Okay, I admit I chose a catchy title; it probably caught your attention if you are reading this. Many years ago, I heard a college president make this statement, and it really stuck with me. A good number of our hires in higher education will stay at our institutions for seven or more years, and we will easily spend over one million dollars on each one. In fact, it would be easy for the costs of a thirty-year employee to be in the three- to four-million-dollar range after adding up expenses for the hiring search, training, wages, benefits, and other items. Another way to think about this is: What percentage of an institution’s or department’s annual budget is dedicated to employee costs? At Portland State University’s IT department, the figure is 75 percent. In that context, how much effort do we usually put into purchasing decisions that involve over one million dollars? We all have different RFP thresholds, but an institution would be an outlier if $1,000,000 didn’t ignite the time-consuming RFP process. I have never added up the hours required for a typical RFP, but just thinking about the time dedicated, from requirements gathering to the final award, I know that these decisions are not made lightly. But we don’t have the same purchasing rules for new hires, and I have witnessed many botched hiring processes.
In addition to the large total cost of our employees, there are other reasons why good hires are important, such as changing the culture of the organization. One of the most important functions of my position is to create an excellent IT team of engaged employees. I regularly tell people that I actually do very little actual hands-on work; that work is all done by others in the IT organization. To that end, it is very important for me to build and nurture that team. The building and nurturing process often involves change, which is something most people struggle with. Specifically, helping others change their attitudes can be difficult, exhausting, and time-consuming work; some would even say that it is impossible to change people at their core. Since we all experience some level of yearly turnover, we can all take advantage of the opportunity that this presents to positively affect the organization’s culture through the hiring process.
Unfortunately for the organization, many of the most talented and motivated employees are those who are successfully seeking other employment. Therefore the top 20-30 percent of employees are often those who are moving on, and it is those star employees we are seeking to replace. This makes the hiring process even more important as these key roles are filled. On the other hand, there is also great importance and opportunity for positive change when replacing those who have had a negative effect on the organization’s culture.
From changing the organizational culture to completing the large quantities of work that our organizations are tasked with to inspiring innovation, I’m sure we all recognize the sheer importance of our employees and new hires. Every organization will have a slightly different process for what works best, and unfortunately, there is no silver bullet that will improve everyone’s process. However, I will offer here some nuggets that I have learned along the way; a few may seem basic, but since I have witnessed many of these principles being passed over, I am erring on the side of caution.
Step One: Application Review
What do you look for in a new hire? Early in my career I started paying close attention to the specific skills and experiences each applicant listed on his/her resume. If I was hiring a programmer, I wanted to see years of programming experience in the specific language or technology we needed. As is likely true at many other organizations, the HR department at my first institution performed the initial screening of all applicants and forwarded only those who had the specific skills necessary for the job. The good applicants learned to scan the job announcements and include every skill verbatim from the announcement to ensure that they made it past the HR screening.
Today, I am not as concerned with specific skills as I am with what the applicants have accomplished. I read through their provided work history looking for prior success. Does it look like former employers have seized opportunities to promote the individual or assign increasing responsibility? Remember, the best (and maybe only) predictor for future success is prior success. I often think, “How do I treat my good employees?” and look for that same pattern in the employees I am trying to hire. I also look for a work history that makes sense. Often, I will find missing sections in an applicant’s work history or a college education listed but no specific degree referenced. These are not necessarily reasons to pass over somebody, but they do indicate that we should ask specific questions if the applicant makes it to the first round of interviews. I am always looking for a life story that adds up. Sometimes there are very good reasons for employment gaps or other issues, but it is up to the hiring institution to make sure there are no hidden issues. Remember, this is a person being hired, not just a set of skills, and organizational fit is essential for the dynamics of the team.
Step Two: The Interview Process
We all have specific institutional processes, ranging from an initial round of telephone interviews to a possible round of video interviews to the final on-site interviews. Some institutions hold the first round of on-site interviews as “airport” interviews where only the search committee knows the person being interviewed. Most of our processes will culminate in on-site interviews with the committee and possibly other groups or individuals around campus. I like to forward at least three candidates to the final round, since I will sometimes lose one or possibly more at this step. More than once, I have watched search committees forward only two candidates and then scramble when one of the two drops out. Regardless of an individual organization’s specific process and steps, I stick to the basic principles outlined when reviewing the applications. If the committee or institution is looking only for a specific set of skills above all else, the right candidate can be overlooked. As a side note, specific skills are often what we will look for when hiring a contractor, but that is a topic for another day.
