Why It's Time To Dump Your Old-School Hiring Practices - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
IT Leadership // Team Building & Staffing
Commentary
7/18/2016
09:06 AM
Nathan Hughes
Nathan Hughes
Commentary
50%
50%

Why It's Time To Dump Your Old-School Hiring Practices

Detroit Labs needed to find a new way of hiring employees. The agency, which focuses on full-service mobile, wearable, and internet hardware, needed candidates who could demonstrate their abilities to think as well as act. The company's co-founder, Nathan Hughes, tells us how old-school hiring practices were completely rewritten, what the new hiring model looks like, and how your organization can follow suit.

12 Ways To Cultivate A Data-Savvy Workforce
12 Ways To Cultivate A Data-Savvy Workforce
(Click image for larger view and slideshow.)

When it comes to finding the ideal job candidate to work at our company, expertise in today's specific technology often takes a back seat. Instead, we look to identify candidates who are problem solvers, who can easily adapt, and who can find solutions to next year's challenges.

This kind of approach requires a different, more nuanced attitude than a typical skills-based assessment. To identify the individuals who can change as fast as our business, and who can thrive in our low overhead, decentralized structure, we made several key structural decisions early on. We determined the following:

  • Hiring would be an open and inclusive process. By encouraging full company participation and public conversation about hiring activities, we hoped to counter -- or at least quickly surface -- issues such as cronyism, favoritism, and unconscious bias, which can plague other hiring processes.
  • Hiring activities would be goal-oriented, instead of structured on existing industry standards. We abandoned resumes and adopted custom questionnaires tailored to each role, required practical skills interviews for every position, and distributed interview responsibilities across all teams and all roles.
  • Hiring methodologies would be standardized across all roles, and we would build a record of hiring activities and outcomes that would allow us to use historical data in our hiring decisions.

The best hiring processes combine art and science to produce optimum results. Actively balancing objective methodologies with subjective opinions is an important aspect of the process.

For example, resumes are problematic for us for several reasons. They all look different and contain different content. The impression a well-designed resume may give an interviewer is irrelevant to predicting job success. While it can be influential in the first screen, the content contained in a resume is usually not useful for determining whether a candidate should be brought in for further conversations.

To eliminate resumes from our hiring process, we created a new first step for potential candidate. Each one is asked to complete a role-specific questionnaire, which we call the "Getting to Know You" (GTKY) document.

[How do your hiring plans stack up? Read 10 IT Hiring Plans for Second Half of 2016.]

With a GTKY, we standardized the questions asked of every single candidate for a role, only asking useful and important questions we determined are valuable in assessing candidate suitability. We also worked on developing an understanding of what a good answer to a question looks like.

We are then able to compare candidate applications more uniformly. On the flipside, candidates are able to express themselves uniquely in their answers and communicate their personalities and storytelling abilities in order to shine the best light on themselves and their accomplishments.

When we talk about our hiring process being open and inclusive, we're not merely paying lip service to the idea. In each case, everyone in the company gets one vote, everyone in the company can and should participate in every candidate's hiring process, and no one's vote is more important than any other's vote.

(Image: oneinchpunch/iStockphoto)

(Image: oneinchpunch/iStockphoto)

While this seems straightforward, it isn't an easy rule to follow. We've held fast to this rule in the face of special requests to bring founder acquaintances on board. We've held fast, even when a candidate with a unique and specialized skill had an interview-ruining personality flaw. We stuck to the process, even in cases when project manager candidates earned strong support from other project managers, but were panned by the design team.

This one rule has been instrumental in making it difficult, or even impossible, for empire building. It's also eliminated the temptation to abandon our strict hiring standards in the interest of what might be a short-term gain.

In order to fulfill our goal of complete transparency and inclusion in our interview processes, we've intentionally designed our practices to be transferable across company roles and business units and adaptable to unique hiring situations.

The steps for hiring full-time team members are always the same. The candidate submits the GTKY, the team votes "yes" or "no" on the GTKY, and then the votes are tallied. If the candidate passes muster, he or she is invited to in-person interviews.

This first interview assesses a candidate's potential non-technical contributions to Detroit Labs. The interviewers vote, and if there aren't any hard "no" votes, the candidate is invited to participate in a second interview. This second interview assesses the candidate's practical ability to perform the tasks required in the role.

For developers, this may be programming exercises. For designers, this could be a take-home redesign exercise they bring in to pitch and discuss in front of an audience. At that point, we take a final full-pass review of the candidate and decide whether to offer the person a job.

By keeping the steps of the process the same no matter what role is being interviewed for, team members can drop into and out of the process as they see fit for any candidate. They do not have to exclude themselves from interviews that may fall outside their work experience.

