The recent news of the CEO of Yahoo found to be lying about his Computer Science degree highlights again the extent of fabrication in Cvs. The most recent research from Peninsula shows 77% of the employees surveyed admitting they had falsified qualifications on their CVs.  More worryingly 89% said they do not feel guilty and would continue to lie in the future!!

The Scott Thompson example also demonstrates that it happens at every level… from first jobs to CEO.

So what does this mean for Managers recruiting staff? How do you guard against these lies and embellishments?

Interviewing is not an exact science and cannot predict, in a fool proof way, how someone will ultimately perform in a role.

However, there are certain things you can do to ensure your interview is as robust as possible, for example…
• Use evidence based questioning to draw out concrete examples to make an assessment on
• Probe and challenge rather than accept everything a candidate says on face value
• Be objective in your approach – recruiting someone “over a nice lunch” will only ever get you the people you quite like, rather than the person who can best do the job

But in addition, organisations should look at incorporating other ways of checking suitability into their selection process.
• Use practical tests to see skills in action. If we were recruiting a trainer for the team we would want them to run a mini training session. If you were recruiting a tree surgeon you would want to see them shin up a tree safely.
• Check qualifications – ask to see original certificates
• Check references – these are always most useful to verify factual information – dates, job titles, targets achieved etc and it is most helpful to get them from the line manager.
• Use psychometric tests – if these are used in the right way, they can add real insight and value to the selection process. Ensure they are debriefed by someone who is trained in how to interpret them and use it as part of the decision-making process, rather than basing your whole decision on the results

We know that these lies and exaggeration on CVs rise in tough times, as the job market becomes more competitive. So don’t leave yourselves vulnerable…Putting some rigour and structure into your selection process could save you some very costly mistakes.

For more guidelines on recruiting effectively see our previous blogs and to ensure your managers have the skills to weed out unsuitable candidates, have a look at our Recruitment and selection training. 

Part of the Equalities act which came into force last year is that it is now possible to use positive action at the point of selection in a recruitment process.  On a practical level this means if there are two equally qualified people at the end of the recruitment process, then it is lawful to choose one over the other, if they are from an under represented group. There is a great article by Emma Bartlett explaining this in detail http://www.recruiter.co.uk/positive-action-in-recruitment/1009192.article

This is a key step in encouraging a more diverse workforce, although has inevitably caused strong feelings both for and against.

The “pointless legislation” group see this as over complicated and even “unfair”, as in their eyes it potentially discriminates against groups who are not under-represented eg white males. But surely this is missing the point? It is easy to bemoan anti discrimination legislation when you have not experienced what it is like to be part of a minority group.

If we had a situation where all recruitment was done on merit then we wouldn’t need such legislation – but we don’t!

Even now we come across managers, who ask at interview whether a woman intends to have children, businesses who ask what a candidate’s parents do for a living and we even see interview notes making inappropriate comments about why someone should be hired or not hired – often based on looks or perceived sexual orientation.

We need legislation to drive a change in behaviour and anything that makes our business world fairer is surely worthwhile?

I have recently been in the fortunate position of being able to recruit two new members of staff for my small organisation. I have been struck yet again by just how important the right recruitment and selection process is – get it right and you will reap returns far in excess of the financial investment you make, but get it wrong and it can be an expensive and time consuming mistake.

For both roles we received a large number of applications, so using a clear and specific person specification as my criteria to score against was key. I was disappointed at how many of the applicants failed to describe how they met the specification, but fortunately I had more than enough good candidates to interview, so I looked for the ones that also had some added value to give to the organisation and my team. Those were the ones that I wanted to see in person.

The interview itself was vital in testing the candidates to see how well they could evidence, with practical examples, the statements on their application form. It was also a chance to see characteristics that cannot readily be demonstrated on paper – enthusiasm, aptitude and flexibility. I needed to give careful thought to my questions, in order to give the candidates a fair chance to demonstrate the qualities I was looking for. I also never interview alone, preferring to have one or two colleagues who may look at the candidates from a different perspective.

In both processes, we were faced with a difficult decision between two strong candidates. This is where understanding the added value that candidates can bring, together with the ‘fit’ with the philosophies and values of the organisation, helped to steer us towards our final choice.

So, I now have two new members of staff to induct and that gives me a sense of anticipation and enthusiasm. There are no guarantees that I have got it right – that’s where making the best use of the probation period comes in – but I do know that I have done everything I can to make the recruitment and selection process a success.

