Quitting your job is kind of a hot topic for me at the moment, and I don't think I'm the only one. My particular circumstances make things a bit easier in terms of quitting; given that I'd be leaving in order to accompany my husband to law school, I don't have the usual awkwardness of leaving one position for another. The downside of that, of course, is that I don't yet have another position lined up, but nothing's perfect. I wouldn't actually be planning to leave my present position just yet otherwise, too, because I love the company I work for and haven't quite given up on netting my dream job with them. (I'm nothing if not persistent.)
Anyway, quitting your job is always a bit of a tricky situation. Typically, there is a reason you are leaving besides an unavoidable move, and if this is the case, it means that there is a reason your current position is, for whatever reason, no longer working out for you. Maybe you've outgrown the role, gotten an offer with better pay, don't quite fit with the culture, or simply have a case of "grass-is-greener"-ism. Possibly you have a toxic working environment (I have a friend who refers to her co-worker as "the troll") or a toxic boss. I've experienced several of these scenarios myself. Whatever it is, navigating the resignation process can be tricky.
If your reason for leaving is either of the last two, you may be very tempted to waltz your way out the door, gesticulating wildly with middle fingers extended. My advice would be, don't do this. This article discusses taking the high road when quitting your job, and I think all her points are spot on. I truly cannot think of a situation where you are better served by telling your former bosses/coworkers where to go and how to get there, no matter how tempting it is. You never need to burn your bridges, and it's always a good idea to maintain as cordial a relationship as possible because you never know where you (or the company) will end up.
At the same time, I wouldn't advise dishonesty, either. Exit interviews are a good time to be honest, but be tactful. As long as you are polite about the reasons, you should typically be able to leave with bridges still intact. Just save it for the exit interview as opposed to in your letter of resignation. In my personal opinion, a letter of resignation should make sure to thank your supervisor for the opportunity to work there and maybe say one or two other nice things. The fact that you are resigning is (presumably) enough of a sting, no need to get into too much detail as to why. Keep it short and sweet.
It's also important to work out your notice. Failing to give adequate notice is simply unprofessional, and it reflects poorly on you, period. Suck it up and work out two more weeks.
It's never easy to resign. I have a friend who has been continually putting off actually giving her resignation, because she dreads the process, despite the fact that she's moving on to a fantastic opportunity. The fact is, it has to be done.
I'm still waiting for my fantastic opportunity, but it's coming. I can feel it. In the meantime, my letter of resignation will quite sincerely thank my supervisors for everything they've done and all the opportunities they've given me. I probably wouldn't be sitting here writing this otherwise.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Developing Policies... A How-To?
So, I was recently presented with the opportunity to develop a social media policy for my employer. I was quite happy to take on the project, because it then becomes something else that I can say I have experience in doing, and because it's interesting.
As someone with Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, FourSquare and Quora accounts, I definitely have some experience within the realm of social media. I have always considered carefully before posting anything that might be remotely connected to my employer, because to me, this is a common-sense approach. However, that clearly is not the case for everyone. There have been a number of incidents in the news recently surrounding the consequences for perhaps-unwise comments posted on Facebook or Twitter, so much so that there is a a Facebook group devoted to people who have been fired based on their Facebook posts.The most recent one that I can think of is Gilbert Gottfried being let go as Aflac spokesman after he tweeted some jokes about Japan right after the Tsunami. Given that Aflac apparently has a large customer base in Japan, perhaps he should have thought about that first. I recognize that the guy is a shock comic, but apparently Aflac felt he was way out of line.
Clearly, the boundaries between public and private online have grown quite blurred, if indeed they even exist at all. I think all corporations should have a social media policy, but the key is to make sure it is a well-thought-out one. Decide what the corporate social media strategy is first, and then go ahead and formulate a social media policy for all employees. Preferably before any incidents do happen.
Let it be said that I am a firm believer in the right of the employee to hold whatever opinions he or she would like. However, you may need to watch where you air those opinions, and the internet is not nearly as anonymous as you might think. If you're posting it on Facebook, and you're friends with your boss, you'd better watch what you say. I would think this should be common sense, and indeed, many of those online seem to feel the same. The Facebook group mentioned above seems to focus mostly on the stupidity of those who get fired based on what they've said online.
