How Can We Ensure We're Hiring the Right Attitude Without Losing Top Talent?

Dear all,

I am looking after the Human Resource function at a Software Development company with 35 people, and we are recruiting new developers. During the last week, we found two candidates who were technically very good, but we rejected them on the grounds that their attitude was not good. One of them was too ambitious, looking for vertical growth, and the other sounded very less interested in the job and had come just because he had received a call.

It also happens that a person who displays a good attitude in the interview does not display the same at the workplace. How, then, can we be sure that we are hiring the right attitude? As in the above two cases, we lost two technically strong people, causing a loss to the project. Is this justifiable, especially for a growing organization that is working hard to get more business?

Kindly guide me.

Hi Neel Keshaw,

You have posed a very apt question to the forum. You are correct in saying that you have lost two technically sound people because of their attitude! You have also mentioned that people may display the right attitude during the interview but not maintain the required or expected attitude while working. Is it not? This implies that we must carefully select individuals with the RIGHT ATTITUDE for the job. Once they are on the job, observe them very closely. I believe HR professionals need to take the initiative to study and observe individuals. If you find their attitude suitable for the work, then you are good to go! However, if you find their attitude does not align with your expectations, then you should initiate attitude correction sessions or training, ensuring they are on board. You will likely agree with me that it's not possible to have 100% of people with the right attitude for your work. Thus, it is the responsibility of HR personnel to shape their attitudes and leverage their technical skills for the organization's growth.

-Srinaren

Hi Srinaren,

This is the same question I asked in some other post but did not get a reply on. It becomes very difficult for HR personnel to know the attitude of the applicant. Sometimes, people just come to the interview all prepared to show the attitude an interviewer is looking for. Once you put them in the job, you realize that looks are deceptive. But I truly agree with you that we can't get 100% success in getting people with the right attitude. As HR professionals, we need to develop them. Hiring the right attitude is a difficult job; it comes with practice and observations.

Cheers, Archna

Hi Srinaren,

People may fake answers (not attitudes) during the interview, according to me. In a software organization, based on their attitude, you can assign them a role. If someone is ambitious and seeks vertical growth, they should be placed in a project where they can work independently. For the second person, it's best to dismiss them.

While one can fake their answers to stereotypical questions, they cannot do so for all questions. We need to evaluate the candidate in the interview on all points and then assess how they would fit into the organization. In the case of looking for a specialized individual, questions should be tailored accordingly.

Regards

Like the right and wrong being subjective, the 'right attitude' is also subjective. To cite an example, Neelkeshaw mentioned in his opening post that one of the two candidates was "too ambitious looking for vertical growth," hence dropped. Is being too ambitious a bad attitude? Certainly not for that individual. He was not hired by you because you presumed him to be a short-term candidate. (Possibly, he might have acted overambitious just to make an impression). I would have taken a chance by recruiting him after clearly explaining the realities of reaching his vertical height in the organization. Neelkshaw is quite right in stating that at times, "a person who displays a good attitude in the interview does not display the same at the workplace." It's better to have a counseling session with such a candidate.

So, while recruiting, do not expect 100% of everything from a candidate. We need to recruit candidates with both aptitude and attitude. Yet, do not expect 100% of aptitude and 100% of attitude. Try to have an acceptable mix and train the candidate to overcome any shortcomings.

Regards,
Venkat

Hi Archana, Vrishi, Venkat,

I think the subject is taking an interesting turn! You people have agreed upon one thing - you will not get a 100% right aptitude and attitude person for any job! Am I right? This is 100% right! As Venkat says, I will go one step further, anything that is ideal or right is only subjective. There is no right or wrong. Candidate's attitude during the interview may be deceptive, but what are we, as HR professionals, doing? I always term a true HR person as a reformer! HR job is not a simple job. It calls for a lot of patience, maturity, impartiality, and wisdom for the person who takes up the job of HR.

