Dealing with Candidates for Positions

Most companies or associations use a standard two-pronged approach to surfacing candidates to fill positions. It is not rocket science. The company posts the position in house — meaning it posts the position to the existing employee pool — or the company posts the position to the outside world via various online job boards and newspapers.

Most associations or companies have an internal job-posting procedure managed by the human resources department. When it comes to posting a position outside the company, there are lots of electronic options available. Some companies still place an ad in the newspaper, which I realize is considered antiquated, but this happens and still can be effective. Almost all companies today, with few exceptions, have their own website with an employment section. These sites provide employment information and application procedures for open positions. The website should also provide information regarding the company itself, which is beneficial to existing and potential employees.

One of the challenges that comes with first posting a position to the outside and not posting internally can be dealing with the morale of existing employees. Obviously, if there are no qualified existing employees, then those challenges regarding the company "going outside" to hire someone should be minimal. However, employee morale will be much higher if the internal posting process is considered first if there could be existing employees who qualify to fill the position. This is true, especially if the position is considered a promotion position. Of course, this is not typically the case with entry-level positions.

Put yourself in the position of existing employees, especially those who consider themselves qualified for the posted position. Should the position be posted internally and no acceptable candidate surfaces, then the company should proceed to post the job to the outside world. However, from an employee morale and motivation standpoint, there is real value for the company to look internally first at the existing employee pool, to see if qualified candidates are available. I believe most companies already do this — or at least I hope they do.

When an internal employee is promoted (if viable), it provides a great lift and motivation for that employee, of course, but also for the overall employee population. This action sends a clear message from upper management that they have confidence in the current employees and consider them extremely valuable. The most valuable assets of any association or company are its leaders and employees. Of course, as always, when there is competition between existing employees for a promotion position, there will be disappointed employees. In my experience, even employees who went through the interview process but did not successfully secure the position usually (not always) later have some appreciation for the fact that they were part of the interview process and considered prior to outside candidates.

The amazing technology of today's world makes surfacing outside candidates a global activity and process. The application process is immediate as soon as an internal or external candidate can complete whatever materials are required and push the send button. Because of technology, several companies have dramatically changed their application procedures. For example, for many companies, the process now involves an application video as opposed to, or in addition to, a letter of application and a résumé. I have no problem with this, and I feel there can be value to the video component of an online employment application. However, I also feel there is great continuing value in requiring a candidate to submit a résumé and a letter of application. As a matter of fact, my continuing recommendation is for this to be done as part of the application process, regardless of whatever else may be required. This provides the employer a look at the formal résumé and writing skills of the candidate. If a company is uncomfortable with the video application process for any of a variety of reasons, this can be stopped; however, I do understand that video is becoming a more popular part of the digital online application process.

The point is that whatever electronic process is used to facilitate the application, it is still my recommendation that an application form of some type be utilized and the candidate be required to submit a résumé with a letter of application. These materials can be electronically transferred or sent via conventional mail. These processes are important, because while we have amazing communication advantages today that are beyond anything previous generations dreamed, it is still very important for people to possess the ability to communicate effectively both orally and through writing.

There should also always be an application deadline in force, regardless of procedures. It should be made clear that applications received after that deadline will not be considered. If you want a job, there is no excuse for missing an application deadline. I also believe the company or association application form should provide a phone number and a contact person a candidate can call after the application deadline, to follow up on the status of his or her employment application. A good candidate will follow up with a phone call or at least an e-mail to ensure his or her application has been received and to ask if any further information is needed.

I mention a phone call because there is great value in the candidate actually speaking to someone (whether it be a potential supervisor or HR person) designated to take those calls. This can provide an employer further insight into the verbal abilities of the candidate, how the candidate handles him- or herself in that situation, and whether or not the candidate does follow up on tasks. I would offer this important note to candidates: it is necessary for you to conduct the follow-up contact in an efficient, professional manner, but you should not be a pest after that initial follow-up. The last thing any human resources employee or supervisor desires is a phone call from you every day for two weeks while he or she is trying to consider whom to hire. Yet, a well-done, professional telephone call from a candidate (after the application process has closed) is an excellent idea to check signals with the potential employer and see if anything else is needed. That call is an opportunity to ask the obvious question about when a possible decision might be made in regard to filling the position. There is a difference between a phone call like that and being a pest. It is amazing how many people do not understand the difference. Being impatient can, and usually does, cause a candidate problems.

Here is a note for employers regarding references. While candidates usually provide references, I have found that references are often useless. Let's state the obvious: any candidate is obviously going to make sure his or her references only include individuals who will give glowing recommendations. The other obvious reality is that some individuals serving as references are often very cautious about what they say to a potential employer. That is not to say the reference would be untruthful, but the reference is often very selective about what he or she says. There is a difference, one the potential employer needs to understand and take into consideration when calling references provided by candidates.

The best way to check references is by utilizing the information provided on the résumé or application. If the individual worked for three different companies in the last four years, this might be a red flag. As an employer, I would call those three companies and speak directly with their respective human resources staff or the supervisor of the candidate. I realize this sounds fundamental, but I know that some companies simply call the references listed on the application form. As a potential employer, research a little deeper on your own, using information provided by the candidate.

The employer should study the candidate's résumé and make reference calls of his or her choosing. It is important to note that employers should make more than one or two calls, based on the résumé. Make four or five calls — it doesn't take that long, and you may be surprised what you learn. It is still possible the person you are calling for reference information may be very selective regarding what he or she tells you, but at least you will be doing your own research into the employment background and work habits of the candidate. There is also a variety of reliable services available that will do this work for an employer. Communication, as always, is extremely important. It is critical to hiring the right person and beginning an excellent relationship with that employee.

