Throughout my career I have encountered two common situations. Employers consistently want to hire someone to fill a position yesterday yet these same people spend months, if not years tolerating poor performers before terminating them. Both run counter to what is good for their business.
Making quick business decisions may be self rewarding, fulfilling the role of a decisive and powerful leader. People pride themselves on being able to size up people quickly and accurately, particularly when there is little information available. It is the latter that usually suffers when evaluating the people for even the simplest of jobs.
Hiring managers need to focus on more than just the resume and the brief hiring interview.
- They need, at the very least, to conduct a well-prepared structured interview that measures specific candidates’ work motives, values, and skills and abilities inferred through their description of how they behaved on their previous jobs.
- Background/criminal checks and drug tests are also important to verify the candidates’ truthfulness and suitability. They take time to conduct and oftentimes employees are hired contingent upon passing these screens.
- Recommendations and references are not particularly insightful, since many former employers are reluctant to provide more than simply verifying employment information.
- Using standardized and valid pre-employment tests are very useful in screening out people who can “interview well” and do not have the fundamental skills and abilities to perform a job. They can also help verify gut level feelings. There are many good tests out there (as well as some really bad ones). The secret to success is to purchase the right ones—those that are good measures of job related qualities. Many are also not very expensive to administer. But they do take time and do slow down the hiring process by a few hours to a few days.
At the other end of the employment continuum is addressing the poor performing employee.
When employees are performing poorly we first make the inference that poor performance is due to the employees themselves. This is a natural bias we all have. But before jumping to this conclusion, talk with the employee to gauge the root causes for the poor performance. It could be that they did not understand how or what to do, that the performance goal was too difficult, or that the cause of poor performance was a result of someone else’s poor work or another part of the business process.
If it is indeed the fault of the employee for performance failure, then ...
- Make an achievable goal and timetable for them to improve, provide them with the resources to succeed, and establish objective criteria for measuring success.
- Be very clear on communicating the consequences of failing to meet established goals.
- Make the timeframe short (at most a few weeks).
- Provide lots of feedback during this period. If done right, the employee will know without you telling them that they have succeeded or failed.
Just think how much time and money would have been saved if a little more were invested on the front end of the employment process than all the costs (both real and psychological) in "managing out" misfit employees on the back end. Moreover, by addressing this early on, you might even turn poor performers into fully acceptable employees.
Dr. Carl Greenberg is the founder of Pragmatic HR Consulting, which provides talent management and organizational effectiveness solutions to organizations throughout the world. Prior to opening his own consulting practice he was an executive with Aon Consulting and Spherion and held HR management positions with Union Pacific and SBC Communications. Carl earned a Ph.D. in Social and Organizational Psychology from Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. He is active in a number of professional organizations and is a past president of the Society of Psychologists in Management. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.