As Vrishi has said, do you all think to hire a person and if he does not show the right kind of attitude towards his position/job, fire him! If this is the way you are all thinking, then what as HR personnel are we doing? By hiring a person, you have already wasted your/management's time, energy, money in the process. I would rather call it as invested and not wasted! When that is the case, what I would do is study the behavior of the person. If it is too disappointing regarding the attitude, do some homework, call him, take him to confidence, present myself as a caretaker or well-wisher, talk to him, find out what is holding him back to give his 100% to his job/position. Each and every action will have a reason - that could be personal, professional, mental, or physiological!

As an HR person, become his counselor, guide, friend, and philosopher and see that he develops the right attitude for the job/position/responsibility he is supposed to take. Thus, you are making his career, and he will be indebted to you throughout his life. It will give you a lot of confidence, satisfaction, and you will definitely benefit, and also the organization benefits!

Getting good and right people may be easy if you think so, but retaining them is a big task. Molding them to the organization's requirements is a task, no doubt, but if you succeed in achieving it, YOU ARE THE KING!!

-Srinaren

Hello friends,

If I were in the situation of hiring those two individuals, one interested in vertical moving and the other simply attending an interview, and both have good technical knowledge, I would suggest the following approach. Firstly, hire the person interested in vertical moving and offer them a job. Clearly communicate your company's policies regarding promotions and encourage them to act accordingly to strive for growth within the organization.

For the individual who came for the interview without a specific interest in vertical moving, upon hiring, inquire about their favorite job or the area they are most interested in working. Assign them tasks aligned with their preferences and evaluate their performance. Consider rotating their responsibilities after a few cycles to expose them to various roles and challenges. This approach can motivate them to deliver their best efforts and foster loyalty as they experience different aspects of the organization.

This is my opinion, and it may vary based on your specific situation.

Thank you,
Sacala Arun Kumar
VTU Belagavi

Hi Srinaren,

If a person does not want to change, how can we make him change? And that too, attitude, which is one of the inbuilt traits? Why blame the HR person for that? During the time of the interview only, that trait surfaces by way of questions. That time only the decision has to be made.

Hello Everyone,

One can say that it is very important to hire the right attitude for the workplace. Also, a lot of it can be staged and coached. However, it really lies on the skill of the interviewer to probe and verify whether the statements are indeed facts or not.

Regards,
Shyamali

Dear All,

During the interview process, most of the time people with good interpersonal skills score high, and we make our judgment about a person based on how well they behave. Many times, I have seen people with good communication skills win the hearts of interviewers, and such candidates are rated well. Hiring the candidate with the right attitude is more important. A person can be trained on technical aspects, but attitude comes from within. Personality profiling/assessment is one of the best ways to hire the right people. This becomes very important when you hire people across different verticals.

Regards,
Rekha

Vrishi has posed the question, "If a person does not want to change, how can we make him change? And that too attitude which is one of the inbuilt traits? Why blame the HR person for that? During the time of the interview only, that trait surfaces by way of questions. That time only, the decision has to be made."

Vrishi:
None is blaming an HR guy. It is only the suggestions of proven ways of mentoring. Despite efforts, if a guy does not want to change, he has to face the consequences. Also, would like to know, are you referring to a case in reality or posing a general question....

Regards,
Venkat

Hi, Vrishi and other friends,

Thanks for your comments and views! Venkat, thanks for your analysis. I or anybody in the interaction so far has not blamed the HR! But I have a question. Is this attitude question not there with an HR person? I am sure this may kick off many angry bursts of views and reactions from my HR friends!

Sorry, friends! It applies to all! Why do you think a person's attitude cannot be changed? All persons may not be the same. You may be able to change the attitude of one person very fast, but to change another person's attitude may take a longer time! But it doesn't mean that he cannot be changed!

