Register early and save on ERE Expo 2010 Spring in San Diego from March 15-17.

Blog Network

Why Are We Hiring This Way? follow this blog post

posted by on Oct. 6, 2009

 

I think job applicants have just had it with today's protracted hiring cycles. I speak with candidates on a daily basis, and frankly, I can't blame them for their frustrations.  Companies seem to be in a mode of unspeakable analysis paralysis. There are many factors to this phenomenon and they include such things as a lot of low hanging fruit out there to be plucked easily from the trees, a mode of self-preservation on behalf of the people in the hiring process, and what appears to be an overwhelming fear of making a bad hire in an unforgiving economy.

Let's state it in simpler terms. There are a ton of qualified candidates out there, and recruiters and hiring managers are terrified of the ramifications of making a hire-be it good one or a bad one.

In this employer's market, the hiring cycle should be a relatively quick, cut and dry process. With all of the talent on the market, it shouldn't take long to identify a few high quality prospects, screen them and offer them a job. Unfortunately, that's not what's happening. People drag their feet. They blame the overwhelming ad response and the need to carefully screen every candidate to the nth degree (analysis paralysis). They double clutch on moving forward, because if they do, there may not be another job out there to work on (self-preservation on behalf of the corporate recruiter) or the high caliber candidate that has made it to the final round of the selection process, may very well be an overachiever (self preservation on behalf of the hiring manager). Lastly, if you do make a bad hire, you've probably burnt the only requisition you'll be given in who knows how long, and your deliverables may be more adversely affected the new team member who's dragging the team down, than if you were to just finish the project with the resources you already have in place (bad hire in an unforgiving economy).

 

Come on, people. Loosen up on the pucker factor.  Man up and do your job.  Screen some candidates, narrow it down to a short list and pull the flippin' trigger for Pete's sake.

| 8 comments | flag

8 comments

Log in or register to post a reply.

  • 1 point 5 months ago

    Then you know Bob that the current climate is no different than what has happened in the past. I have no reason for it other than companies are being fiscally conversative, and often, the wishy-washy is not about can't make a hire, but rather, with limited headcount and budgets, the "hey lets bring 'em on board to see if they'll grow into the role" is no longer an option. They need someone to get in and be productive and knowledgable day one. As such they are willing now to wait (and wait) for the right person. Don't like it anymore than you, but again, candidates have basically worked themselves out of a job these last 5 years with their constant demands. You think it is bad here, check out hiring practices and lay-offs overseas..

  • 1 point 5 months ago

    Bob, 

    I'd love to hear your idea on how to have a frank conversation with a HM about getting things moving. I've tried every tactic "people are getting offers, they won't last, we are looking like idiots, where are the gaps, and on and on. What is the next push when none of these conversations work? 

  • 1 point 5 months ago

    I  can not speak for others and what bottlenecks maybe causing the delay in hiring but, I can speak from personal experience as a Corp Recruiter. 

    What I do know is typically hiring is delayed due to:

    a) HM does not know what they are looking for and they are afraid to make up their mind

    b) Sadly some HM do not know how to interview

    c) They have no immediate plans to hire and they maybe casually looking

    d) The specific skills sets they are searching for are tough to find especially in rural communities

    e) The "superstar" they are seeking is few and far in between in their market

    Again this is why proactive recruitment is important because when hiring decisions need to be made it positions the company to pick the most qualified (qualified can be skills, experience, cultural fit...). A good recruiter understands the unique idiosyncrasies of the hiring manager because they have built trust. There is two way communication with the HM and the top candidates.  In my experience, when you have a good system in place it is not that hard to select a good candidate, in fact it is easy. 

    I understand that a lot of recruiters believe in putting companies first.  It has always been my belief to look at the company's mission, vision and values.  I believe that  "Good" organizations focus on values that are inclusive of high standards. 

  • 1 point 5 months ago

    Bob, thanks for your straightforward comments. I  am in total agreement with "man up and do your job". If a hiring manager or recruiter is fearful of a "bad hire", then someone is not doing their job. Screen and behaviorally interview for best potential fits. Do  reference / background checks, rank and start making offers. It is the recruiter's job to positively promote their company and effectively recruit candidates who are prepared to offer valuable work skills to that company.

    If anyone is fearful of the job, the hire, the company or what the state and Federal governments might legislate 6 months from now, then your company has some major organizational problems to tackle.

     

  • 1 point 5 months ago

    Geesh Bob, have YOU ever worked internally? Yes, I admit it is taking longer to make a hire in our corp and our groups are being ever more selective this year, but I can tell you it is worse to make a bad hire when you factor in all the people hours it takes to bring someone on board. If a company is in a fast product development cycle as ours is, making a bad hire is costly. And there are a lot of candidates out there, but not all have the right qualifications - those folks are hunkering down and not changing jobs right now. BTW I've seen the hiring process from all sides - my own agency, as a contractor and as an internal recruiter.

    At the end of the day, it isn't our job to get a job for a candidate who is out of work nor satisfy some agency's timeline. Our mandate and allegiance is to the company we represent and making those internal teams the best

  • 1 point 5 months ago

    Michelle,

    Thanks for your reply, and for the record, I believe your counter-points are valid. To answer your question about my experience as a recruiter, I have nearly ten years in corporate recruiting roles, and my overall 19 years of experience in staffing and recruitment match the type of work you've described yourself as having performed; as an agency recruiter, contractor, and corporate recruiter. I understand your mandates as a corporate recruiter, and have lived them. I also believe that my overall experiences give me the ability to credibly share the opinion I just posted. Is my blog entry all-encompassing to the reasons for the protracted hiring cycle? No, and it wasn't intended to be all encompassing, just shedding some light on how embarrasingly bad the situation has gotten in some instances, and the frustrations jobseekers are experiencing as a result.

    Again, I appreciate your opinion and thank you for your input on the subject.

    Respectfully,

    Bob

  • 1 point 5 months ago

    Man, I certainly share that frustration!  Personally, I think it's the uncertainty in the economy that's behind all the paralysis.  Companies, especially small(er) businesses, are extremely hesitant to make financial commitments (of any kind, it's not just hiring, look at the log jam on new projects...whether management consulting, E&C, etc...).

    It's like they're all waiting to see what the impact of the administrations' efforts on healthcare, cap and trade, etc...will be before they commit to spend money.  It absolutely impacts my business, but I'm not sure that I blame them for waiting.

  • 1 point 5 months ago

     Very interesting topic, and I thought it was just me burying my face in the washroom towel and screaming.

    My query with protracted hiring timelines is that if the client has gone without such an individual for so long (months usually) why isn't someone questioning the need for the hire in the first place?

    As for placing good people with the potential to grow into the role, I couldn't agree more.  How often are we asked to provide candidates whose experience matches the job spec almost exactly?  Unless the candidate is unemployed, or unhappy in their team, why would they want to move into a role doing something that is ultimately so similar? 

    Additionally, how many of us have been recruiting for a senior level position only to have the process drawn out into such a protracted and unprofessional fashion that the candidate has walked away feeling, quite understandably, that they really don't want to work in such a turgid culture?

    Linda