I remember first being exposed to the steps of the scientific method in middle school:
Ask a question.
Do background research.
Form a hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment.
Analyze the data.
Draw a conclusion.
If the hypothesis is true, report results. But if the hypothesis is false or only partially true, then go back and construct a new hypothesis.
Note
Sticky Notes:
Evaluate your hiring process like a scientist conducting an experiment.
Ask new hires how you could improve the process.
Schedule a debrief session to plan, do, observe, and reflect.
In the eighth grade, we used the scientific method to determine if a plant in the closet grew faster than one in the sun, or if warm tennis balls bounced higher than cold tennis balls. The MATCH process uses the same scientific approach to improve hiring within your company. When you achieve a successful result, the process is designed to retain the steps that proved effective; and when your results are less than successful the process is designed to isolate and improve upon those steps. Let's follow through with the analogy, so we can make hiring the right person a cornerstone of your company.
Ask a question. Throughout this book, I have asserted that the company mission should drive a hire. What compelling reason does a company have to hire? Why should a company commit resources to a hire? The answer must stem from the purpose or mission of the company's existence. For our science projects, we asked, "Which will boil faster, hot or cold water?" For our companies, our question should be, "Will hiring an employee at this cost with these skills and this personality better allow us to profitably achieve our mission?"
Do background research. In middle school, we went to the library and wrote down pertinent information from the encyclopedia. In MATCH, we assemble the hiring team, clarify the corporate culture, create the org chart, compile a job overview, create the competency profile, develop the recruiting plan, conduct the phone screen, conduct behavioral face-to-face interviews, conduct behavioral reference checks, complete background checks, etc. These steps constitute a research-based approach to evaluating the candidate that will best align with our business objective.
Form a hypothesis. An educated guess: the warm tennis balls will bounce higher than the cold tennis balls, the plant kept in the closet will not grow as tall as the plant kept in the sunlight, and cold water will boil faster than warm water. An educated guess in hiring is "Candidate X will bring our organization more value than Candidates A, B, or C." While MATCH is designed to take the guess work out of the process, let's face it—at the intersection of making the decision, extending the offer, and receiving acceptance, you are incapable of knowing with 100 percent certainty how a candidate will perform.
Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment. Ovens, freezers, thermometers, measuring tape, and so on were the tools we used in our school projects. The test for the hypothesis in the art of business is the bottom line—or in bigger organizations, specific business objectives that tie back to the organizational mission. Just as when we were in school, businesses should make the objectives of the hire quantifiable. Further, the company should strive to keep all variables constant except that being observed. This is equally difficult to do in both science and business. However, it is critical to the validity of the experiment/hire in both cases to objectively observe the cause-and-effect impact at its most fundamental level.
Analyze the data. "The warm tennis balls bounced (on average) 5.4 inches higher than the cold tennis balls when dropped from 24 inches above the concrete floor." "The median height of the plant in the closet was 3.6 inches shorter than the plant in the sunlight after 21 days." "The cold water's mean boiling time was 9.6 minutes; while the hot water's mean boiling time was 8.9 minutes." Similarly, throughout the MATCH process, I advocate testing the hiring ROI: objectively observing the value that the hire is bringing to the business equation.
Draw a conclusion. Our hypothesis was correct: "warm tennis balls do bounce higher than cold tennis balls." "Plants kept in closets don't grow as well as the plants kept in the sun" (no surprise there, I hope). But in direct contradiction to old wives' tales—though not the laws of physics—"hot water boils more quickly than does cold water." In business, the critical step of evaluating the new hire is contained in the question: is the individual exceeding the criteria for success?
If the hypothesis is true, report results, but if the hypothesis is false or partially true, then go back and construct a new hypothesis. This was my favorite part of the scientific method. I thought it was cool that if your hypothesis proved wrong, you could follow the arrow on the diagram back to the formulation of the hypothesis and restart. How great is that—a scientific reset button. In school, we reformulated our assumption that cold water boiled faster than hot water, and then confirmed that hypothesis with a new set of experiments, which showed that, in fact, hot water boiled an average of 0.7 minutes faster than cold water. We must do the same thing in business. I don't know how many times I have heard successful professionals tell me that the only reason for their success was trying, trying, and trying again, with no concern for failure. What others label a "failure," successful people call a "learning experience." When something didn't work, they'd cast it aside; when something did work, they repeated the behavior. No great genius was needed—just persistence and attention to results. Hence, that is the idea behind this chapter: make the process stick.
Let's examine efforts needed to create this scientific climate:
The MATCH process is a systematic approach to hiring and retaining the right person. Therefore, once we have hired the person, we must continue evaluating the process itself. A constant system of self-checking will allow the process to grow and adapt to changes. In over 10 years as an executive recruiter, I've seen hiring markets change almost overnight. For that reason, the MATCH process must constantly evolve. While fundamentals remain intact, techniques within the system will have to adapt.