Anyway. It's an interesting issue, and I look forward to the discussion on it. In the meantime, I continue to keep my facebook private, and watch what I post on any website. Period.
As someone with Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, FourSquare and Quora accounts, I definitely have some experience within the realm of social media. I have always considered carefully before posting anything that might be remotely connected to my employer, because to me, this is a common-sense approach. However, that clearly is not the case for everyone. There have been a number of incidents in the news recently surrounding the consequences for perhaps-unwise comments posted on Facebook or Twitter, so much so that there is a a Facebook group devoted to people who have been fired based on their Facebook posts.The most recent one that I can think of is Gilbert Gottfried being let go as Aflac spokesman after he tweeted some jokes about Japan right after the Tsunami. Given that Aflac apparently has a large customer base in Japan, perhaps he should have thought about that first. I recognize that the guy is a shock comic, but apparently Aflac felt he was way out of line.
Clearly, the boundaries between public and private online have grown quite blurred, if indeed they even exist at all. I think all corporations should have a social media policy, but the key is to make sure it is a well-thought-out one. Decide what the corporate social media strategy is first, and then go ahead and formulate a social media policy for all employees. Preferably before any incidents do happen.
Let it be said that I am a firm believer in the right of the employee to hold whatever opinions he or she would like. However, you may need to watch where you air those opinions, and the internet is not nearly as anonymous as you might think. If you're posting it on Facebook, and you're friends with your boss, you'd better watch what you say. I would think this should be common sense, and indeed, many of those online seem to feel the same. The Facebook group mentioned above seems to focus mostly on the stupidity of those who get fired based on what they've said online.
Anyway. It's an interesting issue, and I look forward to the discussion on it. In the meantime, I continue to keep my facebook private, and watch what I post on any website. Period.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Job Hunting
I hate looking for work, I really do. I hate it even more when I know it's coming, but can't do much to plan ahead for it.
I'm always a girl with a plan. Don't get me wrong, I can be very adaptable and flexible. But I hate having no plan at all. Sometimes that plan might have to change, and the end product might bear little or no resemblance to the plan I started out with, but there will have been a plan all along. Often, there are several plans, so I have a number of contingencies covered. Then, whenever something changes, I adapt all the contingencies as well, to try and fit the new information. (This does occasionally cut into my sleep time, but that's just how it goes.)
Right now, I haven't got much of a plan, or perhaps I have too many. Until my hubby and I start hearing back from the law schools he has applications in to, I don't even know which province we'll be in. It does make planning somewhat more difficult. I do have a tentative plan for job-hunting, and I'm hoping I'll run into some marvellous opportunities, but ultimately I am much happier when I am settled. I think everyone is, but as much as I tell myself to be excited about all the opportunities now open to me, I worry too much to really manage it.
Ultimately, I think it always sucks to be unemployed, no matter your industry. My background gives me some advantages; I'm a lot better schooled in how to put together an appealing resume than I used to be, and much better prepared to take advantage of networking opportunities. The fact that my colleagues are the ones who do the hiring for their organization should also (hopefully) work in my favour.
I think it's important to be strategic and organized about your job hunt. First off, identify what it is that you want to do. What are the likely job titles you might be looking for, what kind of tasks are involved? How is it different from what you've already done?
Secondly, determine how your skills and experience align with the needs of your desired position, and adapt your resume accordingly. Especially if your desired position falls a little outside your current experience, simply listing job titles on your resume really isn't enough, especially in the current labour market. Instead, focus on ways to highlight the applicable skills and experience you do have. Don't assume your job title says it all; it doesn't. Be explicit.
Third, understand how your industry works and what kind of industry contacts work best. For example, I use this blog, my LinkedIn and my Twitter as ways of raising my profile in the HR world, because HR, like most industries, is getting ever more tech savvy. I have personal business cards that state my name, contact information, and my about.me web address for networking purposes, and I always have a few in my purse.
All this brings me to fourth, network! and then network again! I belong to my provincial HR association. I attend events, tell people who I am and what I want, and shamelessly plug myself. Then I hand out more cards. Bug your friends and family; find out if anyone knows anyone who might be helpful. Mention your job search to anyone and everyone, and see where you get. Job-hunting is not the time to embrace your inner introvert!
