Transcript - Episode 009 - The Postmortem
Today we're getting morbid. We're talking about failures in recruiting. Today we're going to walk through one of the most important steps of the recruiting process. The Post-Mortem. Failures happen, and in order to learn from them, we need to understand what went wrong.
Hi. I'm Daava Mills, The Rebellious Recruiter. I did a calculation one day. Based on over 20 years of rough stats, I've determined I've interviewed between 11,000 and 15,000 people. Which means, I've worked with leaders to hire the wrong people on our staff. Mistakes happen, not repeating them is vital, because… I've repeated them too.
We're doing a dive deep into the world of process improvement today, and how to look at it from a recruiting angle.
So, pull up a seat and let's chat.
(Intro music)
About 12 years ago I got word that a staff accountant we hired didn't work out. They had been on the job for about 4 or 5 months. The first thing I did was pull the phone screen notes, the face to face notes, this person's resume, their on-site application, the job description, the job ad (I don't like posting Job Descriptions as Job Ads) and reference check forms. I probably had follow-up emails that I reviewed too. I had been given an overview from one of our GM's what happened, and where this person failed to perform.
I spent about 45 minutes reviewing all the information. Starting by first reading the interview notes with diligence, then went through the references, looked at information supplied by the candidate, what we asked for in the job description, the job ad, the whole nine yards. This was a first. Not the first time I ever did this, but the first time I literally couldn't find the hole. All the issues we had with the candidate were subjects we clearly covered in the interview, at least three times, and we had 4 employment references, if I recall. Just so you know, I typically ask for 7 employment references. I was stumped.
A few minutes later, my COO walked in. Asked to see the paperwork that I had just combed through. You see? We had about 1200 people on staff, every once in a while, we hired a person that didn't work out. It happens when there are many managers, many divisions, many skills, and one recruiter. Everyone is at a different point in their career of learning. These processes not only upped my game, but that of all the leaders in the organization.
My COO knew it was my process to identify the mistakes, put in a question or a process to account for that mistake going forward, and improve as we go. So, given the nature of the failure of this person, he wanted to see what was missed too. Since I had it all handy, I dropped it in an email to him for him to review as well. He came back later in the day. Looked at me and said something along the lines of "all the points this accountant failed on, they were covered in the interview and references, and we didn't do anything wrong." So yeah, that was a first for him too. We always uncovered something that we did wrong as an organization.
What it did do is reinforce the fact that sometimes, you can do everything right, and still have a bad hire or an off-culture fit. It happens.
But in order to get to that point where we could identify potential holes, we had to learn how to identify them along the way.
A quick side note here: You'll hear me drop throughout the podcasts mistakes I've made, if you've listened to other episodes, I do allude to them all the time. I might not call them out directly, but I won't hide them either.
Recruiting is one of those weird budgetary things. It sits directly on the fence of being an expense department and being a revenue department. Most senior level recruiters get this, they don't want to admit they are part of HR, because they kind of aren't. But they aren't part of operations either because they don't actually work the business. A really good recruiter will be motivated by speedy processes, the ability to improve revenue (even if there is no commission on the line) and learning details about the business. A really good recruiter hates recruiting for replacements due to failures of process.
I had the opportunity to meet a corporate recruiter at a meet-up prior to COVID19. This recruiter worked for an organization that had a couple direct competitors in town, and they were assigned to a specific division. So, my first question to this person was "how do you sell the differences between you and your competitors?" Basically, I wanted to know what set them apart, made them different, and what their business edge was, their values, all wrapped up into a succinct pitch. The recruiter had no clue what I was talking about. Because the recruiter wasn't selling a chance to be with a great culture, have awesome training, or be a part of a team that enjoys each other. This recruiter was just pushing resumes. A true recruiter will take the time to understand nuance.
And understanding nuance? That's where the postmortem starts. Post-mortems should have more than just the recruiter eyes on them. When I say recruiter, I mean whomever triggered this process - I'll be using "recruiter" to delineate the process going forward. Also, the process is also not linear, the baseline for me is always the phone screen, because that's the last stage where I have complete control. So, I look for my personal direct mistakes first. Then I move around the steps until I have a complete picture.
Oh, and one more thing. I am about to give you a HUGE list of information, if you need access to it, just pop over to my webpage and click on the transcript of today's episode to get the list in written form. Some of it may also be popped into the show notes.
The steps to a post-mortem will vary, and there will be more when there are more people included in the selection, there will be more items to review. Here are my steps, and there are a lot:
Did the recruiter who initially screened the resume know what they were looking for?
