Does Your Firm Conduct "Declined Offer" Interviews?

In a blog post for Harvard Business Review, executive coach Ben Dattner makes the case for conducting "declined offer" interviews at your organization.   He argues that organizations should interview job candidates who are made an offer, but who choose to work somewhere else.   Why did they take another offer?  What made your firm less attractive than another organization?  Was it simply money, or were there other key factors in the decision-making process?   Here's how he describes this technique and the reasons for employing it: 

Successfully competing for top talent involves both selling jobs to the best candidates and retaining the highest performing incumbents. In order to be seen as an employer of choice with a compelling value proposition for employees, many companies measure turnover and conduct exit interviews with departing employees to gather feedback about the experiences people had working there and the reasons why they’re leaving. But a less common practice is to track how many people turn down job offers at your company, and an even less common practice is to actually gather feedback from candidates who receive offers but don’t accept them. Like “exit interviews” these “declined offer” interviews can yield a lot of information about your own organization as well as valuable data about your industry and competitors.   While academic institutions often gather feedback from students who are accepted but do not matriculate in order to improve student recruitment and retention and to better compete with rival institutions, doing so with job candidates in a systematic and consistent manner is rare in the corporate world. As with other kinds of selling and marketing, you may learn as much, if not more, from the feedback of customers who choose not to buy as you learn from those who do.

Alumni & The Recruiting Process

Scholars Jason Greenberg and Roberto Fernandez have conducted an interesting new study about job searches and MBA recruiting. They studied approximately 600 students from a top MBA program over two years.  They conducted the research from a sociological perspective, comparing students who landed jobs through connecting with alumni at various companies (search through social networks) to those students who were hired through formal on-campus recruiting programs (formal search).   They refer to connections with alumni as weak ties (i.e., the students did not necessarily know the alumni prior to the search process; they connected with them through a variety of networking activities).  They found that MBAs are much more likely to accept a job offer landed through alumni networking than through formal on-campus recruiting processes.   That's true, even though the compensation tended to be higher from offers derived through on-campus recruiting programs.   Why is the networking so influential and effective?  Those conversations and connections help the students understand the growth potential associated with a particular job, and that proves to be very important to many talented students... more important than compensation perhaps.   Here's an excerpt from the abstract of the academic paper that the scholars published:   

We find that contrary to conventional wisdom, search through social networks typically results in job offers with lower total compensation (-17 percent for referrals through strong ties and -16 percent for referrals via weak ties vs. formal search). However, our models also show that students are considerably more likely to accept offers derived via weak ties. They do so because they are perceived to have greater growth potential and other non-pecuniary value. On balance, our tests are consistent with Granovetter’s argument that networks provide value by facilitating access to information that is otherwise difficult to obtain, rather than providing greater pecuniary compensation.

What's the implication of this study?   Greenberg puts it this way:  “Based on our findings, recruiters earn a higher ROI when spending time and money on facilitating connections between current employees and potential recruits from their alma mater.   Students look to and trust an alumnus from their school who ‘looks like them in three years’ to provide inside information about growth opportunities within the firm. And that powerful association is a huge influencer when it comes time to accept or reject a job offer.”

What Do Job Seekers Want?

Wade Burgess, VP of talent solutions at LinkedIn, wrote an article for Fast Company this week.  He explains the findings from the company's 2016 Talent Trends study.   In that research, LinkedIn asked more than 26,000 people about their job search process.   These job seekers reported that they cared the most about the following three things:

1.  Culture:  Burgess writes, "More than two-thirds (66%) of survey respondents wanted to know about a company’s culture and values above all else when considering changing jobs."  

2.  Big-Ticket Benefits:  Burgess writes, "Our research suggests that job seekers will pass on smaller luxuries in favor of familiar items that have a bigger impact on quality of life.  Just over three-quarters of U.S. workers prefer great health care packages over schedule flexibility and remote working, parental leave, free food, onsite daycare, gym memberships, or allowing pets in the office."

3. The Company's Mission: Burgess writes, "Job seekers in our survey care quite a bit about prospective employers' missions but want to know how they make them a reality."

Performance Appraisals: Are "A" Players Always "A" Players?

Peter Cappelli and Martin Conyon have conducted some interesting research regarding performance appraisals.  The topic has received much attention lately, with a great deal of criticism leveled at this common management practice for evaluating and rewarding employees.  However, limited empirical research has been done in the field, according to these scholars.  Cappelli and Conyon studied a number of issues related to performance appraisals.  Perhaps most interestingly, they examined whether people scored consistently on their appraisals year after year.   In other words, managers often about having A players, B players, and C players in your organization.   Capelli and Conyon asked:  Are "A" players always "A" players?  Are results consistent year after year?  Surprisingly, perhaps, they found that results were highly inconsistent.   Cappelli explains in this interview with Knowledge@Wharton: 

Cappelli:  As far as we can tell, no one has ever looked at this before or at least published it. Are the people who do well always doing well, or not? If we know your scores this year for everybody in the company, how much of next year’s score could we predict or explain? If the good people are always good and the bad people are always bad, we can explain 100% of your scores because next year’s score will be identical to this year’s score. If it’s random, which would be kind of astonishing, then it would be zero. There’d be no relationship between how people on average perform this year and how they perform next year. The good people could be good, the bad people could be good or bad.

Knowledge@Wharton: But you would think that they would follow a pattern. If you’re good in 2014, unless something has drastically changed, you’re going to be pretty good in 2015 as well.

Cappelli: Right. It’s between zero and 100%. If you think this A-player, B-player, C-player model is right, it’s going to be closer to 100. If you think it’s all just random or it’s kind of noise or people vary a lot, you’re closer to zero. So, that’s the question.

Knowledge@Wharton: I’m going to say that it would probably be closer to 70 or 75.

Cappelli: That’s a very common answer. People in human resources guess 80%. The correct answer is 27%, so it’s way closer to zero than it is to 100%.

Knowledge@Wharton: Why so much lower? I would think that it would be almost an automatic that it would be on the higher end.

Cappelli: Many people seem to believe that, especially people in human resources. But when I ask them if they have ever actually looked at it, the answer is no. They just assume it’s that way. Maybe they assume it’s that way because that’s what you hear from the A-player, B-player, C-player kind of story, and you could see some of this is a cognitive bias. There’s something in psychology known as the fundamental attribution error. It means that when you see somebody behave in a particular way, we are inclined to assume it is because of who they are rather than the circumstances. The classic example is somebody racing by you on the expressway going home. They’re driving on the shoulder and whipping past. Your inclination is to say, “That guy’s a jerk,” rather than to even entertain the idea that maybe it’s an emergency. We seem to be wired to think everything is due to the person. If you believe that, then you would be inclined to think the A-player, B-player, C-player model is right and good players this year are going to be good players next year, etc.C

Specialists vs. Generalists: How Do They Fare in the Labor Market?

Tulane Professor Jennifer Merluzzi and Columbia Professor Damon Phillips have conducted some interesting new research on the labor market for graduates from top MBA programs.   They studied approximately 400 graduates of top business schools in the United States.   These graduates too jobs in the investment banking industry.   They discovered that students with broader and more diverse backgrounds and experiences received more job offers and secured higher signing bonuses than those individuals with prior specialization in investment banking/finance both at work and in school.   Here's how the scholars explain their findings:

First, in labor markets with strong institutional screening mechanisms, specialization won’t be as valuable. In the absence of other information, it’s an important indicator of skill, but graduation from a top MBA program is a strong signal to the market that someone is qualified. In that scenario demonstrating consistency is no longer advantageous. Second, employers may discount experiences that incrementally extend previous efforts. Among MBAs, there’s now a strong emphasis on building a consistent profile as a finance person or a marketing person. You end up with many similar people in the market. Specialization becomes commodified, giving you less bargaining power, because you’re easily substitutable. Plus, when the firm is used to hiring a lot of people like you, it’s easier to calculate your value compared with someone with diverse accomplishments.

