Staffing in One Lesson

If a window needs replacing, who might we call to perform the work? For most of us, the obvious answer is: “someone who has experience replacing glass windows.” Or better still, “someone who has experience replacing this particular type of window,” as an expert at home window repair might find replacing a large window on a multi-story office building beyond their expertise.

Experience

And so it is in staffing, where the only valid and accessible indicator of future success in a given job is past performance in the same or similar job. If an individual has experience at successfully performing “X,” then there is every reason to believe that they will be able to do “X” in the future. Candidates lacking this experience are far less likely to succeed and will require an extended period of on-the-job learning before they are capable of functioning quickly, consistently, and with few mistakes. Rule number one: individuals who have previously performed a given job successfully are qualified candidates for that same job in your organization.

This rule, however, must be further refined to take into account the depth of experience a candidate may possess. There is a significant difference in capability between an individual who has performed in a position for two years and another with fifteen, or twenty years of experience. There are often significant differences in the extent of experience even when candidates have the same title–one may oversee a department of a few employees, while the other may oversee multiple departments, managers and reports. Rule number two: an individual’s previous responsibilities should reasonably match those of the position to be filled, in both extent and degree..

Developing a Job Description

This raises an important question: “What is the level of capability required in a job?” Too often, the specifications for an employee seem to materialize out of thin air, with much attention given to the responsibilities and experience required, but little focus on overall workforce planning. Viewed in a broader context, the employees of an organization are the “machines” that get the work done, which is why employees are accurately referred to as “human capital.” In a manufacturing environment, the processing that must be performed defines the context of equipment use and purchasing decisions, as there are a variety of machines available to perform any process. For example, one could employ a small number of large, multi-function machines, or a larger number of small, dedicated machines, with numerous advantages and disadvantages to each option. The lesson here is that: 1) decision-making should focus on multiple, interrelated processes, not discrete machines; 2) a given process may be accomplished using different combinations of machines with differing capabilities. Staffing decisions should be approached in a similar way.

Workforce planning is best accomplished by identifying the processes to be performed and then determining the possible combinations of existing and obtainable labor power that can perform these processes. Each viable option is evaluated and compared in an effort to identify the most advantageous option. Inherent in the elaboration of a viable option is a description of a specific function or activity to be performed by each employee. This description defines the capability required of the employee–he or she must be capable of performing the activity described. Rule number three: the work to be accomplished requires discrete activities to be performed and these activities define the capabilities required of each employee.

Once the planning has been done and the qualifications required of the future employee are known, how does one go about finding viable candidates? It is a common complaint of hiring managers that qualified candidates are difficult to find. Yet, it is not really a candidate problem so much as a budget problem. With unlimited funds, a massive marketing campaign would surely generate more viable candidates than could be interviewed. What most for-profit companies have long known is that it costs money to generate a sufficient number of viable candidates and it costs even more money to fail to do so. Recruiting costs are simply budgeted, along with training and interviewing costs, as part of the outlay required to hire an employee. Although accurate figures are elusive, at least 50% of all positions are filled using advertising, with executive recruiters contributing about 35% of all employees. However, when one considers only salaried positions, the percentage filled by executive search firms is much higher than for advertising and the vast majority of all middle and senior level managerial positions (excluding those filled by promotion) are filled by search firms. Rule number four: executive search firms are the most cost-effective source of qualified candidates for salaried positions.

Maintaining focus during the interview

When the resume of a viable candidate is received, an interview should be promptly scheduled. An interview serves three purposes: 1) determine if the candidate has previously performed the same or similar work as required by the position they are being considered for; 2) evaluate the personality and veracity of the candidate; and 3) “sell” the candidate on working for your organization. One potential interview pitfall is a failure to stay sufficiently focused on the candidate’s work history. It is easy for a candidate to make sweeping assertions about their abilities and quite another to make statements of fact about what they have done at work over the past few years. The most desirable candidates are honest about their experience and comfortable with self-disclosure, but a clever and genial candidate may project an appearance of extensive experience, while avoiding discussion of specifics. Rule number five: candidates should be judged on their qualifications, not on their interviewing skills.

One of the major mistakes an employer can make is dragging the interviewing process out so long that all the good candidates get away. Anyone who has shopped for and purchased a home knows that the dogs stay on the market for months while the desirable houses are snapped up very quickly. Hiring managers should strive to come to a decision on a viable candidate within two weeks or less. If more than one interview is required, the second interview should be the last interview and all the decision makers must make themselves available to meet the candidate at that time. With each passing day, the likelihood increases that a candidate will receive and accept an offer from another employer, get a raise or promotion, or experience a change in personal circumstances that alters their employment search. Furthermore, a candidate’s enthusiasm about an opportunity cools with the passage of time and eventually transforms into disdain for an organization that is unable to make a timely commitment. Rule number six: desirable candidates will be lost if timely decisions are not made.

The Background and Reference Check

The most important step in the hiring process is reference checking. A thorough reference check must confirm the quantity and quality of a candidate’s previous experience and uncover any problems or concerns that the candidate may not have shared. Dates of employment must be verified as well as specific qualifications essential to success in the position.

An online search should also be conducted with an eye toward discovering employment omitted from the resume, or other problematic issues, such as litigation or inappropriate public behavior (including online postings). Rule number seven: some people will say anything to get a job, so information provided by candidates must be verified and not accepted at face value.

Although mutual fund prospectuses warn, “Past performance does not guarantee future results,” when hiring, past performance is our best predictor of future performance. A thorough assessment of previous experience (through resumes, interviews, and reference checks) provides the information required to hire employees with the greatest likelihood of success.

Michael G Smith