Page 31 - 914INC - Q4 - 2013

in seeing how to work the candidates through the process, and with the employer—keep them engaged. That’s the other thing we see, how long a search takes, because they’re interviewing 10 more candidates when they already found three great candidates looking for that 98.5-percent match.
Robert: So employers’ expectations can be unrealis- tic in assuming they can find that ‘perfect employee’ in this market, and that is belaboring the process...
Luba: Companies have downsized so significantly, yet still have the same amount of work that needs to be done. They’re probably going through several processes of re-organizing and re-scoping roles, and, if the jobs are changing significantly, they’re probably changing the skill sets and competencies that they’re looking for. So the job as it existed a year ago may be completely different today. A lot of employers feel that they now can selectively try and find the best fit for their organization as opposed to just force-fitting someone into a role.
Richard: Conversely, on the candidate side, because being on LinkedIn is kind of putting your passive resumé out there, you have more oppor- tunities if you are a good candidate—companies contact people. You also have more things com- ing at you at one time, which clouds the process of maybe taking another job—which you think is pretty right for you—and, all of a sudden, another company comes along because they found you on LinkedIn. So the recession has just allowed people to get used to using these other tools a lot more.
Gregory: There is one thing to remember: It depends on the size of the firm. Smaller firms tend to do things a lot differently than larger firms do. They see it as a crapshoot, even if they’re orga- nized. They still see it as rolling the dice.
Donald: Small companies aren’t hiring every day, so it’s not a regular activity. They aren’t seasoned interviewers—it becomes a crapshoot because they really don’t know what they are doing and they aren’t confident. They don’t understand how to ask questions on a behavioral interview. The other thing is that if you interview one person at a time under the idea of, ‘When I find the right person, I’ll know,’ it becomes a very difficult process. If you organize the way a search firm organizes—talk to 150 people in order to interview 12 to 15 people face-to-face, in order to generate a panel of five finalists—the best result is that they can’t make a decision among the five. They can whittle that five down to two people they want to bring back a second and third time. Now, all of a sudden, even small firms can make a good decision and feel comfortable.
Joseph: The interview process is really an art form that requires training and pre-created questions, not simply looking at a resumé and making it up as we go. Part of what we have done is train managers how to interview. There are 5,000 books when you go to Barnes & Noble on how to beat the interview, but you will not find one book written for someone who is actually giving the interview.
Robert: With the recession, there has been a lot of over-qualified candidates applying for jobs. From
the perspective of the employer, if you have a can- didate who is over-qualified and you can get them at the same price point as someone who is mostly qualified, it’s tempting for the employer to shoot for the over-qualified candidate so they can get a big- ger and better bang for their buck.
Gregory: The idea of being ‘over-qualified’ to me is degrading to the candidate and to the employer. ‘You are too qualified for the job’ or ‘You are too good for the job’—if you know what you’re looking for, then none of that gets in the way. It’s not about over-qualified or under-qualified—it’s just about who is the right person for the job.
Donald: But Greg, I think the issue is if somebody
was earning $200,000 a year before, and they are unemployed now, and they are prepared to take a job at $115,000 a year...
Gregory: That is a price point—it’s not about qualification.
Donald: Yes, but you’re hiring a more senior per- son, a more experienced person, at a lower price point. Getting more talent than you need is the greatest luxury in the world, particularly for smaller companies. Bigger companies need people to sort of fit into the box. Smaller companies, if you bring a VP of sales who also understands marketing, that’s a great thing. But the big problem is if you bring in somebody who was making a lot of money before and they’re taking a huge pay cut—the next time somebody offers them more money, they’re taking it. So you have to be very careful in under- standing their motivation. The tragedy is when you hire somebody and go through that process and then they leave six to 12 months later. The turn- over costs is nothing compared to the opportunity costs of just having to go through the process all over again.
Annette: I agree; you’re either qualified or not qualified. And in going back to what Joe said earlier about the skills, interests, and motivators, those are the three most important things. You’re taking someone who was making $200,000 and has been out [of work] for two years and at a point where they need the benefits, they’re willing to do the work, they’re motivated. As an employer, you seriously need to go through that process, but consider them as a serious candidate. I’ve found a lot of people from the coaching perspective are very dedicated, motivated, and committed to that job when they are taking a $50,000 to $60,000 pay cut and they really appreciate that new employer, having been out of work for two years.
Gregory: You go into it with your eyes open. Most employers think in terms of ROI. ‘What is the ROI
“I always ask the candidates, ‘What would be your ideal next step?’ and, of course, they always say, ‘This job.’ But then you dig deeper and probe more, and get really specific to make sure that it is going to be the right match and the right time.“
Annette McLaughlin
westchestermagazine.com
65