I like to ensure that we ask interviewees to describe their prior work deliverables or contributions to assess whether or not they performed the work listed on their application or were just a member of a team. To further gauge this, we will often have them perform some type of presentation or create a work product that is specifically related to the job they are applying for. Google and other Silicon Valley technology companies were notorious for asking creative questions; famous ones include why manhole covers are round, or how to measure four gallons of water with a three-gallon bucket, a five-gallon bucket, and an unlimited supply of water. These questions were initially designed to see if folks can think on their feet, but in my reading, it seems like those questions have mostly been retired and replaced by questions about prior success.
Step Three: Hiring
Most importantly, it is worth the time to find the right employee, and not just settle. The hiring manager and committee must be willing to go back out for another round if the first effort doesn’t produce the right potential hire. There is a lot of pressure to fill an open position, and we often find ourselves giving in to that pressure by hiring somebody we aren’t 100 percent confident about and hoping the hire will work out. I know I have fallen prey to this pressure more than once, with bad results. I am now much more willing to perform a second or even a third hiring round if needed.
My second point is to pay attention to hints along the way in a hiring process. I have witnessed many situations in which an issue emerges after the probationary period, and a manager says: “You know, that came up during the interview process, but I didn’t think it would happen here.” If something comes up during an interview, the hiring manager needs to be willing to ask about it and make sure everyone knows what type of employee is being hired.
My third point is to call references. I am often requested to be a reference for an employee, somebody else on campus, or a previous colleague, and I am always amazed how infrequently I am called. I hear things like, “they will only list folks who will say good things about them,” but that isn’t always the case. This is also an excellent way to learn about the possible hints I referenced above. In one specific example, I called references while hiring for a management position, and the former employer said something akin to, “His employees didn’t really bond with him as a manager, but our organization has a different culture and I am sure it will not be an issue for you.” Since this person was the top candidate by a wide margin, I let myself be convinced by the “smoothing over” during the reference call; unfortunately, later, that issue became a major reason that this particular manager did not work out in our organization as well. I should have listened more closely to the hint provided during the reference call.
My last point is to avoid the “like-me” bias. Hiring managers or committees often fall prey to hiring candidates who are like them, but this isn’t always the best person for the organization. One sign of this is a hiring manager saying they “just had a feeling” about a specific applicant, but have no specific examples to back up their decision. Fit is important, but so is hiring the right person for the team who also has a history of success.
Step Four: Probationary Period
So what if the hiring process has completed smoothly, but the new hire just isn’t working out? This is where the typical six-month probation period comes in. How many times have we let employees pass probation when we shouldn’t have? I can think of many examples throughout my career. In some of those examples, the institution chose to live with the underperforming employee; in other cases, hundreds of hours were spent working with the employee to make improvement, and even so, the employee’s work tenure still ended in termination. If things are not working out as expected, it is important to provide feedback to the employee early and often. If there is a regimented HR process, follow it. There will always be exceptions, but it is rare that an employee who just isn’t working out at three, four, or five months is going to turn over a new leaf in year one or year seven. As tough as it is, helping the person move on before probation ends is the right choice. Would you purchase the large IT system if it wasn’t working out during the demo phase?
****
My challenge to each of you is to honestly consider where hiring falls on your priority list. Is it treated with the same intensity as a $1M or $4M purchase? I know CIOs who meet with the top finalists for each hire in the IT department. This is something I adopted a few years ago, and I have heard comments like, “Wow, you must have a lot of time on your hands.” I always say that this is one of the most important things I do, period. I also find the entire hiring process is run better when the hiring managers know that somebody above them will be evaluating their final candidate(s). I understand this wouldn’t scale for the CIOs at very large institutions, but senior-level involvement is possible at each of our institutions.
Hiring should be the most important thing on a to-do list, not one of the things checked off to get it out of the way. Each hire will likely be employed for many years, impacting culture and employees and making decisions that affect the entire department or institution. Not only is each hire costing $1M-plus directly; the impact of every employee will ripple outward to create an even wider effect on the IT organization and the higher education institution.
Kirk Kelly ([email protected]) is Associate Vice President and CIO at Portland State University.