If you want to do a second interview for a quality assurance position, but have never done that before, you know it's a practical review of how that candidate could do the QA job. It gives you context to ask for guidance on helping conduct the interview. It also allows us to develop some common language and expectations around the process when uninvolved team members enter the assessment process.

The process scales and adapts for different kinds of activities.

For example, a few times a year we offer an Apprenticeship Program. This paid position generates hundreds of applications for, at most, a dozen jobs. The interview process steps are the same: GTKY, first interview, second interview. But we modify these for screening and assessment of groups versus individuals.

Instead of a candidate meeting with five Detroit Labs employees for a first interview, we organize 10-minute "speed dating" exercises and hand out interview sheets to our interviewers. This allows us to effectively and rapidly interview 30 or 40 applicants, and generate hundreds of countable and comparable scores, in an hour.

The second interview can scale up and become a night with several code challenges assigned to candidate teams, with candidates switching teams every 30 minutes to tackle a new challenge with a new team.

Interviewing and hiring in this manner is not without its challenges. For one, it's impossible to get your friend, who you know would be great and you'd love to work with, a job in Detroit Labs. Everyone has to earn their spot.

Without a wide and active amount of participation across the full team, this process can breed the same problems it attempts to eliminate, such as a hiring manager only being comfortable with hiring people who are just like him or her.

Introducing interviewing to every member of the company requires a lot of training and compliance conversations, so team members understand what is acceptable and unacceptable in interviews.

But, whether looking for seasoned executives or students most likely to excel in a technical apprenticeship, time after time we've seen a structured, team-based, goal-oriented interview process outperform the traditional resume keywords and HR-exclusive hiring systems.

Is this hiring method something you'd try at your organization? As a job candidate, how would you feel about going through this process, as opposed to the typical resume-driven, HR-led practices?

Have you worked to change the hiring procedures in your organization? Let's talk about it in the comments section below.

Nathan Hughes serves as cofounder of Detroit Labs, a Detroit-based mobile development company and maker of iPhone, iPad, Android, and vehicle apps. The firm has partnered with national brands like Domino's Pizza, General Motors, DTE Energy, and Hyundai to dream up, design, ... View Full Bio
We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
jries921
50%
50%
jries921,
User Rank: Ninja
7/25/2016 | 2:17:05 PM
Re: Adding to the problem
Not the same; the first is actual performance, the second is hypothetical.  I'm not saying that interviews are unimportant (quite the opposite), but that by themselves, they are insufficient to assess the level of actual proficiency.  And the only thing resumes are good for is screening; and most of the time, they're not even very good at that.

What does qualify as actual performance in a technical setting is an actual example of one's work.  For example, it has long been my employer's practice to assign an actual programming problem to applicants for programming positions.  An engineering candidate could similarly be given a design problem.  Nowadays, it would even be possible to ask a system administration candidate to submit a virtual machine configured in accordance with requirements given by the prospective employer.  I even once read a story in which the owner of a garage asked a prospective mechanic to diagnose a car right there on site (struck me as good practice).

No sane employer would ever hire a graphic artist or a photograper based solely on paper credentials and an interview (even multiple interviews).  I don't understand why anyone would hire a techie that way.
vnewman2
50%
50%
vnewman2,
User Rank: Ninja
7/25/2016 | 12:24:27 PM
Re: Adding to the problem
@Joe - I think we have somewhat of a similar stance in that - I think resumes are a waste of time and don't yield much useful information about a candidate.  I'd like to see a shorter version of a resume implemented somehow where you list your job titles and skill set, not describe the general tasks you do every day.

But my "it's just the way it is" point is this: certain things aren't going to change anytime soon, so until they do, if you want to get ahead or your foot in the door for that matter, you need to play by the rules.

I work in the legal industry as well.  I like to workout before or during work hours.  Why can't I just come back in my yoga pants and finish my work?  Well because we have clients coming in and out and it wouldn't look good because we have a certain image to project.  But can't I do my job just as well in yoga pants?  Sure, but that's just the way it is.

It's the same reason you don't go to court in pajamas to argue a case - the judge would throw you out.  Why?  Can't you litigate regardless of what you are wearing?  Sure, but that's just the way it is.  Appearances matter, unfortunately and that's true of your resume as well.  It conveys information about you regardless of how smart or skilled you actually are.

I'd change the entire system if it were up to me.  I'd do away with computer screening of resumes entirely.  I'd have top candidates come in and actually work on some projects for a few days and see if they fit.  That's a true work sample.  But it is costly and most firms won't make that investment up front, they would rather pay for it later.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Author
7/25/2016 | 11:32:38 AM
Re: Adding to the problem
> you best put your best foot forward

You get no disagreement from me there.


