Recruitment & Selection

Interview Timing

by
RoseRodionova/Shutterstock

The act of the job interview, in terms of timing, is a little bit like baking a cake. Too much time, and the cake is overdone—burnt. Too little time, and the cake is raw—unfinished. In both cases, the final product is unsatisfactory and, potentially, inedible. The same rationale applies to the time required for candidate interviews. On the one hand, sufficient time must be allotted to ensure that the fundamental job requirements are thoroughly assessed. On the other hand, too much time has the potential to leave both the candidate and the interviewer with an unsuccessful and, potentially distasteful, result.

In this video clip from the Canadian HR Reporter, we are provided with the view that extending the job interview beyond a typical one-hour time frame should be a recommended practice. From an HR perspective, Shane Creamer, the associate vice-president of talent acquisition at TD Bank Group, advises that a lengthier interview provides more insight and a broader understanding of a candidate’s future potential and level of talent. In particular, he advocates for this lengthier approach when considering candidates for positions that are at the senior leadership level.

While Creamer speaks to the valid need to invest the time to ensure proper candidate selection in the form of an extended interview, the application of a two- to three-hour interview process comes with some significant risks. If candidate responses to behavioural questions are “canned,” as noted in the video clip, it is up to the interviewer to probe appropriately to seek further insight. When there is nothing provided by the candidate beyond the canned responses, then they may not have anything more to say. There is nothing more awkward than sitting in an interview with a candidate who is flailing about trying to fill the empty interview silence with irrelevant information. One would argue that this may not be the fault of the candidate’s preparedness; rather, it falls on the skilled interviewer to know when and how to guide the conversation.

There are additional risks that arise from a lengthier, freewheeling, or unstructured interview approach that comes from the ‘let the candidate talk’ school of thought. Extending lengthy interviews to allow for a possibly intrusive personal evaluation goes beyond the idea of a reasonable assessment for cultural or organizational fit. If not handled well unstructured approaches end up being almost excruciatingly painful for all of the parties involved. Many candidates will ramble on incessantly if there are no cues from the interviewer to make them stop talking. This results in the risk of unexpected bias if the interviewer becomes annoyed by or with the candidate, and it has nothing to do with the job at hand.

Do we really need to have a deep understanding of the candidate’s personal characteristics that may come from an extended and lengthy interview process? What if the result is that the candidate is perfectly suited for the job, but based on an extended (and annoying) interview, the interviewer just does not like them? The consequences of poor timing, which comes from poor planning, on the part of the interviewer, can be disastrous for all involved.

When it comes to the end result, a successful interview has to be based on the premise that a ‘just right’ timing is, indeed, everything.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Identify three possible HR benefits and risks of engaging in a lengthy unstructured interview with a candidate for a senior-level position.
  2. Do you agree or disagree that an interview focusing on organizational fit is the best determinant for candidate selection? Explain your rationale.
  3. How would you prepare yourself for a lengthy (more than one-hour) interview with a potential employer?

Time to Rethink the Layoff

by
Eric Von Seggern/Shutterstock

Many companies use the layoff as a tool to manage their human resources capital, but it may be time to rethink that practice. Taking into account the efficiency and labour costs of their businesses, many CEOs use layoffs as the primary way to reduce costs, thinking it the most efficient way to do so. The costs of layoffs, however, may be more than CEOs ever anticipated, and HR professionals have to be able to convince their senior leadership teams of the true price of layoffs.

Some interesting research from an article in the Harvard Business Review (HBR), regarding what happens to companies after layoffs, shows that a 1% downsizing can create a voluntary turnover rate of 31% a year later. The article continues on to state that companies that were able to keep on employees during an economic decline actually did very well in coming out of a recession and beating their competitors by 10% in sales and growth.