Vrishi, do you think that if a person looks for vertical growth, it is bad or wrong? Have you not aspired for vertical growth at the beginning of your career? I am sure you did! But the reality is once the person gets into his job, he realizes how difficult or easy it is to have vertical growth, and he will definitely amend his attitude and his approach! In my opinion, it is not bad or wrong to aspire for vertical growth! If I am confident in my abilities, then why not aspire for vertical growth? If I express it openly during my interview, would you like to discard me, terming my attitude as not right? I have seen in my 30 years of industrial experience people who have achieved vertical growth. A person who came to me 10 years back for a meager salary of Rs. 3000/- is now drawing a salary of Rs. 1.40 Lakhs per month! He acknowledges the help and support I gave him in achieving this milestone. I have numerous instances like this in my long span of service.

An HR person is the one who is in between the employee and the management, and hence I term his or her responsibility as more in shaping the employee for the growth of the organization. I am referring to the people who selected this HR Profession with passion and not with compulsion! A true HR person, in my opinion, becomes the second PARENT of the employee!

I request you all youngsters, put your heart and soul into this noble profession of HR, then you will see how you can change the attitudes of the most arrogant person!

-Srinaren

Dear All,

It was very interesting to read all of your postings on this topic. Let me put forth my opinions as well. Let's not define attitude solely based on personal experience. Instead, let's refrain from defining it solely based on our organization's requirements. Perhaps we should appreciate it as it is.

I request all of you to discuss who is qualified to comment on attitude, whether it is negative or positive, right or wrong attitude. As an HR professional, what skillsets and personality attributes should we possess to comment on someone else's attitude? Can we discuss that as well?

Regards,
Ravikanth

Dear all,

Thank you all for your responses.

As Venkat, Sri, and others have said, I also believe that desiring vertical growth is not wrong. (The person whom we rejected was asking for a certain designation as a condition for joining. Anyways, we leave this case here).

The question is, what is the right attitude, and how do we decide if someone has that? Do business needs and deadlines always let us hire the right attitude candidate? What about when we do bulk hiring? Every company cannot afford to try with employees and fire them if they don't have the right attitude.

It's true that 100% aptitude and attitude cannot be expected. I would rather say such a situation is not desirable, but people in key positions must have the right attitude, and that includes people from HR (as suggested).

I have also seen that good communication skills can get you a job in HR, but what about perspective? Isn't that important? Sri rightly mentions the seriousness of the HR function.

I think that we need to decide what attitude traits we are looking for and have a structured method for evaluating them rather than going all by gut. Behavioral interviews may be a solution?

I find myself most of the time incapable of giving an outright judgment on someone's attitude.

Also, what is the commitment we show towards hiring the "right attitude"? Would we ever compromise or not?

Hi Srinaren,

I had just answered a specific question showing a lackadaisical attitude in the interview itself... coming to the interview for the sake of the interview, as stated by NeelKeshaw.

These types of persons should be fired at the interview round itself rather than being a "SECOND PARENT" and wasting management's money. It is better to take action at the first step itself. But that comes with reading the mails carefully in the first instance.

Regards,

Hi,

What is the right attitude? Before the forum shares its views, I feel it would be appropriate that you share what, according to you, is the right attitude or what you are looking for as the right attitude in the candidates being recruited by you.

Regards,
Venkat

Dear all:

I missed reading a few postings by the time I posted my last comment.

Hi Srinaren: I fully agree with you that a person's attitude can be changed 'given the time' to change him. Your comments are quite valid and as you rightly pointed out, anyone who selected the HR profession with passion would love to be a second parent, provided the time taken to effect the change is acceptable to the management.

What Vrishi has been repeatedly seeking an answer for is... can we change a person who does not 'want' to change? It is quite important that we need the willingness and cooperation of the one who needs to change. If it is not forthcoming despite your efforts, it is simply a case of NOT WANTING to change. For such cases, only time can have its effects. Such characters will understand only by going through realities. Then the 'change' will come out of 'realization'. In a corporate environment, how many of us are ready to wait and watch the change happening in a 'not-wanting-change' employee? I believe it is in this context Vrishi has stated so. AM I right in interpreting you, Vrishi...??

