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.
Write an effective job posting, please
Job postings are frequently a source of disappointment rather than a source of qualified candidates. Too often, blame for the poor outcome falls on the advertising venue or candidates themselves, when the real problem is the text of the ad.
Try this thought experiment: assume you are in the mood for a steak dinner and have two restaurants from which to choose. 
The only information available is a single photo supplied by each establishment. Looking at the pictures here, which restaurant, A or B, are you most likely to select?
Now consider the tens-of-thousands of job openings posted at any given time. Will you attract a greater number of desirable candidates if your job listing is detailed, feature-rich and describes the position in attractive terms (choice A), or states only basic information (choice B)?
The most common and serious problem: posting a “job description” instead of promoting (marketing) the job. Don’t do this! It is absolutely guaranteed to scare away the best candidates.
Most job descriptions are ineffectively written, listing every conceivable task or expectation without regard to priorities. There is no reason to place this tedious inventory of minutiae in a job posting, unless you seek to minimize your resume reading workload.
Job ads should highlight that which the employer and position have to offer. One or two paragraphs of positive, factual statements about the employer is sufficient. Examples: “a fast-growing nonprofit”, “the leading firm in this market”, “consistently profitable”, “a well-funded organization with a 20-year record of growth.”
Briefly describe some advantages or features of the job: “senior level management”, “reports directly to the President”, “responsibility for five departments”, “one of four managers with decision-making responsibility for strategy”, “opportunity to move up to Executive VP within three years.” Provide just enough detail to allow the reader to make their own first-cut screening decision: qualified and interested, or not. Ideally, desirable candidates will learn just enough to entice them to apply.
It is not necessary to describe the job in detail. Why? Because you are trying to find candidates with experience in this type of work–if they don’t know what the job entails, they aren’t qualified to do the job.
Some employers believe they must provide detailed information about the job. There is, however, no such obligation, and a look at other postings will confirm it’s not common practice. Listing responsibilities, expectations, procedures or any other buzz kills will just ruin the ad. (You can email more detailed job information to the candidate after you phone screen them and decide you are interested in an interview.)
The second biggest mistake: not stating the pay range. You have to provide candidates some idea of what the job pays so that they can self-select. Those earning way more or way less than the range know they shouldn’t bother applying–saving time for both you and them. But qualified candidates will be encouraged to pursue the position if they are within the pay range (or reasonably near).
If no salary or compensation information is provided, some candidates will just skip the ad. Depending on how the candidate searches for job postings, ads lacking salary information may not even be displayed. Finally, candidates often assume the pay is below average if the employer does not provide specifics.
The third mistake: overlooking keywords. Job postings are not just “classified ads” published on the web instead of the newspaper; they serve the same purpose, but accomplish it altogether differently. Job seekers don’t “go to” career sites and “look at” job postings, they find open positions using keyword searches, keyword alerts and keyword-based RSS feeds. The savvy employer includes every important keyword in postings. Additional keywords may be inserted at the end of the ad, they need not appear in the copy.
Here is a tip for increasing the quality and quantity of candidate responses: state that the employer pays a bonus in addition to salary. This works because excellent candidates know they perform well above average and wish to be rewarded for their performance. Also, applicants view the existence of a bonus plan as a sign of a dynamic, well-managed organization.
Ready to give job posting a shot? Go here.
Succession Planning and Leadership Development
To function in the long run, public policy think tanks must acquire highly-qualified leaders. As founders age, or senior managers leave the organization, the need to transfer leadership responsibility may become urgent. Moreover, new leaders bring fresh ideas and a variety of experience that can aid in expanding and strengthening the organization.
A loss of leadership will result in a stagnant or waning organization, yet many organizations are unprepared for the possibility that their top leader may become ill or disabled. A related problem is inadequate secondary management; leadership may be willing to delegate but lacks confidence that subordinates can handle the work. Similarly, if an organization has grown beyond the capabilities of its managers, further growth is jeopardized and new opportunities will languish unexploited.
An organization’s ability to produce results derives from its leadership and staff–its sole productive asset. The only way to improve the “product” of such an organization is by improving the quality of the employees, and the most essential employees are those who manage the organization. The better our employees are, and the more of them we have, the more output the organization can generate.
Employee Output
Research has demonstrated that there are enormous differences in the productive output of employees, and it is clear that high-quality (and highly-compensated) employees generate far more output per payroll dollar than average employees. Good employees are 50% more productive than average employees. Top employees are at least 2¼ times more productive than average (Hunter, Schmidt & Judiesch, 1990, Journal of Applied Psychology, among others).