Clearly, some jobs require specialists.  We cannot generalize these findings to all circumstances in the labor market.  However, the research does remind us that the trend toward specialization in education  and training may be counterproductive in some ways.  I don't think that the findings suggest that we should ignore the development of specialized skills though.  We need to educate students with breadth and depth.  I don't think it's either an either/or proposition.    We need students to have distinctive skills that employers value and that can enable them to hit the ground running when they enter the workforce.  However, we want them to have a broad background that enables them to make connections among ideas in various domains, and that enables them to put their work in context.  We also need them to be able to work with others who have different skills, backgrounds, and experiences.   

At Bryant University, we require our undergraduate business students to complete an extensive general education curriculum, AND we require them to minor in a liberal arts and/or sciences area.  Thus, our finance graduates come out with minors in areas such as history, political science, or psychology.  We believe that this combination makes them highly valuable as they enter the labor force, and our placement statistics confirm the validity of those beliefs.  

Why Do We Stick with Poor Hiring Practices?

Iris Bohnet wrote in Harvard Business Review last month about the hiring process. She asked the question: Why do employers continue to use unstructured interviews as their primary method of evaluating candidates when this technique has many known flaws?   She points to many studies showing that unstructured interviews are not effective predictors of on-the-job effectiveness.  Biases plague the unstructured interview methodology.  Bohnet writes:  

Why do we stick with a method that so clearly does not work, when decision aids, including tests, structured interviews, and a combination of mechanical predictors, substantially reduce error in predicting employee performance? The organizational psychologist Scott Highhouse called this resistance “the greatest failure of I-O [industrial and organizational] psychology.”

The unwillingness to give up a much-loved evaluation approach seems to be driven by two factors: Managers are overconfident about their own expertise and experience, and they dislike deferring to more structured approaches that might outsource human judgment to a machine.

Bohnet argues for much more emphasis on procedures such as work-sample tests, structured interviews, and comparative evaluation.  These procedures help overcome many of the biases inherent in the unstructured interview process.    

Funny Take on Interview Mistakes!

Was Steve Jobs' Daily Question to Jony Ive a Good One?

Inc. magazine reports this week on the one question that Steve Jobs asked Apple design guru Jony Ive every day.  Here's the query:  "How many times did you say no today?"   Jobs preached "extreme, laser-like focus" at all times. Ives explained:   "The discipline to turn your back on something you believe in passionately, so you can apply yourself to what's at hand, is really remarkable," Ive said. "It's a deeply uncomfortable but really effective thing to do."  

Do I agree with Jobs' question?  All things in moderation, I suppose.   I do agree that focus is crucial if you want to excel.  That's as true of companies as it is of individuals.  Great firms clearly make tradeoffs; they say no when the typical firm in their industry says yes.  Trader Joe's, for instance, rejects many of the standard ways of doing business in the grocery industry.  That makes them incredibly distinctive and difficult to imitate. 

When it comes to individual behavior, though, I am a little leery of taking the Jobs question too far. To have a successful organization, we have to have people who are willing to sacrifice at times to help others. We need collaborators.  That means sometimes saying yes for the good of the greater whole, even if it may distract you from the task at hand.  

Quick Tip for New Hires

You have landed a new job, perhaps just out of college or maybe after a successful stint at another organization.  You have lofty ambitions for your career.   People have advised you to find a mentor to help you think about your long term goals and objectives.  Hold it!  Before you go any further, here's an important tip offered to me by a mentor many years ago.  He reminded me before I started work, "Do the job that you have been assigned.  Do it well.  The best thing you can do for your long term career goals is to excel at your current assignment.  Don't put tomorrow before today."   It was tremendous advice.  I encourage everyone to follow it. 

Rebranding Yourself Mid-Career

In this terrific brief video, Duke Professor Dorie Clark describes how one should tackle a mid-career transition, with a focus on re-positioning your personal brand.