Now I find that the discussion has drifted off from a real case to general discussions. Of course, this is enlightening.

Neelkshaw is clear now about his decisions taken on the initially referred cases. He as well as Ravikant have posed a few thought-provoking queries as follows:

1. As an HR professional, what are the skill sets and personality attributes that we need to have to comment on someone else's attitude.

2. What are the attitude traits we are looking for and is there a structured method for evaluating them rather than relying solely on gut instinct? Behavioral interviews may be? (This query will be answered by addressing the 1st question itself. Hence, the forum can address their comments/suggestions for 1 & 3).

3. What commitment do we show towards hiring the "right attitude"? Would we ever compromise or not?

I also would request Neelkshaw in particular and others in general...

- What, according to you, is the right attitude or what are you looking for as the right attitude in the candidates being recruited by you.

With regards,

K Venkat

Hi Venkat,

You have assumed what I meant.

These days, while recruiting, the general idea is "hire for attitude, train for skills." It depends on the position and the attitude required for that position, which should be considered during recruitment. Basically, the inherent traits such as attitude and motives can be assessed during an interview, determining whether a person will be recruited based on their attitude.

Behavior is primarily evaluated during the interview process. A person's competence can be developed throughout their career, but it is challenging to develop competency in behavior. Someone lacking the attitude to work in a team or with a stable temperament may struggle to adapt to such situations.

During the interview process, if the candidate's attitude is assessed, they can be placed in a suitable position based on that evaluation. For example, if a person prefers working alone and is a high achiever, they can be assigned as a salesman or in the R&D Department. Conversely, someone who enjoys working in teams can be placed in projects.

If a person is hesitant to make decisions, they can be placed in a team where decisions are made collectively. There, the individual might become more open and potentially exhibit the Risky Shift phenomenon, but they may not be suitable for a leadership role.

In essence, if a person's attitude and behavior are accurately assessed during the interview, they can be utilized effectively for the benefit of both the organization and the individual. Conducting competency mapping before the interview allows for better alignment of the person's attitude with the position requirements.

While not infallible, this approach can be a valuable tool in recruitment.

Regards,

Hi Neel,

I found that this is happening to me as well. One of my reportees always mopes around and does less work at the desk. When she messes up, she skips work for two to three days. Why can't we have a test based on interpersonal skills with an actual assessment? It could comprise 30% of the entire test, including questions on general topics to assess how individuals react in various situations. This may help us gauge the person's attitude to some extent.

Regards,
Prans

Their attitude can be part of their big ambitions or their life. You have to check their caliber and deliverance of work. If you are in need, then you grab them for a short while and continue the search for a better one. When you find a better candidate, analyze both of them and remove the person with nominal qualities.

Thank you.
Regards,
Neeraj Yadav

Dear Neeraj,

Taking someone on for the short term only to kick him/her out once you find a better person might be appropriate for business. But my question is, what if you find a much better person compared to the one you had hired initially to "kick out" the first one? I believe in HR, we are dealing with people and not with gadgets (like mobile phones) that we should "kick out" once we find a better one. Just imagine, what would your situation be if that happened to you? After all, we are also employed and are equally vulnerable, like anyone in other functions. Our role should be that of a facilitator and not that of a regulator.

Regards,
Ravikanth

Hi Friends,

Before I could take this discussion further, I would like to recap what all of you who have participated in this discussion have said. Permit me to quote:

All this started when Neelkeshaw asked - Archana expressed her opinion - Then being a little upset with my views, Vrishi said - Then Venkat expressed diplomatically - Then Arunkumar said - Then Vrishi asked me straight - Then, Shyamali, our active senior member, said - "Then the daring girl Rekha chipped in and said - After reading the angry views of the members, Ravikanth said - Then Neelkeshaw posed a doubt - Then the big bomb was dropped by Vrishi to me. She asked me - Not satisfied with her blasting me, Vrishi continued - Then Venkat felt it would be appropriate to know - Vrishi came back and said - Then the most new member of the family, Pranathi, opined - Then neerajkaninwal felt - Then came the most refreshing words from Ravikanth - Friends, I am sorry for having taken so much time to quote what all you have said during the course of this discussion!