>  It's just the way it is.

Competent and successful CEO I know just last week said "If I ever find myself saying, 'That's just the way things are done here,' it's time for me to retire."


> You have to play the game.

It's a losing game is my point -- for both sides.




 
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Author
7/25/2016 | 11:27:46 AM
Re: Adding to the problem
It's virtually the same.

Director at audition: "Demonstrate to me how you perform this song/monologue/scene."

Interviewer at audition: "Demonstrate to me how you solve this problem."  (ESPECIALLY in the technical fields.)

Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Author
7/25/2016 | 11:25:17 AM
Re: Adding to the problem
Sure, they're not the same thing precisely, but speaking as someone who used to direct film and theatre both in school and for a living (before my legal career), I'd say it's more or less the same insofar as they involve performances.

And, having been on both sides of the table in both auditions and job interviews alike, I've observed that -- in general -- the performances in auditions tend to be the more genuine ones.  ;)
jries921
50%
50%
jries921,
User Rank: Ninja
7/25/2016 | 10:56:45 AM
Re: Adding to the problem
Not really.  In an interview, people talk about the job; in an audition, the applicant performs.  I don't pretend this is realistic in occupations, but I think it is in the technical ones.
vnewman2
50%
50%
vnewman2,
User Rank: Ninja
7/25/2016 | 1:55:58 AM
Re: Adding to the problem
No - it's not actually.  An audition requires a performance - a interview is someone asking you some pre-selected questions. What an audition ultimately provides is a work sample, which - although it isn't frequently employed in most companies becuae it is time consuming and takes quite a bit of effort to implement - it is the one scientificantly proven means of predicting successful job placement/proformance.
vnewman2
50%
50%
vnewman2,
User Rank: Ninja
7/24/2016 | 4:10:33 PM
Re: Adding to the problem
Well you are comparing apples to oranges. A 70 page brief versus one page. Im not promoting zero tolerance but again it's one page. HR doesn't know anything about you so if you want to get a look you best put your best foot forward. Even if it's not from a human. It's just the way it is. You have to play the game.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Author
7/24/2016 | 12:25:23 PM
Re: Adding to the problem
@jries: Isn't that what an interview is?  ;)
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Author
7/24/2016 | 11:20:18 AM
Re: Adding to the problem
> It's just sheer laziness to turn in a less than perfect one.

It's sheer laziness to turn in a resume riddled with substantial errors and formatting issues.  We agree on that.

A single typo or missing punctuation mark, however?  Not sure I'd go so far as laziness (at least, in all -- or even most -- cases).  I think we've all sent an email or memo or other document that had a regrettable typo.

(For my own part, I once turned in a 70-page brief to the Massachusetts Appeals Court that I spent consecutive sleepless weeks on, rereading and proofing the dang thing a zillion times as I tinkered with it.  Turns out I left a few typos.  NBD.  I still won the case, my career remains intact, and I'm sure the panel of appellate judges don't think I am a lazy or incompetent person.  Indeed, the opposing counsel on that case has since referred me clients.)

The "sheer laziness" philosophy sounds suspiciously like the old (and failed) consulting practice from the '90s of telling employees that if you can go a second without making a mistake, you can go a minute, you can go an hour, you can go a day, you can go the rest of your life.

I'm not saying, "hey, don't worry about typos."  You and I are totally agreed there.  I'm only saying that if you employ an entire department (or automated software system) to determine the best people to employ in your organization, and one of that department's primary and automatic exclusion policies is having zero tolerance for even the slightest typos no matter what, regardless of context or anything else the candidate may have to offer, you should fire that entire department and hire some human beings who know how to think.

HR people (esp. bad ones) concern themselves with typos.  Meanwhile, when CEOs and other top execs bring in people themselves without the help of a "professional" recruiter, they have more important things to worry about than, say, if the potential hire has a superfluous punctuation mark.
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
Slideshows
What Digital Transformation Is (And Isn't)
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  12/4/2019
Commentary
Watch Out for New Barriers to Faster Software Development
Lisa Morgan, Freelance Writer,  12/3/2019
Commentary
If DevOps Is So Awesome, Why Is Your Initiative Failing?
Guest Commentary, Guest Commentary,  12/2/2019
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Video
Current Issue
The Cloud Gets Ready for the 20's
This IT Trend Report explores how cloud computing is being shaped for the next phase in its maturation. It will help enterprise IT decision makers and business leaders understand some of the key trends reflected emerging cloud concepts and technologies, and in enterprise cloud usage patterns. Get it today!
Slideshows
Flash Poll