Excellent Employees
The salary earned by an individual generally increases over time as they learn and gain experience; how far and how fast is a function, according to recent research, of general mental ability and conscientiousness (Schmidt & Hunter, 2004, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology). Individuals who posses these characteristics in abundance will be top performing employees who can learn quickly, function independently, and maximize output.
Increase in salary over time
Unfortunately, many organizations approach compensation from what might be called a “budget” perspective, where salaries are determined by what fits the budget rather then what must be spent to acquire an excellent employee. Arbitrarily limiting salaries creates a “natural selection of the unfit” where potential employees who are both excellent and experienced are too expensive for the organization to hire and current employees who are excellent will–once they gain experience–leave to earn a better living elsewhere. Only below-average employees will stay, since they have nowhere better to go.
Some individuals will accept lower pay in exchange for a more desirable or satisfying position–such as working for a think tank. The difference between what an individual could earn elsewhere and what they are willing to accept as a think tank employee has been referred to (by Larry Reed) as the “missionary discount.” Missionary discount notwithstanding, lower-paying organizations will lose good employees to those that pay better; many charitable and educational groups pay higher salaries than think tanks; and, as the employee’s financial needs and the salary discrepancy increase, the employee’s willingness to work for less may vanish (followed soon after by the employee).
Show me the money
Hiring and retaining excellent employees capable of becoming tomorrow’s leaders requires a financial investment. Where will the cash for this investment come from?
Spending less on current programs and cutting some of your least essential programs will free up cash for investing in leadership. These programs may be restored once revenue growth and improved efficiency are achieved. The organization should perform a cost/benefit analysis for each program and those whose benefit is less significant than the survival of the organization are candidates for reduction or elimination.
Consider asking donors to provide a “leadership development” grant that covers the cost of hiring a well-qualified leader. This requires a well-researched plan that itemizes the costs and the anticipated future benefits. Borrowing the money is an option too, particularly if it will be used to hire a fundraiser.
Solutions
Investing in excellent current employees is accomplished with direct monetary incentives and through leadership development. Salary and bonus are monetary incentives and excellent employees should be paid above-average salaries accompanied by generous opportunities to earn bonus tied to goal attainment. (For more on structuring bonus plans, see: Kaplan, Robert S.: “Strategic performance measurements and management in nonprofit organizations;” Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(3):353-370, Spring 2001; and “The Balanced Scorecard and Nonprofit Organizations;” Balanced Scorecard Report, December 2002, pp 1-4.)
Leadership development has an internal and an external component. Capable employees become leaders through practice and experience. Provide them with a specific project, set measurable goals, provide resources, and then get lost. Mentoring develops skills; micro-management does not. Practice must be supplemented by external training, the most important of which is formal training in an MBA program. Managers must be able to perform statistical analysis, manage information, construct and evaluate marketing plans, read accounting statements, and manage finances. Providing managers with employer-paid access to MBA courses will probably benefit the organization more than any other leadership development effort.
Investing in new employees is a constant requirement for growing organizations. Under-performing employees should be let go and replaced with high-performing, well-paid employees. The payroll will grow, but–due to the higher quality of employees–output and revenue will grow more.
Another Issue: Founder Flounder
Organization founders sometimes find it difficult to let go. One option is for the Board to create new positions and specify exact job responsibilities: the founder becomes President with a fundraising, PR, or research role, but no direct reports, and an Executive Director is hired to run organization.
Sometimes questions arise over compensating the founder in a new role, but there is a straightforward solution. Quantify the value of the founder’s contribution (aka: marginal contribution) by estimating what would be lost if the founder left. Place a dollar figure on this contribution, or estimate the cost to replace the founder. Compensation should be no more than the marginal contribution; or, if you prefer formulas: compensation <= marginal contribution.
Why Non-profits Have Difficulty Finding Good Employment Candidates
In the nonprofit world, it is widely assumed that individuals who share an organization’s beliefs make more effective employees. I have found three reasons why nonprofit leaders believe this to be the case: 1) individuals who personally support the organization’s philosophy may be motivated to work hard; 2) they already understand the ideas, so they don’t need to be trained; 3) the opportunity to work for an organization whose mission is personally fulfilling may be more important than maximizing compensation. In short, sympathizers are highly motivated, understand the ideas, and may be more affordable than outsiders.
