T
The Byre
- Original Poster
- #1
A long time ago my head was hunted. Some HR consultants decided to offer me a job as editor of an undisclosed glossy consumer monthly. I had to be in that area anyway, so I thought "Hell, why not pop past on my way to the Hannover Industrie Messe and see what gives!"
By the time the day rolled around, I had been speculating what sort of magazine needed my skills - obviously something techie, but what? Computers, industrial processes, film, broadcasting, telecoms, what? Just who were these discerning and clever people that had recognised my hitherto unrecognised brilliance?
I drove there with my Great Dane, Viscount Field Marshall Montgomery, who of course stayed in the car. The address turned out to be some back-street HR office. A collection of elderly people sat behind a long table in some conference room and peered at me over their glasses. After the initial chit-chat, the 'object' was gently pushed across the table as if it were a holy relic.
A ghastly magazine dedicated to bone china! I walked out and drove on to the trade fair, taking Viscount Field Marshall Montgomery with me.
Since then, my head has been hunted with varying degrees of success, though over the years I have hunted more heads than others have hunted mine.
I was reminded of this futile episode when I read a paper in the May-June issue of the Harvard Business Review by Peter Capelli, author and professor of management at the Wharton School in Philadelphia, headed 'Your Approach to Hiring is All Wrong!' According to the prof., until about 1975 companies the World over did most of their recruitment internally and with considerable success. Since then they have looked more and more for senior staff by recruiting outsiders - and with much less success. Most importantly, companies are failing to measure the effectiveness of their recruiting processes.
When companies are asked why they do not monitor the effectiveness of hiring, the most common response is that measuring employee performance is too difficult. Given that staff costs are the single biggest expense item at many companies, this is a startling admission. And, as Mr Cappelli points out, there are some simple things employers could do, such as checking how long newly hired workers stay at the company or asking a supervisor whether they regret the hiring decision.
Until about 1975, 90% of vacancies above the lowest level were filled from within the company. Today it is about 30%. This, says the Prof. is completely illogical and unproductive - companies know more about the abilities of their own workers than they do about those of outsiders. But they still insist on looking outside their own ranks, even though research suggests that outside hires take three years longer to perform as well as internal candidates in the same job. They also pay outsiders more.
Employers seem to think that there must be something wrong with someone who is unhappy with their current job, so they try to lure 'passive' candidates who don't really want to change jobs. As a result, rival firms compete by trying to lure away each other’s staff - leading to a crazy arms-race and higher costs. After all, employees happy with their current job will want more money if they are to change jobs. Mr Cappelli did not discover any evidence that outsiders are more cost-effective hires or that passive candidates make better employees.
Worker-selection techniques are also a mess. HR agencies conduct all kinds of magic tests, checking things like facial expressions and word usage, but there is zero evidence that such tests result in picking better candidates. A straightforward test of relevant skills is probably the best approach.
Prof. Cappelli found that managers often ignore the results of proper testing and since 2009 have doubled the amount of time spent interviewing candidates, using a series of subjective questions that serve to recruit people most like themselves. Silly questions like “what would you do if stranded on a desert island?” is no predictor of future performance.
So how can companies improve? Cappelli suggests that firms post all job openings internally, check how many positions are filled from within, and make a greater effort to see how outside hires perform.
Companies are less rigorous about evaluating the performance of their staff than about the quality of the raw materials they put in their products or the stuff they stock on their shelves. We all agree that improving productivity is the best way to achieve sustained growth and higher earnings - yet productivity in the UK is stagnant. Hiring the right people, people you know and can trust, is one of the most important factors in improving productivity.
By the time the day rolled around, I had been speculating what sort of magazine needed my skills - obviously something techie, but what? Computers, industrial processes, film, broadcasting, telecoms, what? Just who were these discerning and clever people that had recognised my hitherto unrecognised brilliance?
I drove there with my Great Dane, Viscount Field Marshall Montgomery, who of course stayed in the car. The address turned out to be some back-street HR office. A collection of elderly people sat behind a long table in some conference room and peered at me over their glasses. After the initial chit-chat, the 'object' was gently pushed across the table as if it were a holy relic.
A ghastly magazine dedicated to bone china! I walked out and drove on to the trade fair, taking Viscount Field Marshall Montgomery with me.
Since then, my head has been hunted with varying degrees of success, though over the years I have hunted more heads than others have hunted mine.
I was reminded of this futile episode when I read a paper in the May-June issue of the Harvard Business Review by Peter Capelli, author and professor of management at the Wharton School in Philadelphia, headed 'Your Approach to Hiring is All Wrong!' According to the prof., until about 1975 companies the World over did most of their recruitment internally and with considerable success. Since then they have looked more and more for senior staff by recruiting outsiders - and with much less success. Most importantly, companies are failing to measure the effectiveness of their recruiting processes.
When companies are asked why they do not monitor the effectiveness of hiring, the most common response is that measuring employee performance is too difficult. Given that staff costs are the single biggest expense item at many companies, this is a startling admission. And, as Mr Cappelli points out, there are some simple things employers could do, such as checking how long newly hired workers stay at the company or asking a supervisor whether they regret the hiring decision.
Until about 1975, 90% of vacancies above the lowest level were filled from within the company. Today it is about 30%. This, says the Prof. is completely illogical and unproductive - companies know more about the abilities of their own workers than they do about those of outsiders. But they still insist on looking outside their own ranks, even though research suggests that outside hires take three years longer to perform as well as internal candidates in the same job. They also pay outsiders more.
Employers seem to think that there must be something wrong with someone who is unhappy with their current job, so they try to lure 'passive' candidates who don't really want to change jobs. As a result, rival firms compete by trying to lure away each other’s staff - leading to a crazy arms-race and higher costs. After all, employees happy with their current job will want more money if they are to change jobs. Mr Cappelli did not discover any evidence that outsiders are more cost-effective hires or that passive candidates make better employees.
Worker-selection techniques are also a mess. HR agencies conduct all kinds of magic tests, checking things like facial expressions and word usage, but there is zero evidence that such tests result in picking better candidates. A straightforward test of relevant skills is probably the best approach.
Prof. Cappelli found that managers often ignore the results of proper testing and since 2009 have doubled the amount of time spent interviewing candidates, using a series of subjective questions that serve to recruit people most like themselves. Silly questions like “what would you do if stranded on a desert island?” is no predictor of future performance.
So how can companies improve? Cappelli suggests that firms post all job openings internally, check how many positions are filled from within, and make a greater effort to see how outside hires perform.
Companies are less rigorous about evaluating the performance of their staff than about the quality of the raw materials they put in their products or the stuff they stock on their shelves. We all agree that improving productivity is the best way to achieve sustained growth and higher earnings - yet productivity in the UK is stagnant. Hiring the right people, people you know and can trust, is one of the most important factors in improving productivity.