Does the recruiter understand the soft skills required for the department?
Can the recruiter talk effectively about the micro-culture of the department?
Did the recruiter also do a phone screen that effectively pitched the position, effectively pitched the long-term opportunity, set you apart as a company, and most importantly, did they take solid notes?
Was the micro-culture of the department discussed?
Did the candidate have questions? If so, what were they?
Were the challenges the department is facing discussed openly and honestly?
Did the advertisement effectively call out the top five skills required for the position, or was it buried in a list, after exhausting the candidate with 30 job duties?
Did the job description require a realistic amount of experience (not too much)?
Did the hiring manager read the initial phone screen notes that the recruiter captured?
Did the manager ask follow-up questions from the phone screen to get clarity? Or did they repeat the same questions, and thereby got the same answers?
During the interview did a manager get swayed by experience that is useable, but not relevant to the immediate needs?
Were the top five skills discussed in detail, or was an entire skill signed off on with only one good story?
Did you do references? (Please note, I'm reference ambivalent)
If references were done, did their job title and job duties line up with what is on the resume?
Did you ask the reference about their strengths and areas for learning?
Rinse and repeat these steps until you've looked at each piece.
Like I've said, I've interviewed somewhere between 11,000 and 15,000 people, which means I've opened the door to over 2,000 people being hired. Which also means well over 100 were bad fits for the environment. Yeah, I've had a bit of postmortem experience.
The most common thread I've seen in these processes is that bad hires happen when strong assumptions are made by the decision makers, and then they base an entire hiring decision on one really good answer. (Please note, this is why I am not a fan of Behavior Based Interviewing). Now, HR has a term for this type of assumption, it's called the Halo Effect. It's normally taught that the Halo Effect typically shows up as part of quarterly or annual performance reviews. The reality is, the Halo Effect shows up in a lot of areas of business. Because we're human, so the mistakes we make in other areas of business? They'll show up in recruiting.
The Halo Effect happens because we as a species are primed to focus one attribute that stands out. There's been research on this, and what was found is that one strong, yet positive attribute, will cause the reviewer to inflate all the other scores. There is an assumption made that "if she is good at this, then she will be good at that." So why that research is heavily focused on reviews, based on the mistakes I've made, and mistakes I've witnessed, through assumptions… Remember the lady in the red dress in the matrix? It's kinda like that. It's really at play in a lot of areas.
Now the inverse is true too. If one negative attribute shows up, that's call the Horn or Horns Effect.
So, as you are doing your review of the process. Identify where you made assumptions. Hold yourself accountable to what you made an answer mean. Learn to identify when you make those assumptions and build into your head to ask more questions to clearly get to the bottom of what a person is talking about.
Here's an example that happened in an interview I was in. We were interviewing a person who had previously owned a service where she had 1099 employees, she contracted out for short term projects. I asked her "how many hours a week were you billing?"
Her response was "I had 1,100 people registered with my service."
I was about to ask again, but I saw the GM, smile, take a note, I could tell he was impressed. But she didn't answer my question. And you know what? I shrunk. I should have asked anyway, I didn't. This person didn't work out, for a host of reasons. But one of the main reasons? There was never direct answers, there was always a twist of the story that was happening. We had the first chance to explore that in the interview. We didn't. As I looked back through that process, I saw hole after hole where a host of us made assumptions.
Taking the time to learn isn't a bad thing. The first few times you review the information, you'll see a hole at the first step. You'll fix that, the next time a bad hire happens, you'll find the mistake in the third step… you'll fix that, and over time, you'll identify issues one at a time. You'll never make this a perfect thing. But what you will do is solidify what works and how to identify that.
Like I say all the time "rinse and repeat." Keep identifying where you missed something in the process, look closely for your assumptions and use of fairy dust in the process. Actual verifiable answers are key, not the assumptions you make from the answer.
Make sense? I hope so. I'm challenging you to reflect on your hiring process, and where your decision making went sideways, and do your best to not repeat the mistake a second time.
As always, I’ll be bringing you new information weekly. Be sure to subscribe wherever you are listening to this. Feel free to comment, rate, and review what you hear. Share this podcast with other leaders that may be building “out of this world teams.” You can email me with your thoughts or questions. I may use your subject matter in upcoming shows.
It’s great to meet you and thank you for listening. I know you only have so many hours in the week, and I am grateful to spend this time with you. Until then, make it a great day! See you on the flip side.