Hiring for Culture or Qualifications?

Okay - admit it.  You've conducted an interview with a potential candidate and allowed, at least in small part, your own cultural biases to help make the hiring decision.  It's okay - many have done it and, to some degree, it is even preferred that you use company cultural markers to factor into the hiring process.  In fact, many companies are preferring to hire for cultural fit rather than add a new staff member based purely on qualifications.  Sure, it sounds like a bunch of human resource managers asking "Google-type" interview questions like "What is your favorite food?" and hiring candidates who like the same foods as them.  Not so. Think about what the typical interview is like (I mean the old standby, classic interview).  Usually you ask questions designed to find out what the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate are and ask questions designed to determine whether the candidate can back up their claims.  Is that the best way to find the most creative candidates, though?  Is it the best way to find candidates who will enjoy working with your current employees; e.g. someone who will be a great contributor?

According to Logan Hill's Bloomberg Businessweek article Only BFFs Need Apply, the answer is yes.  Companies are increasingly hiring for cultural fit which does not necessarily mean the most qualified candidate is being chosen.  As a marketing executive states "I once hired a woman who really didn't have the right background or experience...and because we got along so well, I was able to train her easily, and she ended up doing great things for us".  A recent Inc.com article by Ilya Pozin lists passion and commitment as one of the top qualities his company looks for and lists relevant experience as fourth.  Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos, in an interview with Inc.com, states that they have passed on hiring people who are smart and have the necessary qualifications but who do not seem to fit the company culture. Zappos even bases 50% of their reviews on whether the employee is inspiring the company culture. 

What is driving the move to cultural fit as being as important (or more important) than requisite qualifications?   Blame millennials according to Dan Schawbel, author of Me: 2.0.  Millennials have priorities that differ from previous generations.  "They'd rather have meaningful work over more pay....they want a culture that's less hierarchical, more flexible, and more understanding of differences" states Schawbel. 

"Looking for a Unicorn"

Staying with the theme of "unicorns", the title of this post is taken from a Wall Street Journal article by David Wessel entitled Software Raises Bar for Hiring. In the article the president of Mindbank Counseling Group, Neal Grunstra, relates the stringent and highly specific requirements that many companies have for job vacancies as akin to "looking for a unicorn". Peter Cappelli, a human resources and management professor at Wharton School, cites an email he received from "a company that drew 25,000 applicants for a standard engineering position only to have the HR department say not one was qualified". 

Okay, so it makes sense that the current plethora of candidates for the dearth of job vacancies means that hiring managers can afford to be picky; after all the current state of the economy is a result of not enough jobs to go around.  Is that what is really happening, though? Or is this issue more about a lack of candidates with the right skills? "For every story about an employer who can't find qualified applicants, there's a counterbalancing tale about an employer with ridiculous hiring requirements", Capelli states. 

What about the issue of selection software? Software used in the process of recruitment and hiring was initially intended as an aid rather than a substitution. Now, many applicants submit their resumes in the hopes that they have included enough key words to get their resume through. Most applicants never get the opportunity to speak to someone.  Does this mean that an applicant who cleverly included a sufficient number of key words in their resume is better qualified for a position? Inherently no. 

This problem has spurred new developments in selection software. In Seeking Software Fix for Job-Search Game, Lauren Webb writes that the ideal software would "read resumes intelligently, flagging a handful of truly promising candidates to recruiters and alerting job seekers to openings that are laser-targeted to their skills and background". So, if companies are really intent on finding that unicorn they need to consider more than whether the candidate is great at manipulating their software selection criteria and focus on widening the scope. "Cultural and behavioral fit is a stronger indicator of success and business performance" states Elaine Orler of Talent Function Group. Capelli puts it this way: "[employers could] back off the strict requirement that applicants need to have previously done precisely the tasks needed for the vacant job" and "see if they could do the same with some training...".

Selective Selection and the Picky Parley

Matthew Swyers, founder of web-based law firm the Trademark Company, is a picky interviewer if his Time.com article is any sort of indicator. Resumes received with spelling errors overlooked by the dubious "spell check" and cover letters received without resumes attached are not easily forgiven. Swyers even goes as far as to speak with law firm employees prospective candidates had contact with just to gain a larger picture of the candidate's mettle. 

I am going to say, I have to agree with Swyers. While I have certainly made some spelling mistakes (having relied on Mr. Paperclip, the ubiquitous Microsoft Office "helper") in my history I have learned the value of proofreading old style - just read over the darned thing! The article "5 Things To Look for in a Great Job Interview", gives one (very) embarrassing example from a law school professor involving a very important missing letter in a PowerPoint presentation - no doubt a result of an assistant's reliance on spell check. It is also a display of good judgement, and just plain good practice, to be cordial to others you come into contact with. Don't discount those that you feel are not directly connected with the hiring process - these are your potential fellow employees, treat them respectfully. Case in point: I recently had a neighbor's friend ask if my organization "had any positions better than the ones posted since she has a degree" (referring to our entry-level/clerical positions). Well, I am certainly not inclined to assist anyone who belittles our employees (regardless of their position or training).

The article lists the five things as:

1. Attention to detail
2. Proofread
3. Preparedness
4. Phone and email correspondence
5. Honesty is overrated (trust me - it will make sense when you read the article)

Now excuse me, I must run the spell check on this post before it hits the blug.....