Let me very frankly tell you all that you are all wonderful people! The questions posed by one have been answered by the other!! I am too small a person to comment, judge the right or wrong in your views.

But definitely, one thing I would like to make clear is that selecting a person is a very important and responsible act of the HR person. With experience, it is not very difficult to judge a person's attitude during the interview by posing the probing questions, if the interviewer is competent enough! However much one can fake answers or attitudes, a competent HR guy can make out whether it is fake or true! If that sort of an interviewer feels that the person does not have the right attitude for the desired job, he can reject him outright!

But if a person after the selection shows signs of a different attitude towards his work, colleagues, organization, then I strongly feel that his attitude can be changed!

Lastly, I would like to answer one question posed by my good friend Vrishi - "Have you ever been a 'SECOND PARENT'???????? My answer is MY DEAR VRISHI ....I HAVE BEEN A 'SECOND PARENT' NOT ONCE BUT MANY TIMES, PROBABLY I CANNOT REMEMBER THE NUMBERS IN MY THIRTY YEARS OF INDUSTRIAL EXPERIENCE."

Regards,

-Srinaren

Dear Srinaren,

Your 30 years of industrial experience is clearly felt through your well-compiled posting. Hats off... I would only reiterate my statement, "right and wrong are subjective." I fully agree with you that with experience/exposure, it is not very difficult to judge a person's attitude during the interview by posing probing questions. I also agree with you that an altering attitude can be corrected, but given the time and efforts. Yet, despite all your efforts, if a person does not 'want to change,' I would still go by remarks in the earlier posting. One can ask, will such a person exist? Yes, they do. I am saying so authentically because I have experienced and am experiencing - my own brother-in-law is a classic case of reference. It has been 8 years, and still, he has not changed despite our efforts. He has not changed because he 'does not want to.' Since then, I have heard many and even seen two more similar cases. Which corporate is going to wait such a long time and continue to spend time to change attitude? Many times, realities defy theoretical preachings.

To sum it up... Attitude is nothing but the way of thinking. It is an 'internal' process. This internal process, when translated to action, is 'behavior.' The internal process can be aligned to suit a specific environment through 'external' influences. As long as you judge the candidate's 'thinking' to be relevant to the job profile, you have hit the candidate with the right attitude.

Regards,
Venkat

Dear all,

Kiran has posted some excerpts in the Recruiting Techniques & Sourcing section as "14 Candidate Questions." This answers a few queries posted in this forum. Might be of interest to all.

Regards,
Venkat

Hi Venkat,

Thank you for your kind words spoken on my behalf. I understand your logic. If a person does not want to change, what should be done? Will the management wait until the person decides to change? In my opinion, if so much effort and time need to be invested, the answer is a firm no. However, I would also like to state that in the interest of that individual, I am willing to take up the challenge of helping them change on a personal basis. You may think I am a fool, but I say these words with conviction. Throughout my long career, I have encountered many difficult individuals, but I have successfully influenced them to change, and today they are grateful to me. One person even went as far as naming their child after me. What I have shared in my post is not just words for the sake of writing; it is based on conviction and my own experiences. This is why I believe such transformations are only possible when you choose HR as a profession out of passion, not compulsion.

I must mention that I have been a full-time HR professional for only the past 3 months. Throughout my 29 years and 9 months of experience, I worked in the shop floor, handling manufacturing, quality, and production planning departments, with HR being a part of my responsibilities. It is only recently that I have transitioned to a full-time HR role.

