Hiring and Retention Information Resources

Job Descriptions Interviewers tended to focus on experience and skills rather than the company’s expectations for the position. This is a strong mismatch which can be solved by taking it a step further.

I recommend:  Check out Lou Adler for information about Performance Profiles; one step up from a JD.

Superficial Interviews. There was little in the way of checking or verifying of candidate’s experience and education.

I recommend:  Verify, don't test.

Over-emphasis on Resume. Interviewers focused too much on details in the Resume such as education, technical skills, and industry experience.

I recommend:  Blogs on ERE offer information on a wide variety of areas.

Initial Impact. Interviewers relied heavily on first impressions to make their hiring decisions.

I recommend:  Watch out for the Halo Effect.

Historical Bias Hiring teams used only past performance to predict future results. This was thought be insufficient.

I recommend:  There are a wide variety of selection methods available to round out your view of a candidate.

Performance bias. Candidates who ‘performed’ at interview tended to be chosen over real job performers.

I recommend:  About dot com has the skinny on interviewing.

Active Candidates. Companies tended to bottom feed and only attracted the active job seeker. Passive candidates were not succesfully targeted.

I recommend:  Get a solid understanding of the motivation of candidates. Their motivations may not be what you expect. Everyone has their own story.

Best Predictors. Interviewers tended not to focus on self-motivation, leadership, comparable past performance, job-specific problem solving and adaptability, and these have been shown to be strong predictors of performance.

I recommend:  Not all selection methods are equal but most have specific level of predictability that can help you to choose the most appropriate method.