This is my $0.02 on Hiring. Hiring seems like one of those problems that is easily defined and yet hard to solve. Let me qualify that statement. For the most part, Hiring = fn (Sourcing + Assessment); where, ‘sourcing’ is the set of candidates under consideration for a position and ‘assessment’ is how you evaluate this candidate pool for the skill set and profile you seek. Of course, there are other elements in the mix, but they invariably tie back to one or both of those key parameters. Take employer branding, for example, which has become a critical factor in the candidate driven market that we are now faced with. It really matters that you are the kind of organization people want to work for and be associated with. The higher you score on that metric — the higher the quality of candidates you attract. McKinsey, for instance, has been able to attract top B School grads across geographies, consistently. But, this ties back to Sourcing. Let’s consider the possible scenarios: Bad Sourcing + Good Assessment: Since the data set itself is limited, running even the most sophisticated assessments on this lot will result in either, low conversions and/or skewed judgment. For example, on a relative scale, a 9/10 candidate in pool A may be worse off than a 7/10 candidate in pool B, if pool B has a better set of candidates than pool A. This is fairly common. Good Sourcing + Bad Assessment: Although, significantly better than the first scenario because the error of judgment is in the last mile, in a manner of speaking, it still doesn’t solve for the problem effectively. To borrow an Einstein quote, “if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” But, you could end up with a champion trout. Good Sourcing + Good Assessment: This is the holy grail. You have the best set of candidates under consideration and you run the perfect set of assessments to figure out if they would be good for the position you are hiring. Like with most ideals, even though (or because) it’s difficult it’s definitely something to aspire for. So, what does good sourcing or assessment look like? To understand that, let’s start from the beginning. Why do you want to hire? Most often, it falls into these buckets: You can’t handle the quantum of work, and you could use more people. You don’t have a particular skill set or expertise, and you might need that. I haven’t mentioned hiring for Leadership positions separately because I’ve come to realize it’s a specialized skill as with other variants of the second type. In the first scenario, you have some sort of precedent. You know what a good candidate looks like (sometimes, literally). You know where to find them. You know what motivates them. So, in essence you have your candidate persona sorted. The second scenario is more complicated. You have no idea what a good candidate looks like. You don’t know where these guys hang out. And you have no idea what their aspirations are. Sometimes, you don’t even understand what they can actually do for you. It’s always good to start with first principles: Figure out why you are hiring, because everything else is a function of that one thing. Next, take the time to flesh out these candidate personas out. Figure out who you want to hire, preferably from your own experience as in the first case or from speaking to people in organizations similar to yours who have successfully hired these candidates. It really helps! I know someone who has been looking for a ‘Venkat’ for the last eight years, now. He hasn’t found him yet. But, last I checked he’s working with Venkat betas, which is still a better position to be in, really. So, figure out who you want. All of this seems fairly straightforward, no?Yes. People should already be doing this, right?No. Who in their right minds wouldnít? And why?Well… Now, we’ve arrived at the giant elephant in the room: The HR, or as I’d like to call them the Jaya-Vijayas of the Corporate World. The Human Resources (HR) function is, arguably, the most important part of any company. And this isn’t just coming from the HR department. Because, until such time as machines make other machines that perform smart work, humans are still the secret sauce of any successful company in the world. Imagine Tesla without Elon Musk or Google without Larry Page. But, sadly, I doubt the HRs of today could find an Elon or Larry for their companies or even know what an Elon or Larry would look like. It’s important to preface at this point that what follows is my first-hand experience of interacting with about 300 or so HR professionals over the course of my four years in the recruitment industry as a Sales and ‘Everything-else’ guy at a startup that is now one of India’s largest recruitment companies. If it seems like I’m generalizing, it’s only fair you know that it’s anchored in some basis of lived experience and not arbit fantasy. There isn’t a part of the company more misaligned with its goals than HR. And I don’t blame that on the individuals themselves, although there are significant numbers of them who are happy being mediocre professionals. One approach to understanding a person or a group better is to understand what they consume. Because, essentially, whatever they acquire is meant to solve a problem at the very least. And if you understand why they consume something, you understand their problems and as it follows, their aspirations. It’s a process of working backwards. For example: What do Marketers most commonly buy? Advertisements. Why do they buy it? To increase sales. Ergo, What should I do to convince a Marketer? Help her increase sales or some function of it, like, acquire more leads or increase brand awareness. OK, let’s run that thought process for HR, now. What do HRs most commonly buy? Placement Services. Why do they buy it? To close positions. Ergo, What should I