by Peter A. Arthur-Smith, Leadership Solutions, Inc.®

“The whole process seems to need human skills that computers lack; like making conversation and reading social cues.” Article my Claire Cain Miller: NY Times, June 2015, ‘Can an Algorithm Hire Better than a Human.’

     Past years spent interviewing thousands of people over 30 plus years caused this author’s hackles to rise as he read the above article. It reminded him of the standing joke between him and his about to graduate MBA daughter: “You won’t meet any humans at any prospective employers until you’ve completed your initial job orientation. Until then all their hiring activities will be computerized!”

Setting humor aside, we’re fast going that way judging by the above article’s five plus quoted software-based companies that are aiming to automate the hiring process. In many ways they are onto a potential, golden racket because most employers and their staffs hate the traditional hiring process and interviewing. They would much rather just be negotiating a hiring deal with the perfect candidate.

Maybe they’d rather not be doing that either, preferring instead to meet with the successful person after they’ve been automatically hired, completed their automated orientation training, and have successfully completed their initial assignments. Then, if they’re deemed to be a star, they will get to meet some worthy people from their new organization.

Raising this topic is an important leadership and management issue because without good people around them neither leaders nor managers can succeed. People expenditures absorb the majority of any enterprise’s revenues.  And yet, the fact that there are serious current efforts being pursued to automate hiring activity, there is pause for serious concern about the future quality of many workforces.

Increasing numbers of companies expect people to apply on-line, which can be a nightmare fitting into their exact protocols. This probably means the best candidates gives up rather quickly and only the more desperate ones will hang in there. Woe betide if you have a foreign education because that won’t fit their protocols either. So a talented, well-educated, overseas expert is lost as well. All in the name of automation.

Being a person with more than 10,000 hours experience within the hiring-selection field, this writer set the above article aside for a week or two to calm down; so as to become a little more objective about the automated-hiring proposition.

With pure speculation, based upon the likely heritage of the founders of these computerized resume crunching houses, it is suggested that they’re aiming to overcome racial, “not invented here,” and/or less orthodox background biases: as opposed to bypass the pervasive lack of professionalism among interviewers in general.

This writer’s own expert observations, combined with the interviewing horror stories his daughters have brought home, highlight a field requiring a full four year degree course in itself. Interviewing probably needs to be a field that is licensed rather like CPAs,  medical doctors, dentists, etc, to be sure proper attention is being paid to such a crucial task. Not only are candidates exposed to poor interviewing standards, but organizations are losing untold amounts of money based upon poor hiring decisions. And yet the amateurism persists.

 Placing square-pegs into round holes is rampant. As a reader by now, you’re probably feeling desperate because you pray for a quick and easy formula for hiring good people. This writer regrets to disappoint you. One reason why good leaders succeed over the more traditional manager, is because they instinctively spend more time trying to hire the right people around them. The latter manager group are more apt to rely upon efficient systems to do it for them.

One of the biggest fallacies, off the bat, in the whole hiring process, is the belief that you can make good hires based upon resumes alone. That is the first sign of an amateur recruiter. It’s the equivalent to the amateur off-shore fisherman, who believes he-she can catch a big one every time they venture out to sea.

Being objective, there is a certain valid argument for using software programs for screening resumes against some key criteria. Although that’s likely to work less effectively in Europe, where many countries and their employers take hiring much more seriously. Over there, applicants in a number of countries are required to submit a whole package of information, providing authentication for each phase of their employment history. This is because prospective employers are penalized heavily in those countries, if they fire bad hires without a water-tight case.

 Mind you, things are becoming increasingly more perilous in the US, aided by the tough job environment. Many States are now legislating that criminal records are no longer a legitimate basis for not hiring someone. Candidates must be given an opportunity to explain any judgments against them; this is over and above existing equal opportunity laws.

Reality shows, based upon many years of interviewing experience, that hiring organizations are challenged by the trade-off between a person’s experience and their personality (the latter being everything about them that distinguishes them from another person). Most organizations, for pragmatic hiring reasons, opt for experience over personality. Experience is much easier for them to assess and can also provide the promise of  early contributions toward  a particular position, as well as minimize training and orientation investments.

Such an expedient approach comes with a big potential cost. Personality always trumps experience at any point. This writer can point to countless examples of highly experienced executives and others, who are marginal in effectiveness, and would be regarded by colleagues as having personalities worthy of a big ho-hum yawn or as a pain-in-the-neck.

Just consider all the really successful career people. They all have personalities that are quietly or overtly memorable in some way or another. Even the quieter ones possess a certain subtle authority about them and probably have much hidden personal resolve under the surface. The question is, ‘How do you spot this up front?’

Enter the professional interviewer, rather than the genius with a hot software program that can do it all for you. We’re so tempted by the quick and easy solutions, even though there are no easy answers when it comes to selecting the right people. Anymore than there’s a quick and easy answer to choosing the right soul-mate for the rest of our lives. With the latter, there’s more than a 50% failure rate.

What does the professional interviewer do?

» Preparation – They really do their homework. They develop a picture of the enterprise and team’s culture and values, through it’s history, purpose, strengths, resources, team and leadership talents, as well as its future intentions.

» Recruitment Options – Based upon the picture profile that emerges from this preparatory step will determine different recruitment options. Included among these will be the most proven approach: personal introductions by people already within your team or enterprise – a “bounty” approach can help in connection with this mode.

» Interview Questions – These should be prepared for a three-step approach: initial, second and final interviews.

– Initial – Looking at basic position-organization match. The same focused, “open-ended” ended questions should be asked of all candidates to determine approximate fit.

– Second – Is almost entirely focused upon personality “fit” with highly targeted, “open-ended” questions related to your organization’s culture and role-staircase. You probably require an expert assist to formulate these.

– Final – Presents an opportunity for both parties to pursue unanswered issues. It is strongly recommended to include a breakfast, lunch or early dinner to observe candidates in a more relaxed setting; especially for senior hires.

» Orientation – Effective “on-boarding” is a key step to successful hires. Taking new hires away for 2-3 days for “imprinting” can be especially beneficial for key or senior level hires. Effective ‘on-boarding’ is too often overlooked.

Again, effective hiring is a vital leadership and management function. Automation, used in a wise way can prove helpful, although you need to appreciate its biggest drawback – overlooking unorthodox potential. This writer can offer countless stories where the more unorthodox person has been hired and produced tremendous results.

There’s something to be said for having a blend of personalities within any organization. Such a blend gives our organizations “character.” Try to avoid an over-reliance on automation of the hiring process, otherwise you might be in serious danger of overlooking talent and having a “characterless” organization…all with the same litany of experience only. Computers cannot read personalities.  

To learn more about effective hiring practices, talk with: