Job Hunt 50+ The Unicorn Hunters

Today, we are in a buyers market for employment and that means we're seeing more and more "unicorn hunters" or companies looking to find the "perfect" candidate. The reality is that unicorns don't exist, unicorn hunting indicates some serious management failings and when the market picks up these companies will lose out to their more agile and pragmatic competition.

What are recruitment unicorns?

In a tight employment market the power sits with the recruiting firm and we see a strong buyer's market. More and more we see the construction of long, complex and unrealistic recruitment processes as companies seek out the perfect candidate. These perfect candidates are the recruitment unicorns, so called because they are rare and in many cases they simply don't exist.

When companies are "unicorn hunting" they write long, complex and unrealistic job descriptions and then expect that the ideal candidate will meet 100% of these requirements. In the real world a good candidate might meet 70-80% of the requirements and I would ask candidates hiring questions about learning new skills, comfort levels around change and how the candidate copes with doing something for the first time.

Interestingly unicorn hunting may also have an impact on diversity, equality and inclusion. I saw this interesting statement in a job advert for New Zealand Tech Company Halter

Halter is committed to promoting a diverse and inclusive workplace — a place where we can each be ourselves and do the best work of our lives. Research shows that while men apply to jobs when they meet an average of 60% of the requirements, women and under-represented groups of candidates tend to only apply when they meet every requirement. If you think you have what it takes but don’t necessarily tick every requirement on this job description, please still get in touch and apply to Halter. We’d love to chat to see if you’ll be an epic fit!

The unintended consequence of unicorn hunting is a reduction in diversity.

Examples of unicorn hunting recruitment processes

Hunting unicorns takes a long time and the three main negative factors are:

1. Time consuming - The elapsed time for the process is extremely long. 3-4 months isn't unusual but I've also seen examples of a 6-month plus process. You can only do this in a poor jobs market because the highly qualified, high-performing candidates will get snapped up in a buoyant market in this time.
2. Resource intensive - A typical unicorn hunting process is also resource intensive. There are lots of phases and lots of stakeholders involved. We're talking hours and hours of staff and management time to manage the process. If the company runs psychometric testing or DBS background checks during this stage there can also be financial implications.
3. Lack of empowerment - A unicorn recruitment process disenfranchises the hiring manager. If you have multiple stakeholders, all of whom have the power of veto, the unicorn process becomes a bit of a lottery. It also exposes the process to unconscious bias and encourages the hiring of candidates with the same cultural background, again reducing diversity. What happens if the best candidate is openly gay, and one member of the recruitment entourage is unconsciously homophobic? Is it right that they can undermine the process through unconscious bias?

I want to give a recent example that a friend and former colleague experienced during a recruitment process. It is an extreme example, but not unusual. The process lasted over six-months and at the end of the process the company didn't appoint anyone to the role. An incredible waste of time, money and resources on everybody's part.

VP/CxO Interview Process

• Step 1 - Written Application - 20-50 page technical response
• Step 2 - Psychometric tests
• Step 3 - Early stage interviews (4 separate 1 hour interviews with peers and subordinates)
• Step 4 - More psychometric tests
• Step 5 - Late stage interviews (5 separate 1 hour interviews with hiring manager and 4 of their peers in other business functions)
• Stage 6 - HR interview (First discussion of salary and low-balling the candidate who had stated their target salary expectation at the start of the process)
• Stage 7 - CEO Interview (CEO doesn't feel the candidate is "right"....)
• Stage 8 - Hiring Manager 2nd interview (To explore the CEO's "feeling")
• Stage 9 - Decision (No)

For me this feels like a huge waste of time. A good candidate had to jump through so many hoops with the opportunity to fail the process at any time and then the CEO vetoes his appointment based on his "gut feeling" which seemed to be "you're not like me and that means you're not right for this organisation".

For the hiring manager this is incredibly undermining. The decision isn't yours to make. For the business they've wasted huge amounts of time in an inconclusive process. For the candidate he's invested huge amounts of time in an arbitrary process.

I also have to ask, "What are HR doing here?". HR are presiding over a "car crash" recruitment process that simply doesn't work. How is the HR function adding any value to the business here?

What does good look like in a recruitment process?

So, what does a good process look like? I'm not an HR professional, but I have applied for hundreds of jobs and attended lots of interviews. I've experienced and been successful in a "unicorn recruitment process"...twice, both with over 8 separate interviews, panels and presentations. I've also carried out a lot of internal and external hiring as a hiring manager. So this is my idea of a "good" process.

