Candidate Selection Issues and Best Practices

There's no more important decisions that leaders make than those about people. This especially includes who to add to the team. Where the hiring process advances to personal interviews, keep some selection considerations in mind. First, use a structured interview process by which the core competencies for the job are explored. Those involved in interviewing should also understand the process, the tools used (questionnaires, pre-employment assessments, background checks, etc.), and the selection criteria.

The candidate selection process should be structured. This might include Likert rating scales for core competencies, a ratings matrix that weights the relative importance of each primary selection criteria (i.e., talents, skills, experience listed individually) along with a rating for each to come up with some overall score, stack ranking by interviewers for comparison, or some other method. This reduces the reliance on intuition, “gut feel,” and snap judgments to come to a more considered decision.

At each hiring stage, it’s good practice to have a brief, interactive discussion between all interviewers after the end of interview discussions. This allows interviewers to explain their views about a candidate and challenge each other in order to come to well-considered decisions. Best practice at work is formed through active discussion and debate so that the pool of knowledge is wide. Hiring is no different and is a crucial leadership responsibility that shouldn’t be short-changed via a lack of direct interaction between decision-makers. The implications of rushing to unwise judgment are significant.

Skills are more easily taught—but an individual’s talents, competencies, thought processes, principles, and values evolve over the long term, if ever. During the interview, an overemphasis on skills and experience may come at the expense of enduring patterns of thought and action that likely impact performance much more.

The lack of timely candidate feedback slows down the hiring process, increasing expenses associated with having the “empty seat” and risks losing qualified candidates to competitors who move more quickly through the hiring process. Speed is not an adequate alternative to a thorough and structured selection process, but organizations have to work both well and quickly in recruiting. Delays signal an indecisive and disorganized approach to candidates, who begin to rethink how attractive the job and company really are.

Interviewer feedback also needs to be meaningfully detailed. Supervisors commonly state that a candidate “just isn’t a fit.” Stating the candidate was “great” is of no use either. Such feedback doesn’t help others understand the rationale in selecting or rejecting a candidate, or help to target future candidates for a better match. You should be able to articulate specific reasons that led you to accept or reject a candidate. If you can’t then you are either using the poor practice of “gut feel” or need to think further through the rationale behind your decision.

?Pre-employment assessments are also commonly used to aid in candidate selection. These assessments provide additional information that might shed light on a candidate’s match for the role, organization, and working culture. They may confirm your impressions or might contain information of concern to follow up on. Assessments should be applied to all candidates when your organization reaches the appropriate stage in hiring. Pre-employment assessments are a tool and not a panacea for an organization’s candidate selection ills. They should also never be used as a sole determiner in selecting or rejecting candidates.

As the hiring process moves toward conclusion and finalists are chosen, background checks can be useful. Education, employment, criminal record and other background information may be checked in compliance with relevant employment law. These checks can validate the accuracy and truthfulness of information a candidate has provided during the hiring process. Former supervisors and coworkers can discuss their experience of working with the candidate and their perspective on the applicant’s suitability for the job they are interviewing for.

·????????Do you have interactive discussions with other interviewers to determine a candidate’s suitability?

·????????Do you consistently use the candidate interview questionnaires, background checking, and pre-employment assessment tools that may be available to you?

·????????Do you provide specific and detailed feedback regarding why you recommend or reject candidates?

·????????Do you emphasize interviewing only for skills and experience, or do you also look for competencies and talents that you can adapt and mold to the job?

All of us bring our own particular mix of experiences, perspectives, principles, values, and thoughts into the hiring process. We each view the world through a unique lens that is colored by these factors. In a word, we all can hold biases. It’s important to acknowledge the existence of our own personal biases; we can then guard against their influence in hiring decisions as they can detract from the integrity of the selection process.

The first bias is stereotyping, where we attribute certain characteristics to all members of a particular classification of people rather than treat each person as an individual. For a very long time, this has caused discrimination based on race, gender, age, ethnicity, and other characteristics. Such tendencies not only detract from the quality of your hiring decisions but are also socially irresponsible and may even contravene employment laws. “All persons who were a captain of a sports team must be good leader” or “All accountants and IT staff are introverts” are examples of stereotyping.

