07: Applicant Screening

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’?

Entrance Interviews May Be Replacing Exit Interviews

by

Thinglass/Shutterstock

All HR professionals are well versed in the “exit interview.” But have they heard of the “entry interview”?

We spend so much time and energy trying to find and select the correct employee – but that really is only the starting point. The real HR work starts when the new employee shows up for their first day of work. Orientation and effective employee on-boarding is vital to any organization’s success.

Most organizations are not very good at on-boarding new employees. According to statistics from Hierology website:

  • Approximately one-third (33%) of new hires look for a new job within the first six months, and about one-quarter (23%) leave before a year on the job.
  • The total cost of turnover per employee typically ranges from 100–300% of the individual’s salary.

These are shockingly high numbers and all HR professionals should take note.

It may be time to expand on the exit interview concept and bring it forward as part of your company’s on-boarding process. The entry interview can be a great tool to get to know new employees, make then more productive sooner, and reduce the chance that they will leave your organization.  Click here to read more about entrance interviews. 

Entry interviews are relatively new and there is not much evidence-based research on them yet, but it may be a trend worth watching and implementing.

Discussion Questions

Your VP of HR has asked you to research the benefits of making entry interviews. Conduct some research and develop a list that identifies organizations that are using employee entry interviews.

Develop a five-minute PowerPoint presentation on the potential benefits of these interviews.

Talent Shortage or Recruitment Skills Shortage?

by

Stephen Coburn/Shutterstock

What does your company value more? The potential employee or the recruiting process? All organizations should ask themselves that question? Is there a talent shortage in Canada and the USA? Well, based on the following North America headlines one would definitely think so.

If these headlines are accurate, employers should be raising the alarms and screaming at governments, educational institutions, and HR departments to do something — anything!

However, according to Liz Ryan, CEO/founder of Human Workplace, and author of Reinvention Roadmap, the headlines are all wrong. Her opinion is that there is no talent shortage. Rather, it’s organizations that lack effective recruitment skills.

Click here to watch a short video on the five mistakes organizations make when recruiting.

Could the recruiting process itself be the problem, rather than a lack of suitable employees? Most HR departments pride themselves on their sophisticated recruiting systems. They have often created complex processes, which may include online applications, impersonal advertising, tedious screening tests, and uninspired interviews. HR carries out these screening activities for two reasons: to be duly diligent, and because they believe good systems will hire the best candidates. But, could these HR processes in fact be barriers to finding and hiring the best candidate? Perhaps in some cases the reason the best candidate wasn’t found is because he or she chose not to apply.

HR needs to start treating potential employees like customers, marketing to them, and treating them with respect. Companies need to be convey to prospective employees the message that, “we value you, not our recruiting processes.”

 

Discussion Questions:

  1. Think about the last time you applied for a job and you went for an interview. How was the process? What did you like about the process? What did you dislike about it?
  2. If you were an HR consultant called in to assess the company’s recruitment process, what recommendations would you make?

Hiring Today and into the Future

by

LeoWolfert/Shutterstock

A Chief HR Officer I knew very well told me, “Once upon a time we used to use shovels to dig a trench because the shovel was the most efficient technology we had at the time; now we use a back hoe because it is available and more efficient.” The traditional process of collecting and screening resumes can be like using a shovel. The question is, has the time come to drop the shovel, and to start being more efficient by using the new technology that is available? In the world of HR, artificial Intelligence (AI) might just be the technological equivalent of the back hoe.

Click here to read Somen Mondal, ideas on AI and hiring process.

Where is the trend of using AI for hiring going? Who is using AI? What are its successes?

The adoption of AI technology is increasing, with many larger companies experiencing success as they use it in their hiring processes. Unilever is an excellent example. Their new process allows for the following:

  • Greater self-selection by applicant
  • Faster decision making
  • Deeper levels of applicant engagement

Click here to watch a short video on Unilever’s hiring process.

Unilever’s hiring process has become more efficient by using AI to screen and rate candidates from video interviews. Their hiring numbers speak for themselves. Unilever has reduced the hiring process cycle time from 4 months to just 2 weeks. It no longer participates in expensive on-campus tours to generate its recruitment pool; it does it all online, making decisions based on algorithms.

AI for hiring is a trend that is not going to slow down. It is the wave of the future in HR recruitment. Therefore, HR professionals should begin to assess, implement, and evaluate AI hiring systems that will work for their own organizations.

Discussion Questions:

Your VP of HR is aware of Unilever’s success in using AI for hiring. She would like you to create a 5-minute presentation reviewing three other organizations that are using AI as part of their hiring process.

What do you think is the greatest benefit of using AI as a hiring technology? What do you think is the greatest drawback of using AI, or an applicant tracking system, as part of your recruitment strategy?

 

40% failure rate! What should HR do?

by

OnD/Shutterstock

If any organization failed 40% of the time with its product launches, or with the quality of its product, it would not stay in business. However, according to an article by Human Resources Director of Canada that is exactly what is happening with executive hires today.

Research shows that 40% of newly hired executives fail in their new jobs within the first 18 months – often citing a struggle to adapt to the new culture and difficulty getting up to speed in their new role.

Click here to read the complete article.

The question the HR department needs to consider is, what is the best practice for hiring? Is it best to h­ire externally or to select from within? Of course, there is no blanket answer to this question. However, the University of Pennsylvania found that external hires get paid approximately 18% more than internally promoted workers, yet they perform worse, based on peer reviews.

Let’s review the numbers. Hiring executives externally, the failure rate is 40% and it costs the organization 18% percent more for the privilege of having someone whose performance is worse than someone hired from within the organization. This does not add up to a successful HR practice.

HR must constantly reflect on all of its practices, from hiring strategies to employee development, and make sure that these practices are not only complementary to each other but the correct strategy to meet their organization’s strategic goals.

 

Discussion Questions:

  1. Conduct some research and identify two organizations that primarily use the “selection from within” process. Prepare to present why they have chosen this HR selection practice and what their successes from hiring from within are.
  1. Identify the most significant and compelling reasons why an organization would choose to hire externally for senior executive positions?