In order to create a living and learning hiring process, the hiring team must remain vigilant. An objective meeting immediately following the initiation of the new hire is a must. But further, I suggest that that the hiring team meet at the three-month and one-year marks in order to summarily review the entire MATCH process (from inception to retention). Again, a culture of communication must be fostered. Congratulations should be in order, but dig deeply into any areas that could have made the hire more effective.
By utilizing a disciplined approach to reviewing the MATCH process, the hiring team will create a feedback loop. Areas of noted improvement will enhance the next hiring effort, and discovered pitfalls will be avoided. Again, note that this process must be carefully documented in order to maximize the effect. It doesn't matter what the hiring team learns if there is no way to communicate the learning.
The question that I get most often in regards to this feedback loop is: "If our organization hires a certain position (like a controller) only once every decade, then isn't creating a feedback loop a waste of time?" My answer is no; but be rational about the process. Simply create a controller file in a place you'll be able to access. Here, you'll store the job overview, competencies, behavioral questions, résumés of candidates not chosen, notes from the meetings, and any other pertinent information (you'll want to include notes from reviews as well). By deploying the resources necessary for finalizing the process in this way, you will save a great deal of time over the life span of your organization.
Be sure to include the new hire in the evaluative process. Not only can you learn from his or her perspective, but you can also start to share the culture that supports a systematic hiring process. Ask the new hire what they liked and disliked about the process. Find out what attracted them to the role. Ask for suggestions to improve the process. Be sure to record this information so that the hiring team can evaluate potential areas of improvement.
Since feedback is a circular process whereby some proportion of a system's output is returned (fed back) to the input, data must be collected and analyzed at the end of every hire in order to enhance the overall process. Investigating the following areas can significantly improve the value of the feedback loop:
The hiring team. Did the hiring team stay constant throughout the process? Was it necessary to add or subtract from the group? What could you do to improve the group dynamics?
Clarifying the corporate culture. Does your corporate culture document accurately match your organization's actual culture? Were you able to more clearly identify your company's identity through the process?
The organization chart. What revisions do you need to make to the org chart reflecting the recent hire or other changes in the company?
The job overview. Were any changes made to the job overview? Keeping the job overview on file for future hires can save the company time, money, and energy. Also, keeping notes from the job interview process can help in managing the employee. In fact, continued reference to the job overview during the employee's tenure can further help to establish an excellent resource for continued growth and improvement.
The competency profile. Were your priorities indeed the most critical aspects of the hire? Was the team objective enough, or did they create a competency based on subjectivity? Did the competencies outlined match the business goals that are to be performed by the employee?
The recruiting plan. Did the plan effectively produce the "right" candidate? Should other sources be considered in the future? Could the company find the right talent for less money, or does the budget need to be increased?
Implementing the recruiting plan. Could the behavioral questions be improved? What improvements could be implemented and used for the next hire? Did the team discover any "holes" when comparing candidates' responses with their references' responses? Should you add any additional background checks?
Executing the hire. Was your job offer accepted without negotiation? Was the candidate counteroffered, and what was the reaction? How quickly did the candidate acclimate to the team?
Following up. Is the employee still with the company? Is he or she productive and bringing value to the organization? Is the employee helping others to achieve more? And, finally, are we creating a better hiring environment by asking these very questions?
The purpose of a debrief session is to improve the hiring process by capturing the lessons learned and making them explicit; that is, recording them (generally in a document) and then working them into the process for the next hire.
In the Army, these debrief sessions are called "After Action Reviews" (AARs). The rules of an AAR as applied to business are:
It does not judge success or failure.
It attempts to discover why things happened.
It focuses directly on the tasks and goals that were to be accomplished.
It encourages employees to surface important lessons in the discussion.
Your debrief session should be facilitated by human resources (HR) and include all who were involved in the hiring process (except the candidate.) An administrator should take notes. You can use the flowchart in this book to complete the hiring steps and tell the story of the hire. Make sure that all involved have a chance to comment on each of the steps. You may find that, for instance, while your interview went very well, another interviewer felt unprepared to talk to the candidate. Focus on the process—did the unprepared interviewer not get the materials in time? Was the person properly trained in interviewing techniques?
As you examine the story of the hire, take time to note the things that went particularly well. Not only does this help you feel good about the process, it reinforces those actions for the group. Analyze the process for areas that did not work as well because, in most cases, mistakes are a result of not following procedure. Did you skip steps? If so, why? Note the areas for improvement and action steps necessary to address those issues for future interviews. Make sure that HR acts as the keeper of these action steps.
The AARs look at a continual cycle of "Plan, Do, Observe, Reflect," and the interview process can be examined in the same way. Unfortunately, many companies neglect the "Observe" and "Reflect" phases of the process, and subsequently repeat the same mistakes.
The end product of your review should be a bulleted list of lessons learned that you can use for the next round of hiring. Make these points action oriented, such as:
Use a quieter conference room on other side of the building for interviews.
Have HR do mock interview sessions with new interviewers before they see the candidate.
Make sure all notes are turned in the day of the interviews—no exceptions!
Do a group interview for technical skills.
You should go over this list the next time you assemble the hiring team for another hire. Build on the list. Refine it. And incorporate it into your hiring approach. That's how you make the process stick.