天空之城 2007-5-30 03:17 PM
How to Adjust Hiring Standards to Increase Your Applicant Pool
Part 1 of this article discussed risks associated with arbitrarily lowering hiring standards in reaction to applicant shortages caused by a tight labor market. The article did not say that hiring standards should never be lowered, but that they should be lowered cautiously and systematically. This part of the article discusses methods for doing this.
w0|$`c5{3io_
When a company decides to lower its hiring standards, what it is fundamentally doing is decreasing the concern placed on addressing one or more of the following questions about candidates: (j3V_FaE!^6`@@
[list=1][*]Do they possess the minimum requirements needed to hold the job?[*]Do they have the necessary experience and education needed to effectively perform the job?[*]Do they have the potential required to meet future job demands?[*]Does the job match their work goals?[/list]Relaxing standards around one or more of these questions allows more candidates to meet the selection criteria. The problem is that any change in the hiring process that leads to screening out fewer candidates is also likely to increase the risk that the wrong candidates will be allowed in (assuming you're using valid selection tools to sort candidates). !K
Y)OoO kI
The key is balancing the need to increase applicant flow against the risk of making the wrong hiring decisions. This is best done through systematically reviewing the importance and impact associated with changing the methods used to screen applicants based on requirements, experience, potential, and work goals. Fc/CY R1j:C
The first three focus on how companies evaluate candidates based on whether they have the capabilities needed to succeed in the job. Each of these is discussed below. The fourth category, work goals, has to do with candidates evaluating whether the job fits their needs (covered in Part 3 of this series). Y1le
wwb N){ G
Requirements Requirements are things candidates absolutely must possess to even be considered for hire.1qh#g0A0{Y*n)OY
Requirements are primarily used to avoid making what I call "catastrophically bad" hires. These are hires who end up costing the company substantial amounts of money. This can result from violating employment laws, hiring employees who engage in counterproductive behaviors such as theft, or employing people whose lack of basic qualifications makes them completely unable to perform certain key job tasks or places them at risk of damaging company property or injuring themselves, customers, or coworkers.
a5Z+T\+fA
In a loose labor market, companies have a tendency to establish more job requirements than may be strictly necessary because they provide a quick way to screen out applicants. During a tight labor market, companies can revisit these job requirements to make sure that they are truly critical to job performance, and are not just "nice to haves."
Qy}6h&T$Mp`
For example, being proficient in English, while often desirable, is not actually necessary to perform many jobs, particularly those that do not require customer interaction (there's an article on the topic of English requirements in the June [i][url=http://www.crljournal.com/][color=#0000ff]Journal of Corporate Recruiting Leadership[/color][/url]).[/i]
天空之城 2007-5-30 03:18 PM
Even drug screens and background checks can be evaluated to determine whether they're being used to eliminate candidates based on things that are not necessarily critical for job performance (e.g., removing candidates based on minor convictions that resulted from "youthful indiscretions" that occurred years ago). Removing a requirement does not imply that it isn't relevant to the job. It just means that it, by itself, cannot tell you that someone is totally unfit for the position.
Y;l'F!DOL
When you identify requirements that are not necessary, consider reframing them as desired qualifications or removing them altogether. If you determine, on the other hand, that a requirement is critical for a job, then be rigorous and uncompromising in its application to hiring decisions. Don't allow hiring managers to make exceptions to the requirement. It's a requirement for a reason. Allowing managers to make exceptions based on individual cases increases the risk of making a catastrophically bad hire and may lead to legal challenges based on inconsistent hiring methods.]4AjqzN4ak
Experience and Education One of the best ways to decrease the size of your applicant pool is to set demanding expectations regarding candidates' previous work experience and education. Hiring managers are quick to ask that candidates be screened based on things such as "3 to 5 years of marketing experience" or "a BA/BS in Chemical Engineering."
1Ra:?.T4?7Zv"@8H
The problem with using these types of experience and education criteria to screen candidates is they tend to be overly narrow and restrictive, even if they're job relevant.
Y6@3@ }z^$u"I[
We do not hire people for their previous experience and education. We hire them because we assume that their prior experience or education has given them certain skills and capabilities. Keep the following questions in mind when establishing selection criteria based on education and experience:+ki#Ypw6|J
[list=1][*]Why is it important? What capabilities are you assuming candidates will have gained as a result of having certain levels of experience or education?[*]Are there other ways a person might develop these capabilities?[/list]Challenge hiring managers to justify why high levels of education and experience are needed to perform the job. Remind them that experience itself does not guarantee learning.
[)a*woL ]5SS}
High performers may develop capabilities from one year of job experience that other people may not gain from five or more years in the same job. Encourage hiring managers to also consider candidates with alternative types of experiences and education that can provide job-relevant capabilities even if it comes from working in a seemingly unrelated field.