Fifth would be online job boards. Networking still works better, in my opinion, as a foot in the door, because it's much more difficult when you send off a resume or application via a job board to stand out among a sea of other applicants. There exist tremendous online resources about resumes, cover letters, etc. and some of them are tremendously helpful and some of them are not, but the long and the short of it is that it is very difficult to stand out in the crowd (at least in a favourable way) via an online application. Personal connections are still the best bet.
I offer this advice because it is my own personal strategy, too. It isn't yet tried and tested; that needs to wait until I know where I'm going!
I'm always a girl with a plan. Don't get me wrong, I can be very adaptable and flexible. But I hate having no plan at all. Sometimes that plan might have to change, and the end product might bear little or no resemblance to the plan I started out with, but there will have been a plan all along. Often, there are several plans, so I have a number of contingencies covered. Then, whenever something changes, I adapt all the contingencies as well, to try and fit the new information. (This does occasionally cut into my sleep time, but that's just how it goes.)
Right now, I haven't got much of a plan, or perhaps I have too many. Until my hubby and I start hearing back from the law schools he has applications in to, I don't even know which province we'll be in. It does make planning somewhat more difficult. I do have a tentative plan for job-hunting, and I'm hoping I'll run into some marvellous opportunities, but ultimately I am much happier when I am settled. I think everyone is, but as much as I tell myself to be excited about all the opportunities now open to me, I worry too much to really manage it.
Ultimately, I think it always sucks to be unemployed, no matter your industry. My background gives me some advantages; I'm a lot better schooled in how to put together an appealing resume than I used to be, and much better prepared to take advantage of networking opportunities. The fact that my colleagues are the ones who do the hiring for their organization should also (hopefully) work in my favour.
I think it's important to be strategic and organized about your job hunt. First off, identify what it is that you want to do. What are the likely job titles you might be looking for, what kind of tasks are involved? How is it different from what you've already done?
Secondly, determine how your skills and experience align with the needs of your desired position, and adapt your resume accordingly. Especially if your desired position falls a little outside your current experience, simply listing job titles on your resume really isn't enough, especially in the current labour market. Instead, focus on ways to highlight the applicable skills and experience you do have. Don't assume your job title says it all; it doesn't. Be explicit.
Third, understand how your industry works and what kind of industry contacts work best. For example, I use this blog, my LinkedIn and my Twitter as ways of raising my profile in the HR world, because HR, like most industries, is getting ever more tech savvy. I have personal business cards that state my name, contact information, and my about.me web address for networking purposes, and I always have a few in my purse.
All this brings me to fourth, network! and then network again! I belong to my provincial HR association. I attend events, tell people who I am and what I want, and shamelessly plug myself. Then I hand out more cards. Bug your friends and family; find out if anyone knows anyone who might be helpful. Mention your job search to anyone and everyone, and see where you get. Job-hunting is not the time to embrace your inner introvert!
Fifth would be online job boards. Networking still works better, in my opinion, as a foot in the door, because it's much more difficult when you send off a resume or application via a job board to stand out among a sea of other applicants. There exist tremendous online resources about resumes, cover letters, etc. and some of them are tremendously helpful and some of them are not, but the long and the short of it is that it is very difficult to stand out in the crowd (at least in a favourable way) via an online application. Personal connections are still the best bet.
I offer this advice because it is my own personal strategy, too. It isn't yet tried and tested; that needs to wait until I know where I'm going!
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Giving References
It's getting close to that time where I will once again be looking for work. That made me think about references, which I will, of course, be seeking out. I actually already know that the Director of Professional Development will give me an amazing reference- he told me so. That makes life a lot easier as a job seeker- it can sometimes be very difficult to line up references.
Even in very basic, entry-level jobs, (which are by and large the kinds of positions for which I have any experience checking references,) you often run into the HR equivalent of "rank, name and serial number," where the most information you can get about your candidate is a confirmation of employment, and that's it. Makes you wonder what the point of checking references is when you can't actually find anything out about your candidate. The funny thing is, some of these same companies that refuse to give references still ask for them.
