Published By:


Screen Out Bad Hires: employers might take cue from pooch screeners

BY: MICHAEL STERN July 18, 2007

Across Canada, employers are wringing their hands over the challenge of qualified employees. But the problem is not insoluble.

In fact, employers could take a cue from choosy landlords in New York City, who have learned that the best way to judge candidates’ future behavior is to go beyond the standard interview format and test for the behaviours they're looking for. And we’re not even talking about humans!

Recently, the Post ran a story on how condominium boards in Manhattan have begun interviewing the dogs of prospective tenants to make sure they will fit the building’s existing style and culture. Do they bark too much? How will they get along with the hound down the hall?

At one condo, the residents’ board tests applicants’ dogs by seeing how they respond to the apartment's telephones and door bells. On Fifth Avenue, another “watchdog” board puts candidate dogs into a room with dogs that already live in the building, to see how the newcomer behaves when a bowl of food is produced.

So widespread is this doggie diligence that one real estate agent advises clients to send their pets to obedience school before they even apply to move into New York’s more fashionable addresses.

In other words, most job candidates in Canada receive less testing and scrutiny than do some mutts in Manhattan.

Consider the traditional job interview, where employers ask softball questions and candidates provide well-rehearsed responses. Most interviews are pleasant conversations rather than detailed assessments. Which really doesn’t matter because so many employers hire largely on the basis of gut feel anyways.

Most employers don't think of testing candidates, or don't know how to do it. Others figure they don't have the time or the money to invest in more advanced screening – even though hiring substandard candidates, firing them, and then recruiting again takes longer and costs much more.

The business community sees the dismal result of this management myopia every day: employees who don't make it past probation, and frustrated employers repeating searches again and again.

Employers can change this vicious cycle by taking a few pointers (sorry!) from fussy New York City condo boards:

• Identify the key skills or characteristics you are looking for, and then test for them. When the condo boards want to know if a dog will be too noisy, or if it gets along with other pooches, they don't just ask the owner if their dog barks, or works well with others. They bring Fido into an apartment and ring the bell – or put Rover in a room with other pets already living in the building.

• In that vein, if you are looking to hire skilled leaders, you should test for leadership traits. You can do that through psychological testing (including online tests and questionnaires) and by simply by asking open-ended behavioural questions (“How do you communicate bad news without demoralizing your people? Give an example?”)

• You can also use simulations and role-play. Although their popularity has been falling in recent years as companies try to trim the costs of hiring and speed up the process, these exercises can help you probe specific traits and abilities. One common simulation is the “In-Box” exercise, in which candidates are asked to sort through dozens of imaginary messages, from the urgent to the banal to the politically sensitive. The premise: they are about to be out of touch on a two-week trip, and have to decide which messages to answer, which to ignore, and which to delegate.

I once saw a fascinating role-play in which a hospitality company tried to overcome its reputation for sullen, selfish staff who didn’t give a hoot about customer service. The company brought several job candidates into a room, and asked each to stand up and describe what customer service means to them. The candidates didn't realize the employer wasn’t listening to them speak. He was watching how they behaved when others were speaking. Candidates who yawned, talked or filed their nails were rejected for being too self-absorbed and insufficiently interested in other people.

• Don't forget that checking references is the ultimate test. Most employers aren’t very good at reference-checking. Many don't believe in it (they don't expect to get truth from references a candidates supply themselves), while others don't ask the right questions, or don't give the interview enough time.

From 25 years as a headhunter, I can attest that reference-checking does work. Most people will tell the truth if you ask the right questions in the right way -- and eliminate their wiggle-room. Count on spending at least half an hour on any reference call. Ask lots of open-ended questions. “Under what circumstances, do you think Jim would be willing to lie?” “Would you say Sarah has strong moral fibre? What makes you say that? Can you cite any examples?”

There are experienced, qualified candidates out there. But don't expect to identify them through a simple interview. That dog just won’t hunt any more.