RETHINKING THE HIRING PROCESS
Better hiring practices for better outcomes.
I have learned that I am not always good at making hiring decisions based on interviews alone. I easily get excited about candidates, which leads me to overlook red flags (a lesson I've learned the hard way) or instances of a fit/skills mismatch (in more commonplace scenarios).
As a result, I have switched up the order of my hiring process, which has been game changing.
Rather than starting with an interview, I typically now do the following:
1. Request information for the role in a very specific format (ie: please send an email with XYZ title with your resume attached).
This often weeds out a large initial batch of candidates if:
a) the candidate does not follow this format, or
b) the candidate sends a templated email, or
c) the candidate sends an email, applying to the position, that says something like, "what do you do?" and hasn't looked at the website or job description.
2. Start with a small, paid project. This is usually 1-2 hours of work, compensated at the person's normal rate (or, if this hasn't been established yet, at a rate that feels joyful and fair to the candidate).
For me, this is the single most helpful thing we can do during the hiring process. This allows us to see not only the work product, but how the candidate thinks about the project; how they present it; and how they communicate about it.
3. Then, move to references and an interview.
I typically check 2-3 references per candidate, and am currently experimenting with moving the interview to the *end* of the process.
While this order of events might sound a bit radical, I'm finding that it is leading me to much better hiring decisions, and it puts a process in place that solves for my own tendency to want to hire everyone I interview because I like them or because I can see their future potential —which might not align with current state needs.
Research has shown that most of us are actually not very good at making hiring decisions based on interviews alone, and that we bring all sorts of personal biases into the process, even if we try not to.
For example, it has been proven that we are more likely to hire someone who is perceived to be "like us."
Incorporating a project (a real project that relates to work you're currently doing) is a way to align hiring decisions with skills, competencies, and quality of work, rather than simply on "personality" —which does not tend to correlate to fit.
This also respects the candidate's time, because they can get a sense of whether the type of work aligns with what they most want to be doing.
I know that this process isn't possible in all environments, but it works great within the context of my own business.
For me, this is a way to work with myself rather than working against myself.
A possible reflection: are there any ways in which we could implement systems, structures, or processes that help us to solve for gaps, challenges, or patterns that might not be serving us?
Hiring can be hard.
If you’d like support figuring out what type of person you actually need to hire, based on the needs of the company, and how this translates to a position and job description, please drop us a note. We would love to support you.
This post was originally shared via Friday Favorites —a free weekly curation of resources, reflections, and inquiries on leadership and life. Join us here, and join the weekly conversation, if you’d like.
