I'm going to keep this vague just in case. I attended a conference for managers, supervisors, and anyone in a leadership role for people in my specific field of work. The consultant/speaker discussed many topics, some I agreed with, some I did not. I thought I would share a couple things below so you could know exactly what managers are being taught, or at least some of the managers in my specific field. (In case its relevant, I'm more of like a team leader and less of a manager. I'm pretty low on the ladder.) I also want to add that this conference was not some soulless meeting that only discussed how to squeeze every penny of profit out of people and how to abuse your staff. I just thought a few things were out of touch.
-
the good: Indeed ads are terrible and are designed to filter out people and make nobody want to work there. Stop including “must” in your ads. “Candidates must have a positive attitude. Candidates must be able to work under stress.” They make nobody want to work there. Also nobody in their right mind would say “well I don't have a positive attitude, guess I shouldn't apply!” The Indeed ad should cast a wide net so you can actually meet lots of people. It's your job to filter out people once you interview them.
-
the bad: We should be constantly recruiting, not only when we have a vacancy. If we are only actively looking for candidates when we have a vacancy, we may miss out on a rare superstar. If you find that superstar but don't have a vacancy, ask them “hey I really like you but I don't have an opening at the moment. Could I keep your info, and stay in touch? Maybe contact you once I have an opening?” Okay this has so many things wrong with it but probably the most obvious is you are wasting the candidates time. They are looking for a job now. Don't call them for an interview if you new you were not going to be able to (immediately) hire them. Don't string them along with “I don't have a position now, but ya know maybe someday we will!” This is only okay if the candidate has full disclosure before they set aside time for an interview. The only way I could see someone being okay with this is if they aren't in a hurry to leave their current place of employment and are just looking to see what else might be out there.
-
the good: How a person works is more important than how long a person has worked. In other words stop with the “Must have x years of experience.” If they have a good attitude you can train them on whatever they need. A superstar could have little or no experience. A person with 10 years of experience may have a bad attitude and turn your work into a toxic work environment. Exerperience does noes equal success.
-
the bad: Have multiple interviews with the same candidate. Don't hire after the first interview. Okay this is wrong because my field of work is very in demand right now. Candidates are not competing for positions, we are competing for candidates. For a certain position in the work field there is on average three job openings for every one graduate. If you waste time trying to set up multiple interviews, someone else is going to make them an offer. Also you are just wasting both your time and the candidate's. And just to clarify, the speaker's advice was not for like some high up position where multiple candidates are competing for a single position. This is for any position, even low ones on the ladder.
-
the uh, both good and bad? Working interviews. How long should a working interview be? As long as you can get away with. (Ew, no.) Ideally half a day. (Ew! No!) Have them do some of your tasks. Ask clients if they would feel comfortable with the candidate taking care of them so you can see how they work. (Nope, don't do that.) Okay so let's discuss this. Working interviews can be a really good thing, or a really bad if abused. A good working interview is mutually beneficial to both the recruiter and the candidate. It gives the recruiter a better chance to get to know them, and it also lets the candidate see a peek of what the work and work culture is like so they can decide if they like it. A working interview should be more like a job shadow. You shouldn't actually make the candidate work unless you are going to pay them for their work. Also a working interview should not be half a day. People have better things to do. How long is half a day? An average day in my field is 8-12 hours. So are you doing working interviews for 4-6 hours? They have better things to do, and you should compensate them for their time. My place of employment has decided to start holding working interviews after some discussion after the conference. But, they will only be 30 minutes long, take place immediately after the interview, the candidates will be made aware beforehand of the additional 30 minutes so they can plan their time accordingly, and they will not be doing any actual work that we could profit from such as taking care of clients. I do truly see value in working interviews, I myself have turned down an offer or two after the working interview because I didn't feel it was a good fit for me. But there is a wrong way to do them.
I'm relatively new in my role and this was my first time attending a conference such as this. It was interesting to see from the inside what the managers are being taught. I hope you found it interesting as well.