I think, personally, that this policy of not giving out any information is really dumb, at least here in Canada. While I can't speak to the law in other jurisdictions, here in Canada, references fall under the category of "qualified privilege." This link discusses that concept, which essentially means that references, if provided in good faith (i.e. without malicious intent,) are privileged, and that therefore, the person providing the reference cannot be sued for slander. Basically, it means that the reasons for failing to provide any reference beyond confirmation of employment no longer exist. And really, without this legal protection, the whole concept of checking references should no longer exist, because if it gets to the point that nobody ever gives out any information at all, then why even bother wasting your time asking? The law encourages an honestly-given reference, and this is a good thing. Canadian law also encourages promptness in supplying references, particularly if a good reference is deserved; in a Supreme Court case, Wallace vs. United Grain Growers Ltd, the court awarded damages to the plaintiff, partly due to a failure on the part of his employer to provide him with a reference in a timely fashion. So failure to provide a reference can also leave you open to legal action. You may also be vulnerable to legal action if you are reluctant to give a poor reference (even if desierved) and another company suffers losses that might have been prevented by your reference.
Basically, at least here in Canada, there is never a good reason to fail to provide an honest reference for a former employee, whether it is positive or negative.
Just because a lot of companies do it, doesn't mean that's how it should be done.
Even in very basic, entry-level jobs, (which are by and large the kinds of positions for which I have any experience checking references,) you often run into the HR equivalent of "rank, name and serial number," where the most information you can get about your candidate is a confirmation of employment, and that's it. Makes you wonder what the point of checking references is when you can't actually find anything out about your candidate. The funny thing is, some of these same companies that refuse to give references still ask for them.
I think, personally, that this policy of not giving out any information is really dumb, at least here in Canada. While I can't speak to the law in other jurisdictions, here in Canada, references fall under the category of "qualified privilege." This link discusses that concept, which essentially means that references, if provided in good faith (i.e. without malicious intent,) are privileged, and that therefore, the person providing the reference cannot be sued for slander. Basically, it means that the reasons for failing to provide any reference beyond confirmation of employment no longer exist. And really, without this legal protection, the whole concept of checking references should no longer exist, because if it gets to the point that nobody ever gives out any information at all, then why even bother wasting your time asking? The law encourages an honestly-given reference, and this is a good thing. Canadian law also encourages promptness in supplying references, particularly if a good reference is deserved; in a Supreme Court case, Wallace vs. United Grain Growers Ltd, the court awarded damages to the plaintiff, partly due to a failure on the part of his employer to provide him with a reference in a timely fashion. So failure to provide a reference can also leave you open to legal action. You may also be vulnerable to legal action if you are reluctant to give a poor reference (even if desierved) and another company suffers losses that might have been prevented by your reference.
Basically, at least here in Canada, there is never a good reason to fail to provide an honest reference for a former employee, whether it is positive or negative.
Just because a lot of companies do it, doesn't mean that's how it should be done.
Friday, March 25, 2011
CHRP
So, I've decided I'm going to register and write the NKE in October.
For those of you not in the know, (generally outside Canada,) the NKE is the National Knowledge Exam. It is the first step in the process of obtaining a CHRP (Certified Human Resources Professional) designation. The exam consists of 150 multiple choice questions dealing with seven Hr-related areas, and the RPCs (Required Professional Capabilities) related to them.
After I (presumably) rock the NKE, I have five years to write the NPPA (National Professional Practice Assessment) and become a CHRP.
While I have been considering seeking out my CHRP for a while now, I wasn't sure when to start, because, while my education in HR has been considerable, my practical experience, until fairly recently, was a little more limited, and I felt it was important not to end up as a CHRP with no hands-on experience. Well, for one thing, I have more practical experience these days, and for another, I have five years to acquire more if I think it necessary before I write the NPPA. I also want to be a CHRP because I strongly support some kind of accreditation for HR professionals that requires continual learning.
Continuing education is important in any line of work. As a eyewear salesperson, I didn't have the education required to become a licensed optician, however, opticians and optometrists are both required by their professional associations to obtain a certain number of CE credits in order to maintain their licenses. While this requirement is sometimes met with a little resistance, I think the value of it is immense. Can you imagine going to see a doctor (of anything) who hasn't updated his knowledge or skills since he first obtained his license? While an out-of-date HR professional might not risk lives the same way a doctor would, best practices are constantly evolving and things are always changing. I don't think I'm the only one who would run the risk of becoming somewhat complacent in my knowledge- not on purpose, but a professional life is a busy one, and it's pretty easy to miss out on seminars if there's no requirement you attend. I think I would never stop learning completely, but sometimes you hit a busy stretch and then realize that it's been years since you saw your dentist. Same thing can happen with professional knowledge, and that's a damn shame, because if there's a better way to do what you do, wouldn't you want to know it?