What can companies do instead of layoffs? Here are some potential strategies for success that companies could implement before or during an economic downturn:

  • Preparation for an economic crisis before it hits; in other words, having a contingency plan in place.
  • Decentralization; decentralized companies do better than centralized companies in times of economic crises.
  • Implementation of alternative options to layoffs, such as reduced work weeks for employees.
  • Investment in technology; for better preparation in the future.

During this pandemic, businesses have been placed under tremendous economic pressures and millions of workers have been laid off. Organizations that can weather the storm and keep on as many employees as possible will be better off in the future, according to the HBR article.

Discussion Questions:

1. Research an organization that has been successful in avoiding layoffs during economic downturns and summarize the main strategies they used. Use that research to assist your presentation development for question 2.

2. Develop a 5-minute presentation to review the top ways to avoid layoffs and still reduce labour costs for your VP of HR.

Discrimination Matters

by
Sam72/Shutterstock

As HR professionals, there are two legal concepts that guide our actions when we work within the scope of human rights legislation. The first is the concept of intent. When we deal with actions that may be discriminatory in nature, the intent does not matter—the effect does. This means that while an individual may not have intended to make a racist slur or a sexist remark, when they do so or are perceived to have done so, another person is adversely affected by that remark. The second is the concept of reasonableness. In our civil society, a reasonable person would know that not only is a racial slur or sexist remark discriminatory, it is completely unacceptable.

While each province has its own Human Rights legislation, they all identify the prohibited grounds that form the basis for employment discrimination. One of the common grounds found in all provincial and federal human rights legislation is that of age. It is discriminatory to deny or exclude someone from employment-related matters based on their age. All good HR practitioners know that it is illegal to ask someone’s age during the screening and recruitment process. This does not mean that it does not happen.

Facebook was in the negative news cycle recently due to its targeted job advertisements, which excluded individuals based on characteristics linked to prohibited grounds, including age. As noted in this article, this practice by Facebook violated Canadian Human Rights legislation. The article goes on to explore two other examples of age-related discrimination, which occurred during each of their respective recruitment processes. These cases show us how age discrimination can occur through the unintended actions and words on the part of potential employers.

The case of Moore v. Ferro (Estate), is analyzed further in this article “Unintentional Discrimination is Still Discrimination.” This complaint was filed on the basis of two prohibited grounds, age and race. It is interesting to note that the human rights tribunal identified how the age factor had an adverse effect on the complainant, as there was “evidence of reliance on stereotypes about older people.”

There are interviewing tools provided by provincial bodies, such as the Human Rights Commission of Ontario. These tools provide guidance to ensure that the recruitment process is fair, and aligns with human rights legislation for everyone. It seems a reasonable and prudent thing to review before setting up any recruitment process in the future.

The fact that the case Moore v. Ferro (Estate) happened within the setting of a law firm should remind us that due diligence and legislative compliance can happen anywhere, but must prevail, no matter what.

Discussion Questions:

  1. You are guiding a recruitment process as the HR advisor. Two candidates are equally qualified for selection. One candidate appears to be much older than the other. What advice will you give to the hiring manager for when they decide on a candidate?
  2. What measures can you put into place to avoid a situation that causes an “adverse effect” in the recruitment process?
  3. Have you experienced unintended discrimination in a workplace? How did it impact or affect you?

Reference Checking Rights

by
alexmillos/Shutterstock

Is honesty always the best policy? When it comes to providing a negative reference about a former employee, the answer is a cautious “yes.”

As HR practitioners, we have multiple obligations, which includes the professional requirement to act in good faith, with honesty and integrity. Furthermore, we must undertake due diligence to meet numerous legal and organizational conditions in order to ensure regulatory compliance. When all of these factors work in alignment, HR practitioners can be reasonably assured that our professional obligations are being met.

Reference checking, as part of the last stage of a candidate selection process, may sometimes stand as a barrier to meeting these obligations. On the one hand, reference checks provide for honest insights from a third-party perspective into the characteristics of a potential candidate. On the other hand, the reference checking process can turn into a minefield of negative consequences if not managed properly, by both the recruiting employer and the employer providing the reference.

