On Careers

10 Mistakes Employers Make in Hiring

By Alison Green

Posted: July 21, 2008

I've written a lot about the mistakes job applicants make in the hiring process, but it's often no better on the employer's side. Here are the 10 biggest mistakes I see companies make when they're hiring:

1. Flakiness. They say they'll get back to you this week, and you hear nothing. The job description seems to be a work in progress that keeps changing. You're told you'll be reporting to one person and later it changes to another. You arrive for your interview with Bob and learn that you'll be meeting with Jane instead. Guess what it's going to be like to work with these people? (That said, there can be legitimate, nonworrisome reasons for any of the above. But a nonflaky company will realize that these things can look flaky and will acknowledge it and explain what's going on. What should alarm you is an absence of any awareness or concern about how this may be coming across, as it indicates it's not anything out of the ordinary for this company.)

2. Making hiring decisions that aren't based on the right criteria. For example: rejecting a candidate for being overly shy when being an extrovert has nothing to do with the ability to perform the job well.

3. Not distinguishing between what can be taught and what can't. Employers often overvalue particular types of experience to the exclusion of more important things. You can teach someone to use a certain software program, research legislation, or understand your industry. You can't teach people to be organized or efficient or have a work ethic.

4. Not asking the right questions in interviews. Many interviewers ask only superficial questions in interviews and don't take the time to find the questions that will really probe how well someone would do in the job. It's the difference between "What were your responsibilities in that job?" and "Tell me about a time when you got results someone else might not have been able to."

5. Letting candidates get away with superficial, stock responses. If a candidate tells me her biggest weakness is that she works too hard, we're not going to move on until she gives me a real answer. Too many interviewers simply run down their list of questions and don't bother to probe.

6. Hiring too quickly. The damage caused by a bad hire is far more severe than the impact of taking some extra time to make sure the fit is right. It's worth it to leave a position open longer in order to find the right person. Now, on the other hand...

7. ...Not moving fast enough. Employers who drag out the hiring process when they do have good candidates in the mix risk losing applicants to other offers. Plus, good employees want to work somewhere that can move quickly and make decisions and respects people enough not to let them languish. Companies send a powerful message about their culture when they respond quickly at all stages or at least let candidates know what their timeline is. And they send an equally powerful message when they don't.

8. Not getting back to candidates. Too many employers don't bother to let applicants know that they're no longer under consideration. I could come up with a business justification for why this is bad (it risks alienating a future customer or someone who could be perfect for a future opening), but the bigger point is that it's rude and inconsiderate.

9. Conducting intimidating, high-pressure interviews. Unless the position requires the ability to perform in a hostile or pressure-filled situation, I want to learn what candidates will be like to work with day to day, not what they're like in an anxiety-producing interview. Employers should be friendly and try to put candidates at ease.

10. Not giving an accurate portrayal of the job. When employers try to downplay the less attractive aspects of the job—such as boring work or long hours—they end up with employees who don't want to be there. Truth in advertising means that candidates who won't thrive in the job or the culture can self-select out before they become your disgruntled employees.

Alison Green is chief of staff for a medium-sized nonprofit where she oversees day-to-day management of the staff, as well as hiring, firing, and staff development. She is working with the Management Center to coauthor a book on nonprofit management. Her writings have been published in the Washington Post, the New York Times, Maxim, and dozens of other newspapers. She blogs at Ask a Manager.

The importance of a Survival Handbook and how that fits in the Interview

The most common problem is employers will hire a qualified person that needs very little input and then the employer doesn't give them the most basic information to begin their job. Then the employee feels self-conscious about asking a question, because they are suppose to be "self-sufficient."

Examples would be: teachers, engineers, out-side sales people, etc...

Every employer is better off giving: 1) a three part interview. Part 1 is where the employer asks questions, then hands the interviewee a Survival Handbook. Part 2 is where the interviewee has 30 minutes to read the Handbook, Part 3 is where the interviewee asks questions. Then the employee can accurately ask important questions.

Often Employers will ask, "Do you have any questions" and the interviewee is clueless. Viewing a Survival Guide and developing questions - allows the employer to evaluate the interviewee's ability to synthesize information, form hypothesis and effectively ask questions. This is something you want EVERY employee to do - even if they work at 7-11.

I've seen a 26 year old Mechanical Engineer, with a PhD, walk around for 6 months and not produce anything of value - he had been in school so long, that he had never actually started and completed a professional project. The Silicon Valley company had to mentor him with a 68 year old engineer so he could produce effectively ideas that made it to the production line.

A Survival Handbook would have given the 26 year old a basis on which to start or the company would have recognized that he didn't have work skills only academic skills and needed to mentor him from the beginning.

It would have save the company 40K plus benefits in 1989 as the recession of the 1990's slid in to view. And it might have given them a brand new product that helpped them survive.

How an Emloyer handles their interviews is critical!

Heidi-Daryl Von Dunker of CA @ Oct 15, 2008 12:36:04 PM

If only the employers would read this....

I've been working since I turned sixteen, and in that time I have worked for several employers and applied to many more positions than that.

During that time, I have noticed a distressing and progressive trend amongst todays employers. Specifically in regards #7 & #8, these companies have in at least one case had a response time well in excess of the maximum unemployment duration available. In that instance I had applied for a position at a major phone company, then six months later I was hired by another employer. At this point, I still hadn't received any response beyond the automated response that my resume had been received. After another four months, I received a form email stating that another candidate had been selected for the position.

While, overall this response time is abysmal, there are far more companies that aren't even providing that much responsiveness. Many of these companies have managed to provide an automated response that the initial submission has been received, but become incommunicado when it comes to telling the candidates where they stand. In fairness, very few companies would be able to reasonably commit the resources to call every single candidate back to let them know that they weren't selected. That does not mean these companies couldn't have sent an email at regular intervals during the course of the hiring process or at the time of another candidate's selection and acceptance of the position.

I come to this conclusion after looking at a most unlikely source, spammers. If a single spammer can manage to send millions of emails over the course of a single day, with as little as a single server, then there is absolutely no reason why a legitimate company can't send an email response to the non-selected applicants.

Highly Skilled but without a job of SC @ Jul 27, 2008 22:59:35 PM

Spot On!

Of all the above, #3 is my pet peeve. A smart person with initiative can learn anything, short of nuclear physics, maybe, but certainly doesn't need experience with say, working on a mainframe computer. Even bringing that up as an issue is just stupid. Business is business, whether you're manufacturing widgets or running a county government. It comes down to one's ability to learn, get things done efficiently, manage people well, and have the basic skill set needed to accomplish those objectives. Over the course of my career, I've transitioned smoothly between widely different industries, and it always boils down to those basics. Everything else is teachable.

Linda of CA @ Jul 22, 2008 10:24:12 AM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

On Careers

On Careers

Find savvy job advice from the brains behind top careers blogs, including Jobacle, Ask a Manager, What Would Dad Say, Newly Corporate, Cheezhead, Evil HR Lady, The M.A.P. Maker and Execupundit.

advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!