In any case, I'm pretty excited to write the NKE. I haven't registered yet, mostly because registration is done through your provincial human resources association, and I don't yet know what province I will be in by October 1st. Still totally pumped, though.
Man, I love what I do. How can you not love a job where you get to learn new stuff all the time?
For those of you not in the know, (generally outside Canada,) the NKE is the National Knowledge Exam. It is the first step in the process of obtaining a CHRP (Certified Human Resources Professional) designation. The exam consists of 150 multiple choice questions dealing with seven Hr-related areas, and the RPCs (Required Professional Capabilities) related to them.
After I (presumably) rock the NKE, I have five years to write the NPPA (National Professional Practice Assessment) and become a CHRP.
While I have been considering seeking out my CHRP for a while now, I wasn't sure when to start, because, while my education in HR has been considerable, my practical experience, until fairly recently, was a little more limited, and I felt it was important not to end up as a CHRP with no hands-on experience. Well, for one thing, I have more practical experience these days, and for another, I have five years to acquire more if I think it necessary before I write the NPPA. I also want to be a CHRP because I strongly support some kind of accreditation for HR professionals that requires continual learning.
Continuing education is important in any line of work. As a eyewear salesperson, I didn't have the education required to become a licensed optician, however, opticians and optometrists are both required by their professional associations to obtain a certain number of CE credits in order to maintain their licenses. While this requirement is sometimes met with a little resistance, I think the value of it is immense. Can you imagine going to see a doctor (of anything) who hasn't updated his knowledge or skills since he first obtained his license? While an out-of-date HR professional might not risk lives the same way a doctor would, best practices are constantly evolving and things are always changing. I don't think I'm the only one who would run the risk of becoming somewhat complacent in my knowledge- not on purpose, but a professional life is a busy one, and it's pretty easy to miss out on seminars if there's no requirement you attend. I think I would never stop learning completely, but sometimes you hit a busy stretch and then realize that it's been years since you saw your dentist. Same thing can happen with professional knowledge, and that's a damn shame, because if there's a better way to do what you do, wouldn't you want to know it?
In any case, I'm pretty excited to write the NKE. I haven't registered yet, mostly because registration is done through your provincial human resources association, and I don't yet know what province I will be in by October 1st. Still totally pumped, though.
Man, I love what I do. How can you not love a job where you get to learn new stuff all the time?
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Generation Y
Nobody seems to quite be able to agree on what, exactly, Gen Y is. I've seen date ranges for birth years ranging from the 70's up to 2010, depending who you ask. Just about everyone includes those born in the mid 80's, so there's no doubt where I end up in that equation. Right now it seems to be pretty trendy to write about Gen Y in the workforce, and how different we are. The number of articles out there floating around the interwebs that talk about how to deal with Gen Y in the workforce, what we think and why we act how we do, is actually kind of astonishing, I think. Granted that my perspective is from the inside, I just don't understand why it seems to be such a big issue.
The first result when you google "Gen Y Workforce" is this article. It's titled "Perception vs. Reality", and the first of the ten truths deals with the perception that Gen Y has serious issues with entitlement. We are also apparently perceived as lazy, with a poor work ethic, little respect for authority, too self-centred and individualistic, not committed to work, no loyalty to our employers, lacking in social skills, and being needy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not writing about all this in order to whine. I think that this characterization is pretty negative, but not necessarily any less accurate than any other generational generalization. I see examples of this kind of behaviour all the time, and it drives me nuts. That said, I also see examples of people who work very hard to get where they want to be and don't expected everything to be handed to them on a silver platter. (I'd like to consider myself one of the latter, but I'm likely to be a little biased on that front.)
That said, I also think people are people. I don't think Gen Y are so difficult to see and work with; like any other generation, we are a collection of individuals with different skills and opinions. Clearly, we've grown up with very different technology than our parents, and are quite comfortable with it, as a rule, but otherwise, I think a lot of this 'OMG, what to do with the millenials?' is a bit silly. What to do with us? Why, put us to work and treat us like people. The linked article states that Gen Y need careful, constructive criticism that reflects confidence in them. Okay, well, I get that. But frankly, who doesn't need this kind of criticism? Isn't that just good management?
