on the job.
Based
on conversations with organizational psychologists, Gladwell
stresses the need to make interviews more meaningful by getting
into situational questions where there are no right or wrong
answers – only clues as to how the person will function
in a real work environment. For example: “If you have
two important assignments both due at the same time and find
you cannot complete both on time, what would you do?”
Answers might range from “do the one I’m best
at” (individual contributor) to “clarify with
my boss which has the highest priority” (team player/follower)
to “round up others and get them both done” (leader/delegator).
›
Last but not least, a reader of our recent commentaries on
the tight labor market wonders what her company can do to
“get more applicants to say ‘yes’.”
It’s
partly semantics, but quit calling job candidates “applicants.”
Unless they begged HR for a job, assume that you are chasing
them.
Candidates
typically decline employment offers for one of three reasons:
1. LOSS
OF INTEREST. That well-known adage, “Time kills
all deals,” applies especially to the hiring process.
When the process drags out, candidates are likely to back
out. Excitement wanes, the candidate begins having second
thoughts about the employer’s competence, and the job
that once seemed to be the “opportunity of a lifetime”
loses its luster.
2. OTHER
OFFERS. Most people seriously interested in changing
jobs can expect multiple offers these days and have become
increasingly choosy about which to accept. And more than half
can expect lucrative counter-offers from their current employers
as well. Once again, the more the hiring process drags out,
the more attractive other offers may seem.
3. INADEQUATE
OFFERS. A few employers, still living in the 1980s
– when jobs were scarce and candidates plentiful –
will low-ball an offer under the nothing-ventured-nothing-gained
theory (“If we can get her for 82K, why offer 87?”).
Meanwhile, all the other companies interested in Mary’s
background are mulling offers of 100K, topped off with a bundle
of stock options and a new car as a sign-on bonus. It’s
best to avoid insulting those you hope to bring on board.
Most
of the problems employers bring upon themselves can be avoided
with an ounce of preparation.
First,
carefully define the position (working closely with your search
consultant) and obtain the necessary sign-offs on the best
compensation and benefits package you could offer an exceptional
individual. (You’re not going to hire any other kind,
are you?) Use the expertise of your search consultant to make
sure the package is consistent with prevailing market conditions;
if not, start over.
Second,
optimize the organization’s time by allowing your search
firm reasonable time to screen candidates and assemble a short
presentation list of the very best. If company policy favors
having several firms compete on a contingent-fee basis, keep
in mind that this practice almost always compels firms to
present candidates early and often, thus shifting the screening
burden back to the employer.
Third,
try to schedule two rounds of interviews for the chosen few.
Round One should consist of the hiring manager and an HR professional.
If reactions are positive, schedule Round Two shortly after
for those managers whose confirming opinions would be appreciated,
or whose concurrence must be obtained (such as the boss’s
boss). A brief period between interviews permits candidates
to consider the opportunity, resolve any concerns with the
search consultant and agree to move forward.
Finally,
once the second round is concluded, reach a decision about
each candidate. The decision may be “no” across
the board; bosses and boards of directors have been known
to veto all the leading contenders, in which case it is time
to start over (after finding out why). Otherwise, determine
your first, second and third choice and make a prompt offer.
Much
has been written lately about the pros and cons of “exploding
offers” – i.e., those with short fuses that detonate
in a matter of days. Either the entire offer expires, or some
attractive provision (like a signing bonus) blows up. In actuality,
no offer is good forever. At the same time, no candidate wants
to feel pressured into making the wrong decision.
Sanford
Rose Associates believes the best solution lies in between,
with an offer ideally made early in the week: “The Company
has had the opportunity to evaluate you over the past several
weeks (or months) and believes you are the best person for
the job. You likewise have had the opportunity to get to know
the Company and think about your career. Since two other finalists
are awaiting a decision, we need your prompt response. Would
this Friday be acceptable?”
It’s
truth time now for the candidate, and chances have been maximized
that he or she will say “yes.”
|