I have discussed some required efforts of candidates, and I have also discussed the application process and related procedures. The employer also has a great deal of obligation in this process. It seems to me, after utilizing several different employment-application approaches and systems, that once applications are received from candidates, the employer has an obligation to respond immediately to the candidate(s), either in writing (electronically or otherwise) or with a telephone call. Again, I recommend the phone call to let the candidate know personally that his or her materials have been received. At that time, the candidate may ask follow-up questions, as recommended earlier in this chapter. However, candidates should understand this should not replace their own follow-up phone call to be made later to determine if any further information is needed and to show the initiative to follow up and communicate with the potential employer.

The employer has an obligation in the follow-up communication to provide candidates with an approximate decision timeline. What is the expected (not guaranteed) time for the position to be filled, and are there other materials needed? The candidate needs to know the general timetable for filling the position or for the next step in the interview process. Nothing is worse for a candidate than wondering about the status of the position he or she applied for and receiving no communication from the employer. Let's be reasonable — this is not fair to the candidates. Most companies do a good job with their communications in this regard; however, it is something employers need to be reminded about.

When the time comes for the selected candidates to be interviewed, the company or association has an obligation to communicate clearly to those candidates, providing the necessary information regarding the interview location, what the candidate is expected to bring, and other pertinent details.

The company or association should also formally communicate with candidates not selected for an interview as soon as possible. This is a professional courtesy. Once again, I will recommend this be done via a phone call. This makes some people uncomfortable, but it is the right thing to do. Nothing is worse than being a candidate and hearing from a third party that the position you applied for has been filled. While sometimes difficult, you never go wrong communicating with people in a professional manner. The employer representative should call candidates not selected for an interview or for further consideration and express the appreciation of the company for their application, whether these were internal or external applicants. This puts forward a personal touch of appreciation from the company at a difficult time for the candidate who was not selected. It also provides an opportunity for the candidate to ask questions.

I believe candidates not selected for the position should ask where they fell short in securing the position. It is the responsibility of the employer to be prepared for these questions with reasonable, honest answers. Sometimes employers avoid this because it is uncomfortable. It is far more difficult for everyone, employer and candidate not selected, if the conversation does not take place for quite some time — or worse, never. With regard to who should call candidates not selected, it is often the policy of companies that the call be made by someone other than the supervisor for the position in question. I don't have strong feelings about this either way. I do not feel it is a requirement that the supervisor for the position make the call, and in some instances, that may not be appropriate. This depends on the specific situation. There is nothing inappropriate about a human-resources professional (trained in this area) communicating with candidates not selected. Again, this should be done (in my opinion) by telephone if possible. The contact should be made as quickly as possible. After the follow-up phone call is completed to the candidates not selected, the company should also follow up, with a letter sent conventionally or electronically, to the candidates not selected, thanking them for their interest in the company and for the opportunity of the follow-up phone conversation.

If the company feels a candidate not selected could be an excellent future candidate, then that letter (and the previous phone call) should include encouragement to the candidate to apply for future positions. If the company does not feel this way, then I recommend that no such statement be made. In the follow-up phone conversation, the candidate may ask if he or she should apply for another position with the company in the future. If the company representative feels there is value in a positive response to this, then so be it, but if this is not the case, the candidate should be informed up front. This just saves everyone time and hard feelings down the road. Far too often, candidates not chosen are told to apply again because the employer representative feels this "softens the blow." This is a bad idea. Be honest; in the long run, it is better for everyone.

There are many different approaches to dealing with candidates. What I have outlined in this chapter are a few very fundamental thoughts regarding the overall process. As always, the reader may or may not agree with these concepts. It is important to communicate with people, be fair, and conduct an equitable application process. It remains very important to evaluate the oral and written skills of candidates. A résumé is still important, and references should be handled by potential employers, as outlined in this chapter. Surfacing candidates and meeting new people, whether they be internal or external candidates, should be an exciting and professionally conducted process for all parties involved.

Interviewing Procedures

I remember my mentors' stories as they provided wisdom on interviewing procedures. There are a couple of stories I consider classic, and I am sure you have heard these. The first story is about the young man who came to an interview and did well in answering questions and interacting with the staff. However, he did not secure the position because there was mud on his trousers, and the condition of his shoes was deplorable. The young man obviously did not pay attention to detail. Is that a fair assessment of him or not?

The other classic story regards a young lady who had an interview that occurred at a luncheon, and the young lady salted her food before tasting it. She did not secure the position, because of the observation by the employment representative and, therefore, a lack of faith in the young lady's judgment. Is that a fair assessment of her or not?

You can make your own determinations about these stories and whether these individuals should have had their employment chances damaged by those actions. The process of interviewing, for the candidate and employer representative, often hinges a great deal on first impressions. This is not new. I always felt more weight should be placed on answers to questions and the substance of the interview discussion. However, upon reflection over the years, I agree both of the young people in the stories made errors. One error regarding the dress of the young man is obviously visible and should not have been made, as it had a negative effect on his first impression.

The second situation, involving the salting of the food, could be considered a lesser offense. However, it does convey a lack of judgment which, in that case, was concerning to the employer. In today's work environment, with casual dress and a variety of ever-changing rules pertaining to interviewing and employee behavior, some readers will consider these examples ridiculous or antiquated. I would submit that both of these examples have some merit and should indeed have at least some impact on the decision to interview those candidates further.