Anyway. I could go on for hours about this, but the long and the short of it is that I just don't buy it. I don't think Gen Y needs special treatment; if you treat people well, regardless of generation, you will get better results. Maybe Gen Y is more likely to hop from employer to employer, but happy employees are more productive and less likely to leave. This is not unique to those under thirty, by any means. Some of these perceptions are things that were said about the boomers when they first joined the workforce. Yes, we are more comfortable with technology (as a rule) because we grew up with it. So what? Most of my twitter follows and followers are older than me. Some are Gen Y and some are not. I just don't quite understand what all the fuss is about.
Is that just because of my age?
The first result when you google "Gen Y Workforce" is this article. It's titled "Perception vs. Reality", and the first of the ten truths deals with the perception that Gen Y has serious issues with entitlement. We are also apparently perceived as lazy, with a poor work ethic, little respect for authority, too self-centred and individualistic, not committed to work, no loyalty to our employers, lacking in social skills, and being needy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not writing about all this in order to whine. I think that this characterization is pretty negative, but not necessarily any less accurate than any other generational generalization. I see examples of this kind of behaviour all the time, and it drives me nuts. That said, I also see examples of people who work very hard to get where they want to be and don't expected everything to be handed to them on a silver platter. (I'd like to consider myself one of the latter, but I'm likely to be a little biased on that front.)
That said, I also think people are people. I don't think Gen Y are so difficult to see and work with; like any other generation, we are a collection of individuals with different skills and opinions. Clearly, we've grown up with very different technology than our parents, and are quite comfortable with it, as a rule, but otherwise, I think a lot of this 'OMG, what to do with the millenials?' is a bit silly. What to do with us? Why, put us to work and treat us like people. The linked article states that Gen Y need careful, constructive criticism that reflects confidence in them. Okay, well, I get that. But frankly, who doesn't need this kind of criticism? Isn't that just good management?
Anyway. I could go on for hours about this, but the long and the short of it is that I just don't buy it. I don't think Gen Y needs special treatment; if you treat people well, regardless of generation, you will get better results. Maybe Gen Y is more likely to hop from employer to employer, but happy employees are more productive and less likely to leave. This is not unique to those under thirty, by any means. Some of these perceptions are things that were said about the boomers when they first joined the workforce. Yes, we are more comfortable with technology (as a rule) because we grew up with it. So what? Most of my twitter follows and followers are older than me. Some are Gen Y and some are not. I just don't quite understand what all the fuss is about.
Is that just because of my age?
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
How to Increase Turnover and Lose Staff Faster
I've spent much of my working career to date in frontline roles. All of those roles to date have been primarily customer service focused, in a variety of positions, and most of them have been positions with high turnover rates. This is not too surprising; the kinds of jobs a full-time undergraduate student tends to get to pay the bills are typically low-paying, low skill positions. My first job was in a grocery store deli, the second a price-focused shoe retailer, and the third a lingerie chain. I also worked in an independent pharmacy for a couple of summers. None of these positions paid much more than minimum wage, (I recall getting a ten cent an hour raise at one point, and wondering why they even bothered) and turnover tended to be quite high. In all of those roles, the person typically in charge of doing the hiring had little or no training about the process. Generally, at least in the chain companies, there would be a script of questions that the manager was supposed to ask, but some didn't even go that far and had completely unstructured interviews. In all cases, the decision about hiring was largely left to the manager's 'gut instincts'.
Needless to say, this method of hiring doesn't typically lead to great results. In my experience at least, I would say that the odds of a new hire working out weren't much better than a coin toss either way. In some cases, they were definitely worse; one manager I had was a devout Mormon who preferred to hire people who requested Sundays off in order to attend church, regardless of their other qualifications or lack thereof, in one case hiring an eighth-grade dropout (against company policy, no less) who had worked 8 jobs in the past year, never more than three months at a time, and whose only reference, when called, told us that she had been terminated for swearing at a customer. Shockingly, it didn't work out. As you might imagine, this particular manager's hiring record was significantly less than stellar.
