Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER August 10, 2015 NEWS 9 Are you looking to reach occupational health and safety professionals across the country? Get your listing in the Health and Safety section of HR Vendors Guide online and in print. Visit www.hrreporter.com/hr-vendors-guide to enter your firm's information. Visit www.hrreporter.com/hr-vendors-guide HR VENDORS GUIDE HR VENDORS GUIDE Attention OHS vendors and suppliers Hiring delays can represent money left on the table both for workers and employers, accord- ing to Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at Glassdoor in San Francisco. "Longer or shorter hiring times are a dual-edged sword where if you speed things along too quick- ly, yes, you make a quick match but it might be a bad match and those people might not stay, they might be the wrong person for the job. On the other hand, if you wait too long, you risk losing those people to a competitor. And also, every day that a position isn't fi lled, the company makes less money and the worker doesn't get a paycheck so there's a tradeoff that is going on… but there's certainly some ev- idence that things can be speeded up without losing much." Longer hiring times are defi - nitely bad for employers, said Ben Hutt, Sydney-based CEO of the Search Party, a recruitment fi rm with offi ces in Toronto. "Empty seats lead to a loss of productivity for businesses, over- work for other team members, and every hour a manager spends searching for the next employee could be better spent doing other things." In addition, the longer the hir- ing process drags on, the more likely managers are to hire poor- quality candidates, he said, citing Search Party research. "It would seem like an obvious conclusion to draw: 'Move fast, make more mistakes.' However, I believe it's likely to be the oppo- site," said Hutt. "Line managers in both small and large business reported knowingly hiring people who had lied about capability or his- tory, or who they knew would be mediocre performers at best because they were sick of waiting and wearing the pain of an empty seat. is is an issue because while empty seats drain morale for ev- eryone, adding a poor hire is more painful and has more disastrous consequences in the end." Growth in screening methods So, what's behind the longer inter- view process? One factor seems to be the types of interview screening methods used by employers, ac- cording to Chamberlain. For ex- ample, in the U.S., candidate back- ground checks increased from 25 per cent in 2010 to 42 per cent in 2014. Skills tests went from 16 per cent to 23 per cent, drug tests from 13 per cent to 23 per cent and per- sonality tests from 12 per cent to 18 per cent. And each additional screen adds signifi cantly to hiring times, such as 6.8 to 8.2 days for a phone interview or 3.1 to 3.4 days for a background check (see sidebar). ere's increased use of these kinds of tools because people think they can predict out- comes, said Laura Randell, CEO of PeopleMatters consultants in Toronto, who questioned their reliability. " ere's a lot of data out there that says behaviour-based tools and assessment tools are not nec- essarily really good indicators." Employers and recruiters also don't want to make mistakes, she said. " ey really are looking at the cost of hiring and wanting to — and I think maybe this is a Ca- nadian approach — making sure we don't make a risky decision, we want to put people through as many hoops as we feel are neces- sary. ere's a fl ipside to that and there's a negative to that which is you lose top talent by taking this approach. e longer you take, the more likely the top talented people are going to walk away from the process because they're not going to bother — they've got other opportunities, they've got other off ers, they want it to be simple and easy." Job candidates understand there's an element of rigour that's required but there are people at the C-level who are being sent for entry-level skills tests, she said. " ey're not going to do it. So you're trying to do risk mitigation and yet you're actually losing top talent." One of the reasons behind the increased use of screening could be because jobs are changing, said Chamberlain. "Jobs, generally, are getting more technical, more sophisti- cated. Finance companies are hir- ing data scientists… when they used to hire mostly salespeople, and these more sophisticated jobs that are non-routine and that require more judgment and creativity, skills that are harder to fi ll quickly." ere's also the issue of sensi- tive data, which businesses never used to have, he said. "Like Target having digitized credit card information and transaction information for mil- lions of people… what that means is they're relying on background checks and credit checks more because they want to ensure that anybody who comes into contact with that is a trustworthy person who has a good track record." ere is also a big drive to do recruitment internally — so not leaning on an agency — and em- ployers are keen to manage the risk of getting it wrong or at least to protect themselves, said Hutt. "Our research suggests that, even with all these tests, more than 60 per cent of the time em- ployers hire a candidate who fails to live up to expectations. is suggests that people are either using the wrong test for the job or relying on tests instead of better methods for selection (which they may well be unaware of )." All these tests are not really nec- essary if employers have a proper candidate sourcing, selection and evaluation process, he said. "Most employers don't even know how to interview properly, let alone screen and assess capa- bility. ere is a massive oppor- tunity to improve capability and access to technology to help in this area." e key is using the right test, at the right time, for the right job. So, for example, using a psy- chometric profi ler for someone who's not working in a project- or team-based role "is totally point- less," said Hutt. "My view would be assess for capability fi rst, then willingness/motivation, then last- ly fi t with the team and broader organization." A lot of reference checking is also done well in advance, said Randell. "We're front-loading the assess- ment piece to recruitment and I think that's a massive mistake, I really, really do. But the reason we're getting away with that is be- cause, whatever the numbers say, unemployment is really pretty high," she said. "People are desperate so the job seekers are desperate and they're willing to do anything and every- thing to get a job. And, unfortu- nately… it's the wrong people who will do these assessments. e right people are not going to waste their time, they're in demand." e cost of background checks is also far lower today than it was a generation ago, said Chamberlain. " ere's just so much informa- tion about us that's digitized, it's way easier for Experian or these other credit companies to quickly gather together your whole fi nan- cial history and your record on paying your student loans." Newer hiring software could also be a factor, he said. " ere seems to be some exper- imentation going on and people aren't quite sure how to use that applicant tracking software to make the hiring process more ef- fi cient," said Chamberlain. It's a matter of looking at when people are being put through all of these various hoops, said Randell. "What HR can really learn and do better is make sure they only put people through these screens when it's necessary and make sure that the timing is right. Re- ally simple stuff — like you don't do references, you don't do back- ground screening and you don't do skills testing until you basically have fi nalized candidates — and too many organizations are doing that completely backward." Screening adds to hiring time INTERVIEW < pg. 1 Interview method Average days added to hiring process Phone interview 6.8 to 8.2 One-on-one interview 4.1 to 5.3 Group panel interview 5.6 to 6.8 Presentation 2.7 to 4.2 IQ intelligence test 2.6 to 4.4 Job skills test 0.6 to 1.5 Personality test 0.9 to 1.3 Drug test 0.3 to 0.8 Background check 3.1 to 3.4 Source: Glassdoor

• Cover