This week I've started wondering if employers are literally unable to hire because of a need for "perfection" in candidates. Some of the interviewing processes seem so complex with so many interviews, sometimes stretching out over weeks and including multiple senior executives, I don't see how they actually can get anyone hired. It's like approval by committee, it never works! There's such a fear of hiring the wrong person, that the company is completely paralyzed by the search for (their perception of) perfection. They end up not hiring anybody . . . imagine what that costs!
As an example, a candidate I'm working with sent me the following email.
"Wanted to also let you know that I've made it to the fourth round of the interview process with a private company in St. Louis... a Director of Marketing position. After my resume made the cut, I've had three different telephone interviews (HR Director, interim Marketing Director and VP of Marketing). Got the call yesterday for a personal interview. As far as I can tell, they're down to 4-6 candidates so I've got
my fingers crossed. If I can pass this phase, I think there's one more round of interviews with the President for the last 2-3."
It was about three days later, I received this note from the same candidate, "So I made it through seven face-to-face interviews and five phone interviews in five different 'phases' with the same company, only to learn last week that they have renewed their search and still haven't found "the right candidate." Said they'd received over 300 resumes. Hard to believe they couldn't find ONE candidate they believed could do the job. Oh well, live and learn." A total of 12 interviews before this company decided this isn't the right candidate? Wow! How could it possibly have taken that long to make a "No" decision? What was everyone talking about for all that time? Imagine the time and expense in that many interviews with "4-6" candidates? Does that company have any idea what they're looking for? I think not.
The same thought of "paralysis through perfection" comes to mind when I hear horror stories about putting candidates through "Personality Profile or Assessment Testing". You know, the kind of test that's generally taken online (pr sometimes in person) by the candidate? There are loads of them out there . . . Caliper, Wonderlick, DISC, Kolbe, Myers-Briggs. Some companies have the candidate complete more than one! In many cases the current employees of the hiring company haven't even taken the tests, so there's no benchmark for performance in their own culture. It's a very good idea for those involved in the hiring process to take the same test they're asking candidates to take . . . or why bother?
Testing seems like just one more level of "CYA" on the part of the hiring authorities . . . one more hurdle in the search for candidate/employee perfection. I understand how some in occupations, testing is a good idea . . . airline pilots jump to mind, but I'm skeptical about it's value in many, many other functional roles.
As an example, a candidate I'm working with sent me the following email.
"Wanted to also let you know that I've made it to the fourth round of the interview process with a private company in St. Louis... a Director of Marketing position. After my resume made the cut, I've had three different telephone interviews (HR Director, interim Marketing Director and VP of Marketing). Got the call yesterday for a personal interview. As far as I can tell, they're down to 4-6 candidates so I've got
my fingers crossed. If I can pass this phase, I think there's one more round of interviews with the President for the last 2-3."
It was about three days later, I received this note from the same candidate, "So I made it through seven face-to-face interviews and five phone interviews in five different 'phases' with the same company, only to learn last week that they have renewed their search and still haven't found "the right candidate." Said they'd received over 300 resumes. Hard to believe they couldn't find ONE candidate they believed could do the job. Oh well, live and learn." A total of 12 interviews before this company decided this isn't the right candidate? Wow! How could it possibly have taken that long to make a "No" decision? What was everyone talking about for all that time? Imagine the time and expense in that many interviews with "4-6" candidates? Does that company have any idea what they're looking for? I think not.
The same thought of "paralysis through perfection" comes to mind when I hear horror stories about putting candidates through "Personality Profile or Assessment Testing". You know, the kind of test that's generally taken online (pr sometimes in person) by the candidate? There are loads of them out there . . . Caliper, Wonderlick, DISC, Kolbe, Myers-Briggs. Some companies have the candidate complete more than one! In many cases the current employees of the hiring company haven't even taken the tests, so there's no benchmark for performance in their own culture. It's a very good idea for those involved in the hiring process to take the same test they're asking candidates to take . . . or why bother?
Testing seems like just one more level of "CYA" on the part of the hiring authorities . . . one more hurdle in the search for candidate/employee perfection. I understand how some in occupations, testing is a good idea . . . airline pilots jump to mind, but I'm skeptical about it's value in many, many other functional roles.
Thoughts? Have an interview or job search horror story to share?
