Right person for the Right Job - In the Final Interview of the candidate, what factors do we consider?

Dear All,

I would like to ask one question: In the final interview of the candidate, what factors do we consider to determine if this candidate is the right person for the job and will stay with the company long-term? Sometimes, after finalizing the candidate, they may resign shortly after, or we may need to terminate them during the probation period. Please advise on what factors an HR professional should focus on to ensure that the candidate is the right fit for the job and will stay with the company for an extended period.

Thank you,
Qasim Raza

Switching patterns in some companies typically range from 2-3 or 3-4 years, while in other companies, it may be as short as 1-2 years. This duration reflects an individual's tenure within a company but does not necessarily ensure the right selection for the role. Our personal experiences have shown that even after candidates are selected by a panel, their fit for the position may not always be ideal.

As HR professionals, what terminologies can we employ to indicate that our selection process is rigorous and that the chosen candidate will meet the company's expectations effectively?

Dear Qasim,

What you have written is about recruitment. Yes, selecting the "right" candidate for the job was a challenge, it is today and will remain so in the future too.

Nevertheless, your challenge is if the candidate you select for a job quits the company. In that case, you need to understand the culture of the company. If the freshly hired employees do not wish to continue with the company, then it could be because of the mismatch between the candidate's expectations and the company's culture. The second reason could be poor leadership of the HODs. While HR may hire the best of the best people, what if the HOD fails to motivate him/her or maltreats him/her? Under such circumstances, the employees will quit anyway.

One of the solutions to your challenge is to do an attrition analysis and find out of the total candidates hired, what % of the employees quit on their own. Was their exit regrettable or non-regrettable?

Your second challenge is you are required to terminate the freshly hired employees during their probation itself. This is clearly a recruitment failure. In such cases, you need to study why your recruitment went wrong? What questions did you ask during the interview and what was the behavior at the workplace? Why did the recruitment team fail to gauge the behavior or performance of the candidate is a matter of study.

The solution to your second challenge is to strengthen the recruitment process. Include more technical and non-technical tests. Secondly, are the interviewers formally trained to conduct the job interviews? Who has certified them to become interviewers? Is it that interviewers are not formally trained but by the virtue of the length of their service, it is assumed that they are fit to conduct the interviews? Do you conduct competency-based interviews?

Your problem is much deeper. While you employ solutions based on the replies by the seniors of this forum, much depends on whether the implementation was effective or not.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

Dear Dinesh,

First of all, thank you for your reply. Candidate pre-screening is the responsibility of HR, and the final selection of the right candidate is the responsibility of the concerned HODs or top-level management. After some time, if the candidate, whether fresh or experienced, leaves the company, they often criticize the HR. Why is only top-level management considered responsible by HR, and not HODs or leadership?

My colleague has informed me that their top-level management terminated a 15-year-experienced staff member because he did not complete tasks and did not take responsibility for any tasks. What outcome or result should we expect in this scenario, and why is an experienced staff member not taking responsibility?

At this stage, who is responsible for his changed behavior, or what is the HR's responsibility in sorting out this matter?

"My colleague has informed me that their top-level management has terminated the 15 years experienced staff because he has not completed the tasks and is not taking the responsibility for any tasks. What will we pick up or result out in this scenario or consider why an experienced staff is not taking the responsibility.

At this stage who is responsible for his changed behavior or what is the responsibility of HR to sort out this matter.

A manager allowed a staff member to neglect his duties for 15 years!!! Why hasn't the manager been sacked in this case? It is not an HR matter, it is a line manager problem. Secondly, there are many reasons for changed behavior in employees. A lot comes down to the way they are treated. If the employee was being micromanaged, given no opportunities for training and development, no promotions, etc., etc. Of course, people will decide what is the point, and just turn up for their pay. Why bother putting in effort for management that just doesn't care?