There is no disputing the logic of these three points. However, even if these assertions are correct, does agreement with the organization’s philosophy translate into greater employee effectiveness? Sympathizers might, in fact, be less effective employees than outsiders.
The ability of an employee to perform a certain job is determined primarily by innate ability, experience, and training. Of these three qualifying factors, only training can be readily provided by the employer. Innate ability must be inherent in the prospective employee and experience must be acquired in previous positions. No amount of desire to aid the cause, or commitment to shared principles, can overcome a deficiency in innate ability or lack of experience in performing certain types of work.
Conversely, consider an individual who has innate ability and experience in a certain job, yet lacks an understanding of the organization’s mission. This prospective employee can be trained by the organization. An intelligent and educated person can master fundamental concepts and arguments quickly, especially when his or her job and salary depend on doing so. This happens every day in the for-profit world. To cite one example, sales reps (particularly in a business-to-business, major account environment) must possess the innate ability to influence decision makers and close deals. Successful salespeople sharpen their skills over time as they learn from experience how to quickly distinguish likely buyers from time wasting “tire kickers.” Yet ability and experience, while necessary, are not sufficient, since complex products (i.e. enterprise software, lease financing, data communications) require an in-depth knowledge of the product, marketplace, and application. That is why businesses provide product training for newly hired sales reps; it adds the third qualification necessary to insure success.
The concern is sometimes expressed that training an employee is not as satisfactory as finding an employee already imbued with the group’s philosophy. I believe this viewpoint gives short shrift to the quality of an organization’s ideas. If the organization lacks confidence that its views can be mastered by paid employees, then how does the organization expect to gain public acceptance of those same ideas?
Another common objection is that, even with training, nonprofit groups have many jobs for which there is no corresponding position in the for-profit world. This is undoubtedly true in a few cases, but the more closely one explores work activity in businesses, the less viable the objection becomes. What do grant writers do? They write proposals designed to secure funds for specific projects, which is exactly what project managers and department heads do when they write proposals for management in a large firm having many potential projects and investments but limited funds available to finance them. What do fundraisers do? They market the organization’s mission to those who may be willing to provide funding, particularly those who can do so long-term. That’s exactly what an account manager does when selling a firm’s services, focusing on larger accounts with long-term potential.
What opportunities are created when an organization is able to train new hires in the organization’s mission and philosophy? One immediate advantage is that the pool of qualified employment candidates is vastly enlarged. By setting aside the exceedingly constrictive requirement that candidates be versed in organizational philosophy, employees may be selected from among all job seekers having adequate ability and experience. With more candidates, there will nearly always be more combinations of skill, experience, and compensation from which to choose. With budget limitations, a broader choice of candidates may offer more options than considering only sympathizers, on the assumption that they may be willing to work for less.
Hiring more employees from the business world provides another, surprising advantage. Study after study has revealed that workers who seek jobs in the nonprofit sector are often willing to accept lower pay in exchange for a less demanding work environment. According to economist Kevin Hallock, “workers accept lower wages in nonprofits in exchange for a host of pleasant amenities, such as flexible hours, and a slower pace of work.” An organization that recruits primarily from likeminded nonprofit groups is maximizing the number of employees with a preference for “a slower pace of work.” Whenever possible, an organization should recruit outsiders from for-profit businesses as a hedge against this “nonprofit work-pace syndrome.”
Another benefit is that workers trained by their employer understand the mission and philosophy in exactly the way the employer wishes to have it understood. When the organization relies on the employee to arrive on the job with his or her own view of the organization’s mission and philosophy, there will be significant knowledge gaps, misunderstandings, and even divergence on fundamental components. Many businesses hire only individuals coming from another industry or seeking their first job (IBM and Xerox for example) so they can train the employee “from scratch” and avoid having to overcome existing beliefs, misperceptions, and attitudes.
Robert Kaplan of Harvard Business School has found that hiring supporters of the organization can actually detract from maintaining the group’s focus and alignment: “such individuals arrive already equipped with a clear, albeit personal, idea about how to accomplish the organization’s goals, and they often encounter a nurturing environment in which all opinions are valued. This is an engine for diffusing organizational energy.” Individuals with their own ideas about what the mission is and how to achieve it are less likely to adhere to the organization’s plan or take direction from managers.
Before you make your next hire, think about whether it is time to reconsider your assumptions about what makes a good employee.
Do some schools impress hiring managers more than others?
