HELP WANTED! Why the conventional hiring process fails everybody involved

Why the conventional hiring process fails everybody involved

Jane Recruit has a total six interviews at The Company Corporation.

Over a period of two days, she spends five hours in various conference rooms meeting a total of seven people, as some of the interviews involve more than one person. She knocks every interview out of the park. Company Corp. really likes her for the open position, and is poised to make an offer. For her part, Jane is excited about the opportunity. She has read extensively about the organization, and has spoken with current and former employees to get the inside scoop. Based on her discussions, job interviews, and research, she will almost certainly accept the offer of employment.

But, do either Jane or Company Corp. really know enough about each other to make an informed decision?  I don’t think so.

Every day people make decisions that profoundly impact their lives and careers with incomplete information, at best. Similarly, companies are forced to make critical personnel choices without knowing whether or not the employee is a good fit until after s/he is already in place. If there was a way to gather more pieces of the jigsaw puzzle and see the picture more clearly, wouldn’t we want to try it?

Jane is looking from the outside in, and doesn’t really know what it feels like to work at Company Corp. Its people, personalities, and culture are all unknowns that cannot be resolved in a formal interview setting. Mission statements and employee videos posted on the company website can help give a little more insight, but they can only tell Jane so much. Such tools present a social media surface reality—a projection of the company’s best self. Certainly, every company should seek to put forth a positive image.  But if both sides in this relationship are serious about finding a good match (and they should be), something more is required.

These are wildly expensive decisions for both parties.

If Jane accepts this position, she will spend more time working in this role than she will at any other activity, including seeing friends and family. This means she had better like it. Our jobs become part of who we are, impacting our very identities. Even if Jane’s own personal self-image is not tied up in her job, the time spent working in this position will affect how she feels, her career trajectory, and her social circle, to highlight just a few significant factors in her life.

For the company, it’s well documented that hiring the wrong candidate equates to considerable loss: time wasted interviewing, lost productivity, and being forced to start the whole process over again if and when the person eventually leaves. Or worse, they might stay. The wrong person in a job can be extremely detrimental to a team or organization. And, for the individual, the situation can be absolutely awful if the company is not what they expected.

Why does the conventional hiring process include this leap of faith at the very end? In most of our major life decisions, we do not tolerate this level of ambiguity.

On average, people walk through approximately seven to ten houses before making a decision to purchase. And that’s not the end. It’s the beginning. Once they have found their dream home, they spend hours reviewing every aspect of the house. They pay to have it inspected. They might even visit at different times of the day to gauge traffic patterns, lighting, and other unknown variables.

We spend almost as much time at the office as we do in our homes. So, why is it that we don’t evaluate prospective employers with this same “leave-no-stone-unturned” process?

Think of other relationships in life. A majority of couples (about 75%) live together before deciding to get married. And, most of these folks spend quite a bit of time together, dating, before walking down the aisle, too. One study placed the average dating period (prior to marriage) at just under five years.

The exact figures are less important than the underlying point. To truly evaluate a prospective partner and make an informed decision, people seek to know the other person as well as possible. Living together, and seeing the other person in different contexts is one effective way of gaining this all-important information. As we know, it’s not perfect. But, the process likely yields a higher success rate than if the couple had simply conducted five hours of formal interviews at a neutral site.

Is making an informed decision about a life partner so much different than securing the right position? Or hiring the ideal candidate for the position?

The Test Drive

A similar case can be made for buying a car. How do we approach that most stressful of transactions? We read articles and reviews, talk to people to get their opinions, and go on test drives. Even if we’ve done all our homework ahead of time, and know exactly what we want, we don’t do the deal without a test drive. No matter how awkward and uncomfortable it is to drive a vehicle you don’t own with a stranger in the passenger seat, the test drive is a must. We do this because once we drive that car off the dealer’s lot, we are 100% committed. It’s only natural that we want to be 100% sure as well.

Unfortunately, buying a car is not like shopping at Zappos, where you get to send it back within 365 days for a full refund with no questions asked. Neither is your job search. It’s not a frictionless transaction, easily resolved if the job does not work out. It’s not so easy to “return” the item, and get out of the job, like a pair of shoes that didn’t quite fit.

Why do we go the extra mile before making a decision when it comes to buying a car, renting or buying a home, or getting married, but not when it comes to our jobs? Why don’t we live with, walk through, or test drive a job?