I have a problem with the notion that HR does the candidate pre-screening. HR does not work in the relevant department or have intimate knowledge of the job, its requirements, and the type of person needed to fulfill the duties. The relevant department needs to own the recruitment process and select candidates that meet both the job specification and the person specification they have written for the vacancy. HR can do the grunt work like advertising the vacancy, teeing up interviews for the chosen candidates, and then advising the winner and losers on the outcome. I have never worked in a recruitment process where HR were involved in interviewing for non-HR specific jobs."

John,

This reminds me of something I studied in management class 20 years ago. It's called the Peter Principle. It says that a person gets promoted if he is good and efficient at his job and will get promoted again and again until he reaches a position where he is not good at his job. So unless you terminate inefficient employees, every company will stabilize at its 'Optimum Level Of Inefficiency' because everyone (all supervisors and managers) is inefficient or bad at their jobs.

Of course, it is an oversimplification. The question is whether the company has any process of evaluation before and training after promotion, and the rapid job changes made it less likely that inefficient persons will remain managers here.

However, in this case, the OP says that something changed the attitude of the employee. So there is probably more to it than what we know...

Dear John & Saswata,

I would like to inform you that the company has a good reputation in the market and gives two bonuses once a year to every employee. The company also focuses on employees' health and work-life balance. Therefore, what could be the reason for the sudden change in employee behavior and their reluctance to take up more responsibility? As an HR professional, do we need to consider changing the organization's leadership style or company culture?

Thank you,
Qasim Raza

I do not think HR today is even capable of changing leadership style or even the company culture unless it is mandated or supported by the top management or the owners. You need to focus on something different perhaps.

What is the reason why the person was actually removed... Was he incapable of doing that work he was given and he wasn't trained in it

Agree with my colleague Saswata here.

Company leadership and culture must come from the top. It is for the CEO and his/her management team to set and enforce the standards that must be followed by everyone. It is then for HR to work within those parameters when undertaking its designated functions.

Saswata,

Ah yes, "The Peter Principle". It is an old theory and one that is not talked about so much these days, possibly because management styles have changed over the years.

I don't remember all the details as it is a long, long time since I read the book. However, if I remember correctly, he was writing, in part at least, about the UK Civil Service. After I left school, I worked for 20 years for the Australian government and when I joined almost all promotion was done via seniority, not merit. What it meant was that you were promoted when your turn came, and that could take many years. Every year books were published showing your ranking in the service, so you could see how many people were ahead of you in the pecking order. Very scary!!!

That was abolished at some point and when vacancies occurred anyone could apply for the position as people were to be chosen on merit, i.e. did they have what it takes to do the job. Now it was a nice idea in theory, but we all know that there is some bias in selecting candidates for positions. Sadly, within the offices I worked, we all basically knew who would get the job when a position was advertised. We all knew who the boss's friends were and who was good at selling themselves regardless of their poor work skills and ethics. So the wrong people continued to get the jobs. Now there was a new element to this merit-based recruitment, and that was an appeal process. You could lodge an appeal against a decision and if it was judged to have merit, it would be heard by an independent board. But few people managed to overturn a decision. At one point I got promoted to a job next level up, and 4 of my peers appealed the decision. The 4 people in question had been there longer than me, so - theoretically - had more experience and knowledge. However, in terms of work output, ability, skills, and leadership (it was a supervisory position), I ran rings around the other 4. The appeal was dismissed and my promotion was confirmed. Now I suspect that this had been planned as I had been sent on a management course some months earlier, whereas the other 4 had not. The other point was that I was not a buddy of the boss! So nearly 40 years later, I am still mystified how I got the job. I suspect someone higher up the food chain had a hand in it.

Dear John & Saswata,

Thank you for your valuable feedback. I strongly agree with all of you, but I think as HR professionals, we should take the next step to organize the organizational culture, change the leadership style, and manage overall management. If we introduce something new in an organization using our own capacity, we should change the organization step by step, just like a starting point of a chain that will automatically affect this changing scenario in all other organizations. In my opinion, HR is the backbone of an organization, and if the backbone is strong, then the concerned organization must develop.

As HR professionals, we will take the initial step.

Thank you,
Qasim Raza, Lahore, Pakistan