The school of hard knocks–really. Next to that, any school run by the military–especially special forces training, Naval Aviation, or ROTC. Former soldiers make good employees as they understand teamwork, commitment to a higher principle and the importance of individual achievement.
Next on the list, education in the “hard” sciences, such as chemistry, math, physics, or even economics. I am more interested in the curriculum selected by a student than by the school attended.
Small colleges, or universities which do not emphasize post-graduate work, often provide a better education, and greater opportunity for outside the classroom learning. Classes tend to be smaller and generally taught by professors, rather than grad students. Consequently, students are more likely to develop relationships with professors, facilitating opportunities to get additional help, learn more about the field, and become involved in research (learn “standing up”, not just sitting).
I see many resumes from individuals in the nonprofit sector with advanced degrees in areas such as political science, international relations, and public policy. However, most nonprofits have an overabundance of employees with academic knowledge of subject matter and a shortage of those with operational and business expertise. I’m impressed when I see an MBA on the resume.
In my experience, one is better off acquiring an MBA at a business school which primarily employs teachers who work days and teach in the evening. In subjects such as finance, production management, accounting, and IT, professors who work outside of the classroom provide a superior education.
Pschological Testing; worthwhile or worthless?
Is psychological testing of any use in making a hiring decision? The short answer is, no.
As a recruiter, I deal with experienced employees, not those who wish to become sales reps, fundraising department managers, or executive directors, that’s what a career counselor does and psychological tests may be of value in that context.
My clients wish to hire employees who already posses significant experience, and have performed well on the job. The way to find out if someone has performed well is not to roll out some psychological test, but to carefully examine past performance by checking references–including references other than those provided by the candidate.
I have read the recent scientific literature regarding pre-employment testing and learned that the only tests shown to have any predictive ability are those which measure intelligence and integrity. (Skills testing is a different matter, but not the topic here.)
Rather than restate the research findings, I list below several excellent papers on the subject. If you have any difficulty finding copies of these papers, email or call and I will forward a copy for your personal use.
- “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology; Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings”, by Frank L. Schmidt, Department of Management and Organization University of Iowa, and John E. Hunter, Department of Psychology Michigan State University; Psychological Bulletin, American Psychological Association, September 1998, Vol. 124, No. 2, 262-274.
“Job Experience Correlates of Job Performance”, by: Michael A. McDaniel, Frank L. Schmidt, John E. Hunter, Journal of Applied Psychology, American Psychological Association, May 1988, Vol. 73, No. 2, 327-330, ISSN: 0021-9010, Number: apl732327.
“General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment and Job Performance”, by Frank L. Schmidt, University of Iowa, and John E. Hunter, Michigan State University; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, American Psychological Association, 2004, Vol. 86, No. 1, 162–173.
“Intelligence and Job Performance; Economic and Social Implications”, by Frank L. Schmidt, John E. Hunter, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, American Psychological Association,
September/December 1996 Vol. 2, No. 3-4, 447-472, ISSN: 1076-8971, Number: law23-4447.
“Individual Differences in Output Variability as a Function of Job Complexity”, by John E. Hunter,.; Frank L. Schmidt, and Michael K. Judiesch, Journal of Applied Psychology, American Psychological Association, February 1990, Vol. 75, No. 1, 28-42, ISSN: 0021-9010, Number: apl75128.
What do you look for when reviewing resumes?
Screening resumes, when done effectively, relies upon a list of specific qualifications required to perform the job being filled. As a recruiter I have often found that the qualifications provided by the employer are too vague, irrelevant or simply too numerous. It’s best to boil down the qualifications to the two or three that are truly essential for performing the job and then reject all candidates lacking them.
By looking at the last two or three jobs on a resume, I can quickly judge if a candidate meets the two most important requirements: 1. evidence of job stability; 2. appropriate work experience at the proper level of responsibility. Job stability, in my opinion, is a crucial consideration; the candidate’s resume should be dominated by positions with at least three, and preferably five or more, years of tenure. I reject candidates with a habit of job-hopping.
Appropriate work experience is a critical decision factor; if I need candidates for a nonprofit fundraising position, then nonprofit fundraising experience must be on the resume. Next, I evaluate the level of responsibility and the amount (or, years) of experience. When filling a management position, in addition to appropriate work experience, the resume must show an adequate period of comprehensive, managerial experience.
Don’t reject candidates for reasons not relevant to the job; for example, don’t reject a candidate for spelling or grammar errors. I’ve found blunders in the resumes of successful journalists and authors, so unless I’m hiring someone to write resumes, I don’t use resume mistakes as reason to reject candidates.