There exists no shortage of research demonstrating that people who rely on their guts in hiring tend to make poor choices. There are a number of biases that people can fall prey too, like the halo effect or the similar-to-me bias. Others have their own particular biases which may run afoul of the law; a manager once told me she'd hired a Muslim girl once, and 'it just didn't work out', so I was not to hire any obviously Islamic candidates, in a reasonably diverse area where a lot of Muslim girls wear headscarfs. Rather than follow her discriminatory hiring practices, I left the job. In retrospect, I should have gone above her head with it, because this practice is not only immoral, but highly illegal. At the time, however, the only higher-up I knew how to contact at the company was the regional manager, who was great friends with my manager, and as a nineteen year old university student, I was considerably more uncertain of my position that I am now. At the time, I knew I objected to this practice morally; I also knew it was illegal, but at the time I wasn't aware that, in the case of a discrimination lawsuit, it would be up to the company to prove that they hadn't discriminated against potential applicants, and not vice-versa. Now I know the company HR department would certainly want to know one of their managers was discriminating, but hindsight, of course, is 20/20. I also happen to know that manager is no longer employed with the company, which is probably a good thing, considering.
In short, I'm pretty sure most of my management experience in frontline roles really taught me more about what not to do than what to do in hiring. To me, it wasn't any great revelation to learn that trusting your gut in hiring doesn't get you very far; I'd seen it in action, many times. I understand that some people can be quite hostile to the idea of structured interviews and personality assessments in hiring. While there are definitely issues involved in making sure that the tests you use are actually valid predictors of job success and do not inherently discriminate against any protected groups, I found the idea to be fairly common-sense. As long as you do due diligence in determining what tests you want to use (again, don't use your gut to pick! Use your brain) then I say, go for it.
This article from inc.com discusses the use of personality tests in hiring, specifically in the context of a small business. It's worth the read, I think, if you are considering implementing these kinds of tests, because it covers the do's-and-don'ts pretty well.
Needless to say, this method of hiring doesn't typically lead to great results. In my experience at least, I would say that the odds of a new hire working out weren't much better than a coin toss either way. In some cases, they were definitely worse; one manager I had was a devout Mormon who preferred to hire people who requested Sundays off in order to attend church, regardless of their other qualifications or lack thereof, in one case hiring an eighth-grade dropout (against company policy, no less) who had worked 8 jobs in the past year, never more than three months at a time, and whose only reference, when called, told us that she had been terminated for swearing at a customer. Shockingly, it didn't work out. As you might imagine, this particular manager's hiring record was significantly less than stellar.
There exists no shortage of research demonstrating that people who rely on their guts in hiring tend to make poor choices. There are a number of biases that people can fall prey too, like the halo effect or the similar-to-me bias. Others have their own particular biases which may run afoul of the law; a manager once told me she'd hired a Muslim girl once, and 'it just didn't work out', so I was not to hire any obviously Islamic candidates, in a reasonably diverse area where a lot of Muslim girls wear headscarfs. Rather than follow her discriminatory hiring practices, I left the job. In retrospect, I should have gone above her head with it, because this practice is not only immoral, but highly illegal. At the time, however, the only higher-up I knew how to contact at the company was the regional manager, who was great friends with my manager, and as a nineteen year old university student, I was considerably more uncertain of my position that I am now. At the time, I knew I objected to this practice morally; I also knew it was illegal, but at the time I wasn't aware that, in the case of a discrimination lawsuit, it would be up to the company to prove that they hadn't discriminated against potential applicants, and not vice-versa. Now I know the company HR department would certainly want to know one of their managers was discriminating, but hindsight, of course, is 20/20. I also happen to know that manager is no longer employed with the company, which is probably a good thing, considering.
In short, I'm pretty sure most of my management experience in frontline roles really taught me more about what not to do than what to do in hiring. To me, it wasn't any great revelation to learn that trusting your gut in hiring doesn't get you very far; I'd seen it in action, many times. I understand that some people can be quite hostile to the idea of structured interviews and personality assessments in hiring. While there are definitely issues involved in making sure that the tests you use are actually valid predictors of job success and do not inherently discriminate against any protected groups, I found the idea to be fairly common-sense. As long as you do due diligence in determining what tests you want to use (again, don't use your gut to pick! Use your brain) then I say, go for it.
This article from inc.com discusses the use of personality tests in hiring, specifically in the context of a small business. It's worth the read, I think, if you are considering implementing these kinds of tests, because it covers the do's-and-don'ts pretty well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)