• Step - 1 - Written Application with cover letter and a few (3) experience questions such as, "How many years of experience do you have in marketing" etc.
• Step - 2 - Initial HR interview with conversation about salary expectations, office attendance and travel. Traditionally these happen at the end of the process and can be a deal breaker when you find out they are offering you 20% less than your current role or you're expected in the office 100 miles away five-days a week.
• Step - 3 - Peer/Subordinate interview where the company culture is explained, they explain their role and how they will interact with the successful candidate as well as some structured competency based questions
• Step 4 - Hiring Manager interview - In depth interview with the manager you will be working for with again good competency based questions.
• Step 5 - Panel presentation - The candidate is asked to give a short presentation on a relevant topic to a panel. Ideally the panel is the hiring manager, the hiring manager's manager and a peer to the hiring manager.
• Step 6 - Offer/Feedback session - If the candidate is successful a meeting to make a verbal offer and discuss start dates. If the candidate is unsuccessful a short 3+3 feedback session based on the interview notes.

In summary this is a short process that could be run in under four weeks with two interviews and a panel presentation. The hiring manager is empowered to make the hiring decision but their subordinates, peers and superiors (I'm not sure I like that terminology) all get to see and comment on the candidate.

Setting employer expectations

I'm often quite critical of the HR function within businesses [Question: has that just ruined my chances of getting hired?] but they do have an important role in defining the hiring process and coaching people involved in the recruitment process.

"We want a company that is harder to get into that Harvard" - Bill McDermott - CEO of ServiceNow

HR mustn't allow companies to create a "bloated" process that is impossible to complete.

HR must explain that interviewing inherently isn't a very effective process and actually adding additional layers to the process doesn't de-risk the process but simply wastes time and money and leads to a reduction in diversity. This statement that interviewing isn't an effective method of recruitment, but if you really want to de-risk the process you need to look at the types of extended selection processes the military run. These aren't perfect but when you're about to spend ￡2-3m training a fighter pilot you really want to be sure about your candidate's suitability to the role.

Finally, HR need to explain that recruitment is a two-way process, or at least it should be, and that candidates need to be given time to ask questions and understand more about the company that are interviewing them. Lots of processes focus on putting the candidate through the wringer and then don't give them time to find out about the organization they are looking to join.

What does "unicorn hunting" tell you about a business?

When I see a company that has a "unicorn hunting" recruitment process it tells me a number of things about that business:

1. Lack of agility - This is not an agile company. This may not be a company that copes well with change.
2. Lack of empowerment - Unicorn recruitment is recruitment by committee, in the best case, and in the worst case it is management by despot (e.g. "It doesn't matter what everyone else thinks I'm the CEO/CTO/COO and I make the hiring decisions here!"
3. Lack of efficiency - Is a complex and expensive process efficient? Does this process translate into lower staff turnover or better performing staff? Where is the evidence? Companies usually recruit because they have a problem and need a new hire as a solution to that problem. Is delaying resolving an issue by six-months indicative of an efficient and decisive company? What does it say about prioritisation? I'm not advocating hasty hiring, but the process needs to be a pragmatic compromise.
4. Poor HR function - Either HR has no power within the organisation and has had a convoluted process imposed upon it (Not good) or HR has too much power and has implemented a top-heavy process that demonstrates their "value" to the organisation while detracting from the real purpose of the business.

A good candidate will be doing their due diligence on the company as well, and a unicorn process will certainly trigger some in-depth questions if not alarm bells.

"If this is the company's recruitment process, how difficult is it to raise a recruitment requisition when I need new staff...?"

Finally, when the job market picks up these companies will struggle to get the best candidates because the best candidates will go with more agile, empowered, efficient companies with a good HR function.

Don't forget feedback

When I gave the incredible example of the 9 stage, 7 month recruitment process my friend went through the most incredible thing was at the end of that process the candidate wasn't offered any feedback.

A good recruitment process has feedback "baked into" the process. The recruitment process needs to be documented with simple contemporaneous notes and a recommendation. Candidates rejected at the application stage shouldn't expect more than a cursory, "We had so many applications we didn't bother reading yours!" statement but I would argue that candidates ruled out in the interview stages should get some written feedback such as,

"Your use of mysogynist language in the interview wasn't in line with the company's values."

Candidates who are unsuccessful in the final stages of the process should expect a short (15-20 minute) feedback meeting where they are given actionable feedback.

The best companies (IMHO) will have feedback as a standard part of their recruitment process.

Conclusion

So now you know what "recruitment unicorns" are and the concept of "unicorn hunters" companies looking for the perfect candidate.

Thoughts, comments, ridicule

I hope that you've found this edition of Job Hunt 50+ useful. As ever I'd love to hear your comments on the JHDM and any of your own experiences job hunting as an over 50.