On Behalf of all Future Candidates, Please Don't Make these Hiring Mistakes...

As someone who has occupied a long string of contract positions and faced my fair share of startup turnover, I can say with great certainty that the power lies with the person/organization doing the hiring instead of the unemployed, underemployed (and possibly terrified) candidate.

While I've spent many hours going through a variety of hiring processes that sometimes require unpaid work "samples" (not a good look), I've had the opportunity to speak with other job seekers to compile a list of some of the most nightmarish hiring scenarios to date...

The employer who is the very embodiment of "scope creep"

This is generally an easy one to spot. The list of job qualifications will look more like a wish list that would accompany hiring an entire department versus just one person. These employers use words like "self-starter" and "multiple hats" to describe a role that's likely overburdened and underpaid.

When searching for a person who will likely fill more than one vital role, make an effort to trim the responsibilities down to a more manageable level, be prepared to pay more to offset the sheer volume of work, or simply hire two people while pricing the separate roles accordingly. Putting someone in an impossible position will only heighten burnout, increase turnover, and harm the company's reputation.

The HR manager that relies on "tests" to decide whether a candidate will be up to par

Just today, a colleague who I know to be an expert in social media (proven), was tasked with completing a social media proficiency test on the popular job site, Indeed. She did not do well. In addition to poorly worded questions, she was asked to make general decisions about social media marketing channels around vague statements that would not be sufficient when truly creating a professional strategy.

In this case, the company will likely pass up a highly qualified candidate based on a less than accurate skill evaluation. While some tests can shed light on personality traits or qualifications, relying on these to make crucial hiring decisions is (for lack of a better word) ridiculous. Personality tests can also type-cast your new hires, placing them in a box that's difficult to break away from and preventing personal and professional growth.

The proof is in the pudding. Ask for portfolios, references, past successes, and concrete evidence of their capabilities. And keep in mind - people change. Assigning duties based on personality test outcomes is poor form and will hurt company culture.

The potential employer who has no real idea what they want

Have you ever finished reading a job description that was primarily comprised of $50 words and industry jargon that just left you asking, "huh?"

"We need a self starter who can navigate interdepartmental channels to cultivate new lead channels for various departments based on holistic analytical needs..."

Anyone can make some sense of that, but far too much is left open to interpretation. There are no particular applications of skill, technology, or actionable job duties. It's just a lot of fluff intended to "catch" the right candidate by sheer volume versus concrete capability. Not only is this confusing and entirely open to interpretation, but it also creates chaos during the interview, hiring, and onboarding processes.

When creating an initial job description, keep it short, to the point, and be very clear with your requirements. Doing so will weed out unqualified candidates and save you time (and dignity) throughout the hiring process.

The company that wants something for nothing

Like many writers, I've spent more hours than I'd like to admit crafting and submitting "sample" work. Companies treat these samples like tryouts, using them to determine your skill. A good company never asks for unpaid work. However, new writers or those trying to break into the industry don't always know this.

Samples can cross industries as well, and will sometimes be required of graphic designers, social media managers, programmers, and others. As an employer, the best way to gauge a skillset is to request a portfolio. If this isn't an option, pay the candidate for their time and work! Period. Do not pass go... you get the picture.

Another growing trend is to pre-screen candidates using lengthy questionnaires or written interviews. Again, we understand the need to pre-screen, but requiring potential hires to put hours into the process (sometimes eating into their workday or family time) shows a company that doesn't value the time of employees, and that will likely take advantage of those it hires.

The employer whose entire hiring process is chaotic at best

As a candidate, I can count on two hands the number of times a potential employer has stood me up for a video interview. Sometimes they reach out to apologize, other times they blame their absence on communication issues within the company.

Even if the candidate and the interviewer make the meeting, there are instances when the interviewer seems to have no idea what job they're interviewing for, the name of the candidate, or the actual responsibilities that will be required for the role. It's an awkward process that leads to mutual frustration and a failed hiring attempt.

Define your hiring process, make sure to be professional and respectful, and show up with vital info in hand for goodness sake! Nothing looks worse for a company when the interviewee looks better prepared than the interviewer.

This week, instead of a traditional call to action, I'd like to end this article with a plea for help. Please, if you can, take a moment to donate to the women of Afghanistan who are facing dangerous oppression at the hands of religious extremists. If one woman is suffering this oppression, we all are - and we all must act to stop it.

Click here to donate to Women for Women International?(or find another charity that you're comfortable with).