I’m not waxing philosophical here. I think this is something we could—and should—do.  Enter:  The “mini-internship.”

The mini-Internship

Let’s go back to Jane. Suppose after the second round of interviews, at which time both parties had a clear interest in moving forward, Company Corp. gave Jane an assignment to be completed over the course of two on-site visits. The on-site element is key, as it should be a project that requires Jane to interact with other Company Corp. employees. The approximate number of hours for the project can vary, but should total at least six-to-eight, divided into two segments. Where and when possible, more days and more hours will only serve to improve the process and the outcome.

This “mini-internship” works both ways. Company Corp. gets a chance to evaluate Jane in the role for which she is being considered, and Jane gets a feel for what it’s like to work there, engaging with other employees in real, or more real, settings. And Jane can articulate with more confidence why she wants to work at Company Corp, on that team, and in that role.

Both parties have the opportunity to leave the confines of a protected, artificial habitat, not too dissimilar from a zoo, and observe the animals in their more natural setting, the wild. Only then can each side make a more accurate assessment. 

Instituting such a process poses challenges. Jane may be working at another firm. Getting the time off to spend at Company Corp. may prove difficult. However, where there’s a will and a viable position, there is a way. 

With less time in the conference room and more time on the floor, Jane’s “mini-internship” may involve slightly more time away from the office. But, if this extra step increases the chances of her making the right choice for her life and career, it’s worth using up an extra vacation day or two.

Confidential information represents another hurdle. However, many companies currently assign prospective employees a take-home project as part of their interview process. This assignment is generally completed off-site, and in isolation. (It might even be completed at the employee’s existing company). Signing NDA’s to protect proprietary information is a simple, commonly used remedy, but the project doesn’t have to involve analyzing highly sensitive information such as the executive team’s compensation packages. Likewise, it doesn’t need to involve trade secrets to be of value.

If Jane is seeking a Director of Marketing role, for example, the project could examine how she would approach creating the next year’s marketing plan. Detailing the key drivers of her decisions, based on where the company is, and where it wants to go. Outlining the resources necessary to realize the goals and milestones in the plan, and identifying potential roadblocks.  Jane’s report would provide insight into her capabilities and work style, and potentially a fresh perspective on the business. To complete the task, she would need to interact with stakeholders across the organization, so over the course of this project, both parties are evaluating each other. Flowery prose is not necessary. A concise, bullet-point outline, one that Jane presents verbally at the conclusion of the two-day process, would serve everybody far better than a polished, marketing plan that was created over the course of a week spent on her own.   

This is an example of one discipline. The approach can be applied to multiple positions. Effort should be made to assign a meaty yet benign topic on which the candidate can work. Some extra cycles should be spent to create a work product that will provide value to the hiring company. The time spent by the company and its employees should indeed garner some type of return, above and beyond the significant value of hiring an employee who is not only a fit for the role, but also can articulate why s/he really wants to join.

Information Provides Clarity

With a “Try before you Buy” process, people can see more clearly

These decisions are simply too important… too consequential for both sides not to have a more intimate look at what the relationship will look like, and more importantly, feel like in real life. With a “Try before you Buy” process, the company can see more clearly what they are getting before the offer is made. And the candidate knows what she is getting into before she accepts.

How many of us have gone from bright-eyed and energized after landing the job of our dreams, into a state of despair upon realizing it wasn’t what we had hoped? In these moments, we might wish the job offer came with a customer-friendly return policy.

But, with a two-day trial run, a test drive, a walkthrough, spending a few nights together, if you will… we can all buy that product with far more confidence. Jane can find out if a job at The Company Corporation is right for her, and Company Corp. can make an offer feeling more certain about its decision. With a little extra work, far more people win, or at least, the chances of winning increase greatly.

I have implemented this process with my clients, both those who are interviewing for a role, and those companies filling positions. The approach works. It empowers and enlightens both sides. The details vary based on the seniority of the position, the industry, the company, geographic location, among other variables.

The “mini-internship,” benefits everybody involved. It may fly in the face of convention, but that is the disruptive nature of business today. What worked for you yesterday, will likely not work for you tomorrow.

We’re passionate about the need to improve this process for all involved, and would love to hear from you.

Please share your experiences and best practices for both hiring and getting hired.