do to convince an HR? Help him meet headcount targets or some function of it, like, number of resumes sourced or candidates tested. Do you see the problem? In the old days, all of our talk about “increasing quality of hires”, “hiring candidates who perform on the job”, or “being the most researched assessment” fell flat. It would warrant the minimum amount of interest. I think some of them were just being decent — gotta hand it to them! But, it would all come down to “how many people can you line up outside our office?” or some variant of that. As a sales guy (or any reasonable person, really), you do more of what works and so, that’s what we did. Hesitantly. And across levels of the organization. I can recollect probably, four or five pointed questions around quality of hire in all of those years selling to HRs. Sometimes, we asked select clients to share the candidate performances on the job, so we could go back and improve our assessments and track what questions translated to skills on the job. We even dangled a carrot of a 10 percent discount on our prices if they did share that data with us. But, we were met with the usual corporate filibuster. Even something as obviously important and helpful as that was treated with casual disregard. The average HR simply has no skin in the game to affect any real change. And whose fault is that? Hate to use a cop out phrase here but it is systemic. There is no serious effort to track candidates’ performance on the job and improve hiring processes in that regard. Majority of the Indian companies still use the old four star rating system for appraisals. The only innovation is that the earlier manager ratings are now extended to other relevant team members, which de-risks the problem, of course, but still is by no measure an active solution. With that reality, what do we have in the market for recruitment solutions? Broadly, Database providers: The kinds that have a dump of candidates on their platform and will allow you a peek at the trash for an annual fee. Resume pushers: The persistent voice on the phone that will send you the “ten most relevant profiles” every week, playing on your collective desperation. Training gurus: Who will line up candidates with paper certifications in all the essential skills you ask for and then some. Puzzle prophets: Who have invented variants of problems in RS Aggarwal’s seminal book on Quantitative Aptitude. Hackathon organizers: Who will rent a place, fix up some workstations, offer coffee/snacks, and manage the logistics of, essentially, a pre-interview. I don’t deny that either one or a combination of these could help you find Larry or Elon (if you needed a Larry or Elon). But, the probability of that is staggeringly small. More often than not, it’s just good optics. You know, like, how a CEO couldn’t possibly get fired by the Board if s/he had McKinsey vet his decision to do one thing or another. You will find HRs reporting on numbers like ‘no. of candidates who appeared for the interview’ with aplomb, as if that number means anything more than mere logistics. Especially in India, where you become an engineer first and then figure what to do with your life (I am guilty of that and with a reasonable probability, you are too, if you’re reading this). There is a larger point to be made about colleges here that they are simply glorified training institutes. Any education as a result of it is purely coincidental and entirely unintentional. I learned that when, after four years of Instrumentation Engineering, I interned at an Oil Refinery. I found myself lacking the basic common sense required to operate in a technical environment. I was no slouch and did manage a respectable first class grade, but the gap between what was required and what I knew was extremely wide. But, that’s a separate topic altogether, which I hope to write about sometime else. One thing is certain: hiring is broken. But, precious little is being done to change conventional practices. Speak to any business leader and you will understand that it’s undoubtedly the biggest problem, right now. Nearly every successful company has proven that hiring is more than an operational necessity, and that it is a vital strategic function, perhaps, the defining one. Every startup founder I have spoken to in the past has undeniably brought up hiring. Every one of them wants to know what hacks there are to find the guy who will make them the $$$$$, but the despondency is palpable. It seems like an insurmountable challenge. We exchange notes and leave with the hope that the next resume we get will rid us of our troubles or at the very least, the next hire we make will not bleed us dry. How can we begin to fix this? Here is what I recommend: For the interim period, it is critical for business or technical managers to get actively involved in the recruiting process. If you are a business leader, incentivize these folks to hire for their team, themselves, and not rely entirely on HR. I don’t suggest making HRs irrelevant, because I do believe that it’s a specialized skillset, and they could add immense value. But, realigning their focus will take time and effort. And something that might happen sooner if the business guys got involved. Also, actively invest in learning and development. Especially, for junior to mid-level hires. Assume that a guy you hire from the market is inherently flawed and take it upon yourself to make necessary corrections. No, it doesn’t take 5000 square feet “innovation centers” or business consulting sessions from “industry experts”. It could be something as simple as an hour a week devoted to someone presenting on a topic s/he is passionate. Small tweaks to your culture could reap disproportionately large rewards. The hardest challenges exist so the best of us can solve them. #MakeHiringGreatAgain
