Last time we talked about how Jane and Bob interview, whether they're interviewing for rising stars in the company or just good, solid citizens for particular positions. However, it's not as simple as just knowing what you're looking for. You also have to be able to hire effectively; that means to know what you're looking for and how to find it.



Wouldn't it be nice if it were easy? If everyone could hire effectively and had perfect hiring matches? Company and new hire living happily ever after?

WE KNOW WHAT TO DO IN AN INTERVIEW, BUT WE DON'T DO IT.

We've read the books and the articles on hiring, and maybe we've even been through some training on how to hire effectively, how to interview, and how to select candidates. Yet we continue to make blunders, some minor, and some affecting the company significantly.

WHY?

For some reason, we believe there is some magic formula for taking an artistic work and making it a scientific assessment. While there are tools that help us hire effectively and help us understand the characteristics of the position for which we're hiring (just ask me about them), there really is no magic formula.) We don't interview effectively because we only do it occasionally, and it's not high on our priority list to get right and become an expert.

PLAY OFFENSE, NOT DEFENSE.

We need to get good at hiring and interviewing to move the company forward. When we hire effectively, we're playing offense, eliminating any problems from ever occurring. Otherwise, with ineffective or downright bad interviewing and hiring, we're constantly on the defense, dealing with problems after the hire, which at the very least probably means more time spent in more interviewing and loss of productivity for the company.

HOW CAN WE HIRE EFFECTIVELY?

As we talked about in the previous issue, we need to make sure that we continually evaluate the organization and the changes and shifts that have taken place. How do those changes and shifts affect hiring (and thus affect our interviewing)? If we don't properly evaluate, we may continue to hire what the organization needed five years ago, not what the organization needs now.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Maybe what you need is a hero to skydive in and fix problems, but then there's probably not a long-term career path for the hero. What if you saw this position for which you're hiring as a maximum of two years? How would you interview differently? What would you ask the candidate? What would you tell the candidate?

Before Jane and Bob get ready to interview, they really need to think about what the company needs now (not what it needed five years ago), and how that might affect the interviewing process.