An example of the consequences that can arise from providing a negative reference can be found in the case of Papp v. Stokes et al, 2018 ONSC 1598. This case, summarized here, occurred as a result of a former employer stating to a potential new employer that the candidate they were considering had interpersonal issues with former colleagues. As noted in this additional article, the former employer also stated there was “no way” they would re-hire this person. As a result, the person was not hired, and went on to file a civil suit for defamation against the previous employer, based on the negative reference. As noted in both case summaries, the courts found the former employer was not at fault and dismissed the defamation complaint. The decision by the courts was based on the fact that the former employer had provided a truthful reflection about the person that was not malicious in any way.

While this seems to be a ‘winning’ case from the employer’s perspective, it comes with several resultant cautions. References must be based on a factual representation, and must not veer into personal opinion, or that which may be perceived as a malicious attack. This can be done through written reference letters or online questionnaires that provide neutral job-related information about the candidate. In-person reference checking, however, may be influenced by both tone and subjective perceptions about what is being communicated in relation to a particular candidate. Even though the risk of a lawsuit may be low, no employer wants to find themselves on the receiving end of a claim that may not be defensible, both in evidence and in fact.

What is an HR practitioner to do? Ensure that the evidence and facts reflected in each decision-making step of the employee selection process, including reference checking, is based on due diligence, good faith, honesty, and integrity.

Discussion Questions:

  1. As a job candidate, what steps can you put into place to ensure your references provide accurate information about you to a prospective employer?
  2. From an HR perspective, what types of protocols do you think should be put into place to reduce the risks of negative reference checks?
  3. What will you do when you are asked to provide reference information about a former employee who was a poor performer and had ‘attitude issues’?

Bring Back the Boomerang

by
iQoncept/Shutterstock

When one hears the word “boomerang,” the first thought that comes to mind is usually an Australian hunting tool, or a toy. The interesting thing about a boomerang is that it always comes back.

Now the word “boomerang” has been used to conceptualize ideas about returning children and returning employees. “Boomerang kids” are children that come back home to live with their parents after a period of independence. Similarly, “boomerang employees” are employees that come back to a workplace they left to work somewhere else for a period of time.

For many employers, the thought of bringing back a former employee is abhorrent; the immediate reaction is to think of the former employee as being disloyal for leaving in the first place. Research, however, is saying that there is value in re-hiring employees that have left an organization.

According to research by Robert Half, a company that has been providing recruitment and staffing solutions for over 70 years, 94% of senior managers would re-hire former employees, and 52% of former employees would consider returning to their previous workplaces. These are interesting statistics that HR professionals should consider.

In addition to the research above, another study out of the University of North Carolina Kenan-Flagler Business School and Texas A&M University found the following list of advantages that resulted from re-hiring former employees:

  1. Boomerang employees save costs and allow a company to recoup some of its investment in recruiting, training, and developing new staff.
  2. Boomerang employees bring new perspectives acquired in other work environments, some of which may have come from working for a close competitor.
  3. Boomerang employees bring more social capital back to the firm.
  4. Boomerang employees tend to be more loyal upon their return than those who have never left.

While there is research that supports the value of boomerang employees, there may be some risks to consider as well. These risks are outlined in an article in the HR Daily Advisor: the employee may not be a good fit for the organization, they may be a job-hopper, or there may be an unresolved issue with them that was not adequately addressed or resolved in the past.

These potential risks must be weighed against the possible benefits of re-hiring a former employee. In a time of low unemployment, which North America is currently experiencing, HR departments may want to align with the thoughts of 94% of senior managers, and consider developing a formal boomerang re-hiring program.

Discussion Questions:

Your HR Department has decided to consider developing a formal boomerang re-hiring program:

  1. What would be the first step in that program?
  2. How would you stay in touch with former employees?
  3. Develop a set of specific interview questions that you would ask to assess the prospect of re-hiring an employee. How would these questions differ from interview questions for a new candidate?