Halo and Horn Effects refer to situations where a single characteristic about, or answer from, a candidate is either very attractive (Halo) or very “bad” (Horn). Those involved in hiring make an interview decision solely on the basis of that one aspect without considering the rest of the information gathered about the candidate. This is the ultimate example of extremism in selection decisions. Such responses almost certainly should not have been a sole determiner and may not even be directly relevant to the ability to do the job. For example: “She had this bad habit of tapping her fingers while thinking of an answer to my questions,” “He said that what he enjoyed most about his last job was working in an environment with open idea-sharing. Senior management doesn’t do a lot of that here. He won’t like it at all,” or “She graduated from ABC University. She’s going to be smart enough to do this job then.”

Comparison error is another form of bias, where rather than being judged on individual merits, candidates are compared with current or past team members and judged favorably or unfavorably on that basis—i.e., “His appearance and manner reminds me a lot of John, who was a high-maintenance employee who was hard to manage. I don’t want another problem on my team,” or “Her enthusiasm reminds me of Luisa, who is enjoyable to work with and is supportive to the team. She ought to do well in the job.” In addition, we are positively biased toward others whose appearance, manner, background, or other characteristics closely resemble our own. While our minds and heart might favor diversity, subconsciously we work against this desire.

Validity-related biases are any other biases we hold that act as determiners of a candidate’s fate that are unrelated to their ability to perform the role. Examples of such bias include: “He’s not a golfer. He’s not going to be able to relate well and build relationships with our other senior managers on that basis,” “She has children, and I bet that will be a problem in terms of her ability to work the schedule we require,” or “I’ve never heard of the university she graduated from. Her educational background isn’t a match for us.”

The processing of internal candidates is another issue to explore. There may be potential advantages of hiring internally, but the best candidate for the position, wherever found, ought to be considered for hire. You should also consider the need to balance continuity on teams with the benefits of bringing in new ideas and perspectives from outside the organization.

There are issues regarding internal candidates to consider. The first is how processing internal applications should be the same. When internal candidates are treated substantially different than their external counterparts, hiring integrity is risked. Overconfidence that “we know” internal candidates leads to complacency where interviews are just casual conversations. Assumptions about job suitability may be based on our relationship with the employee, or to the supervisor that currently manages them, rather than their ability to perform the role.

The process for considering internal candidates should be no less rigorous than that for external applicants, and the same selection process should be applied. When interviewing is consistent, there’s a better chance that the most qualified applicant will be hired. Avoid the mistake of hiring candidates based on the “comfort factor” rather than the one best-placed to perform the role.

The internal recruitment process, if poorly administrated, can cause relationship problems between employees and the organization that can hasten their move toward the door. Internal candidates are, at the very least, owed prompt acknowledgement of their application and the courtesy of an initial screening conversation. Even if it’s widely held that the internal candidate is unlikely to be qualified for the position, the conversation helps the business better understand the employee’s motivations for applying, their career development aims, and their talent, skills, and experience. Common courtesy also signals to the employee that the company is serious about career development and internal hiring.

As another basic show of respect, you should provide internal applicants timely feedback about the outcome of their application directly via conversation and not email. Provide an internal candidate as much frank feedback as is appropriate, along with advice for addressing areas for growth, in order to place them in a better position to be considered for roles in the future.

Unlike external applicants, information such as annual appraisals, commendations or other formal recognition, and records of performance and behavior issues are accessible. In addition, you can speak to the employee’s current and former supervisors and other stakeholders or recipients of the employee’s work products. There may also be additional historic data on employee performance to consider. You have more information available to understand the internal applicant’s qualifications for the position and decrease the risk of a mis-hire. It would be unwise not to use it.

·????????Do you use all the information at your disposal regarding internal candidates to ensure they are a good match for the position and team?

·????????Do you use the same thorough interview and selection approach with internal candidates that you do with external applicants?

·????????Do you ensure that prompt and personal feedback on the progress and outcome of applications is provided to internal candidates?

*This article contains an excerpt from the book "The Leadership Core"

www.willschirmerofficial.com