I understand that my younger colleagues like Vrishi and others may not agree with my perspective, as there have been no comments or replies to my post. Nevertheless, if you have any specific questions, feel free to email me at srinaren@rediffmail.com.

Regards,

Srinaren

Hi,

Seems to be a real tough job!! Choosing persons based on attitudes rather than technical qualifications. However, I would suggest that it takes a number of years to obtain a technical degree, whereas changing one's attitude may not require as many years. HR professionals should consciously work on molding attitudes. So what if someone aspires high? Don't we all? Use this positive power, harness these energies, and channelize them in the right direction. Most importantly, be attentive to your employees at all times!

And yes, why not include an attitudinal test in the selection process?

Pinky

Hi Srinaren,

You have hit the nail exactly on the head. If you carefully read my "quotes," I have stated that one need not be in the HR Department for a person to change his/her attitude.

You yourself have said that you are not basically an HR person but that you have come from the shop floor. There you have been a "second parent." Try doing it now when you are an intrinsic part of HR. Even I work in an industrial setup.

Here we are not talking about blue-collared people but white-collared people, although I am of the firm belief that the world is run by the blue-collared people. Neither are we talking about counseling regular absentees, the effect of alcoholism, etc., the things which plague the industrial setup. So I believe we should not be comparing different sectors. Here, I believe Neel posted a question of the service sector and not that of the industrial sector. The white-collared people have a choice but not the blue-collared people.

And lastly, please do not assume things. Kindly check the gender of a person before categorically stating. Your 30 years of shop floor experience clearly comes through.

Regards.

Dear Mr. Vrishi,

I do not want to enter into any further arguments. You are right! But I feel that though there is a difference between white-collared and blue-collared people, both are human. The difference lies only in our approach towards them. Though I come from the manufacturing sector, I have dealt with both types of people. If you believe that white-collared people are only from IT, then I have no comments.

Regarding wrongly assessing the gender, I apologize as we have girls with names like Vrishi. However, my thirty years of experience has not taught me to distinguish between V.Rishi and vrishi! I am extremely sorry for it!

Best Regards,
Srinaren

Dear Srinaren,

Firstly, I have no doubt about the merit of your experience and value your convictions. With your experience in almost all spheres of industry - shop floor, planning, production, quality, and now as a full-time HR professional, you must have come across cases stranger than fiction. To me, you will be a reliable whetting stone.

Yes, changing a 'don't want to change' person can be a personal agenda. I don't think anyone would be against that. If successful, you will bring a fresh lease of life into one's life.

Now, as a strange coincidence, I just found a very relevant article on recruitment posted by Prof. Lakshmanan in the 'Organization Development' section. I strongly recommend all friends to go through the same. It will clear many underlying doubts.

Srinaren, Vrishi, NeelkShaw, and others, thanks a lot for all your sharing. I personally gained insight into a few vital areas through this forum.

With regards,
K Venkat

Hi,

We are considering only one aspect, but what if in the organization HR is taken as a secondary operation and they really cannot afford to put any employee on a test run?

Regards,
Neha

Hi Neha,

No management wants to have an employee on a test run! If a person is found with an attitude that one feels is not alright but they may be useful to the organization in terms of their knowledge and experience, they may be appointed, and the HR team should study their attitude and make efforts to change it for the individual's betterment and the organization's betterment.

-Srinaren

Hi Neha,

You are right. No management will keep the employees on a test run. Regarding HR as a secondary operation, most organizations still consider HR as a support function. The top management will come to HR only for problem-solving and not for future thinking. Even my MD thinks so. He told me in an open forum that HR are facilitators. I believe that already in this discussion, it has been stated that we are not regulators but facilitators.

But with our actions, we (HR) can be heard and be counted. The HR team has to be strong. If anything in the organization is going wrong, we have to put our foot down, no matter what happens. These are my personal views.

Regards