The same goes for interviews, only more so; I don’t particularly care how well a candidate interviews, I’m only interested in how well qualified the candidate is.
Does it make sense to reject a candidate having appropriate experience but lacking a college degree? While I’d prefer the candidate have a degree, if the candidate’s experience demonstrates he or she is qualified, potentially even the best qualified, I’m not going to reject based on a preference for a college degree.
If the requirements for the position are not entirely clear, or qualified candidates are likely to be difficult to find, then during my initial review, I may sort resumes into three categories: “unqualified,” “possibly qualified,” and “qualified.” If I have enough “qualified” resumes, I won’t revisit the “possibly qualified” batch. If not, a more extensive reading of the resumes in the “possibly” batch is warranted, combined with online research on those candidates.
Aside from job-hopping as a reason to reject, any misrepresentation, intentional obfuscation, or lie will cause me to reject a resume without hesitation. If a candidate has no reservations about fibbing on the resume, they will fib on the job.
Why don’t recruiters state the name of the employer in job postings?
One of the chief reasons recruiters are hired to fill job openings is that the employer lacks the time or manpower to deal with job seekers responding to ads. It makes more sense, for a number of reasons, to outsource that responsibility by hiring a recruiter.
One might assume that providing the employer’s name in a job posting would be fine, so long as interested candidates are instructed to apply through the recruiter rather than the employer. But an astounding number of people think that it is perfectly OK to ignore those instructions and contact the employer anyway. They figure that, by applying to both the recruiter and employer, they increase their odds of getting an interview. Or, if they don’t hear from the recruiter (which only happens if they are unqualified for the job), they then contact the employer directly, figuring they have nothing to lose at that point.
The large number of utterly unqualified individuals who respond to a job posting is a sight to behold. Then there are those who feel the need to apply two, three or even four times. In fact, these two categories constitute the majority of responses to most postings.
Unlike most employers–especially those lacking a human resource department–I deal with this every day; I know what to expect and have put in place automated systems to handle the avalanche of responses. From the employer’s perspective, I reduce the workload arising from job postings in two ways: pre-screening qualified candidates, and insulating the employer from unnecessary outside contacts.
Storing & organizing resumes without a dedicated program
What candidate resume management tools or process do you find effective?
“We are a consulting firm and receive and retain hundreds of resumes annually. Currently these are retained physically in folders in a file cabinet in alphabetical order with notes detailing the hire/do not hire decision. Several people may take notes during the interview and they are all placed in the folder.
“Can you offer an application or process that you find effective for storing and retrieving resumes?”
Answer:
I am surprised that, in this day and age, anyone works with paper resumes. By using a printed a resume (or any document for that matter) you forgo the ability to search and retrieve it using powerful computer-based tools. Moreover, if you loose the paper resume, you also loose the notes and comments.
As a recruiter, I am deeply reliant on retrieving bits and pieces of information I’ve collected over time–including resumes and notes of conversations. Although I sometimes print out resumes in order to take notes, I always copy the notes back in to my PC. It doesn’t matter where or in what format notes are kept since I use Google Desktop to retrieve all the information I need.
Say, for example, that I am aware of a potential candidate for a position I wish to fill and I want to pull together any notes or resumes I might have. I type the candidate’s name (“pete moss”) into my Google Deskbar search (on my computer’s taskbar) and Google will retrieve every reference to that name anywhere in my PC–every resume, note, outlook file, spreadsheet, email, even any website I’ve visited that had the words “pete moss” on it.
This ability to search through my whole computer (like Google searches the entire web) without regard to the location of data frees me from the requirement of keeping my information neatly stored in some particular “resume management system.” My computer IS the system.
Furthermore, Google allows you to coordinate searches between computers, so you can search through resumes, notes, and other data that the HR Director has on the HR department system and they can search through your information as well.
Ideally, you should not be storing hand written notes of interviews anyway. Each interviewer should debrief in a consistent manner–a short memo is fine–and then email that to the person coordinating the hire. Better still, upload the note to Google documents for storage and sharing, or use one of Microsoft’s many group collaboration tools. This solves the problem of record keeping, searching and group access all at once.
I realize it’s comforting to know exactly where your data is stored, but you no longer need to do so. Tools exist that can instantly retrieve information from the nooks and crannies of your hard drives–Google remembers where your data is, so you don’t have to.