Thank goodness for people like Mark Staniland, Director of Hays careers transition service!  He has challenged people in the private sector who hold the view that those with a public sector background can’t make the transition to the private sector.  I agree entirely with his comment that this is “stereotypical and old fashioned”. 

For sure there will be some people who struggle with such a move, but there are also plenty of people in the private sector who do not have the qualities or skills to succeed in public sector life. 

I would like to think I am one of those people who have made the transition successfully and now enjoy my role as a Director in a privately owned consultancy, working across private, public and not for profit sectors.  After fifteen years in the public sector, I will admit to initially being highly motivated by how quickly decisions could be made in the private sector and turned into actions without lots of laborious red tape.  But that excitement soon turned to consternation, as I was regularly seeing private sector businesses making huge and costly mistakes, because they hadn’t thought things through properly.  I am not saying this never happens in the public sector (as that would be stereotyping!) but it certainly happens less.  

If only both sectors could get the right balance; being able to blend the often entrepreneurial and creative style found in the private sector with the measured thoughtfulness the public sector approach can bring. 

Worryingly, a survey published last month by the Financial Times and Barclays Corporate showed that 52% of private sector companies in the UK said they were are not interested in hiring people, who have lost their jobs in the public sector.

This is such stereotypical and outdated thinking – surely each candidate should be judged on their own merits, regardless of background? I bet the companies surveyed all have Recruitment & Selection policies that talk about not pre-judging candidates too...

Make sure you don’t fall into the trap of pre judging – you may end up missing out…

It’s not easy being a manager – I know from personal experience.  But if January’s Management offerings are anything to go by many of us are making it harder than it needs to be. 

The high profile Sky Sports case has managers tackling a culture of inappropriate behaviour that should have been dealt with long ago and the Chief Exec at Carlisle city council is having to deal with some very heavy handed management by two of his team leaders attempting to manage performance via email. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-12307749

Perhaps on that basis we shouldn’t be too surprised that the Government think we need two years to assess if a new recruit is right for our business!  Their recommendation is to increase the qualifying period for employees before they can make a claim for unfair dismissal from one to two years. http://www.recruiter.co.uk/1008389.article?cmpid=REC04&cmptype=newsletter&email=true
The danger in my eyes is that some already lax management practices will become even laxer if managers think they have longer to make their minds up.

There are some key steps that managers should be taking to manage effectively, but often just don’t….

• Discussing and agreeing specific expectations.  The vast majority of people really welcome having clear direction
• Having regular face-to-face meetings.  How many times do you hear people saying “Communication here is rubbish”?  What they usually mean is they don’t know what their managers expect
• Noting down agreed action points and reviewing them.  Why do so many people tell us things are talked about, but never followed through or reviewed?
• We all like to know if we are on track with something.  Why do so few managers give constructive feedback?

Good managers are those who do these things and do them on a regular basis.  That way...

• They and their team members know what’s appropriate and what is not

• People know the boundaries; when to have a few minutes to show interest in someone without affecting targets and productivity
• They know if a new team member is suitable long before two years and deal with it at the right time and in the right way

   

I was about to have a rant about The Apprentice’s penultimate episode – the interviews - when I read the article by Emma Haslett in Management Today which summed it all up very succinctly! http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/bulletin/mtdailybulletin/article/1047032/the-apprentice-interview-round-smell-rat/

The episode did make good telly, but was a million miles away from good, fair interviewing. Interviewing should be about getting the best from someone, not playing power games and trying to trip candidates up. I really thought those techniques had gone out with the 80’s!

Alan Sugar should be holding himself up as a role model for aspiring business people and setting high standards for people to strive for.
But the way Claude Littner and co interviewed was aggressive and highly subjective, with no level playing field from which to evaluate candidates.

If in any doubt, best practice interviewing should

• Be a two way process – the candidate is making a decision about your organisation as much as you are about them
• Be objective and fair – not a bit of a chat, where the interviewer chucks in a few favourite questions and then decides if you “fit” or not (for “fit” usually read “are a clone of what already exists in the team” or “you like the same football team as the interviewer”)
• Use a clear person spec to measure candidate’s suitability against
• Use questions that test a candidates’ suitability against the agreed person spec – and avoid asking about things that have no bearing on the candidate’s ability to do the job  (how confident are you and your team about the implications of the Equalities Act for example?)
• Use opening questions that are the same for each candidate – to give that level playing field

As we head into 2011 and the war for talent continues to be waged across every sector, this would be a good time to review your managers’ interviewing skills and ensure that yours is a truly fair and objective process that gets you the best candidates … and not “just a chat” or a chance to play “good cop bad cop”!