The Final Interview Question

We've all faced that final job interview question: Do you have any questions for me?  We've heard the advice.  Be sure to ask questions that show you have done your homework about the organization.  I agree completely.  I think another question is equally crucial: If I joined the firm, what do you think a successful first year would look like?  What would we have accomplished?  That question can really help you determine whether their expectations are reasonable, and whether you have the capabilities to meet those expectations.  You can also get a sense of the culture.  Did they respond by simply citing some metrics you must achieve, or did they talk about building relationships, developing a team, etc.?  If different interviewers give you radically different answers to this question, it tells you the organization is not on the same page about this role.  That's not good news.  

Does Potential Matter More Than Achievement?

Research by scholars Zakary Tormala, Jayson Jia, and Michael Norton has examined how people perceive those with high promise/potential.   Tormala explained their findings in an article on "Insights by Stanford Business."  

In a series of experiments set in different contexts, we found that high potential can be more appealing than equally high achievement. Our studies uncovered this in situations ranging from basketball player evaluations to hiring decisions, to salary offers, to grad school admissions recommendations... In general, potential seems to engender greater interest than achievement. It was counterintuitive to us too at first. It seems objectively more impressive to actually achieve something great than to have mere potential to do so. But there is a fairly robust finding in the psychological literature that uncertain events and outcomes can stimulate greater interest and information processing — more thought — than more certain ones. So when potential is being compared with achievement, the uncertainty surrounding potential can make it more engaging, or maybe even pleasurable, to think about. It's as if people engage more as they try to work through the uncertainty and figure out what the truth will be... In most of our studies we tried to equate the level of potential and achievement. For example, in one study we showed the exact same (impressive) stats for a hypothetical NBA basketball player and merely described those stats as predictions or as actual performance records. We found that participants thought the player was more likely to end up an All-Star one day when they'd seen predicted rather than actual stats.

The authors argue that these findings have substantial implications with regard to talent management decisions. I strongly agree.  They also contend that small changes in wording can matter a great deal, perhaps in a recommendation letter that you provide for someone.  Talking about their potential can be even more impactful than rattling off their past achievements.  

Great Interview Question

In this week's New York Times Corner Office column, Lew Cirne - CEO of New Relic (a software analytics firm) - describes his favorite interview question.

One question I ask more often than others is, “Describe a day where you’ve just had the greatest working day of your life. You’re driving home and you’re on cloud nine. What was it about that working day that made you so happy?” If you’re doing what you love to do and it gives you that tingle down your spine, you’re going to execute at a high level.

I like the question for two major reasons. First, it helps the interviewer understand what drives that particular applicant, what motivates them.  You are trying to understand the sources of intrinsic motivation for that person.  Second, it helps you evaluate whether the job roles and responsibilities fit with what this person gets excited doing.  Perhaps they are a great candidate, but they won't be able to do what they love in this particular role.   This question helps you identify whether that fit exists or not. 

Attracting the Best College Talent

Sanjeev Agrawal, CEO and co-founder of Collegefeed, has written a terrific article for Harvard Business Review regarding the recruiting of top college talent.  Agrawal surveyed 15,000 millennials as part of a research project on this topic.  60% of the respondents were still in college, while the remainder had graduated recently.  The two charts below highlight some of the key findings:

Note several conclusions that might surprise you.  First, cultural fit matters more to millennials than compensation or company mission.  In today's Wall Street Journal, we read about the extraordinary lengths to which companies are going so as to convey the meaning and purpose of the work to millennials.  Yet, this finding says that culture matters even more than mission.  

Second, students want to understand the career opportunities available to them down the road.  How can they grow and develop over time?  What is the potential path ahead?  Where might they be in 3-5 years?   

Third, on campus efforts clearly matter as companies try to recruit top notch talent.  However, word-of-mouth through friends matters the most, and on-line efforts (job boards and social media) are crucial elements to the recruitment process.   Campus activities and outreach are important, but you have to go beyond the usual information sessions and job fairs to be effective.  

Here at Bryant, the most successful employers certainly conduct info sessions and appear at the career fair.  However, they have found many more ways to connect with students through course projects, networking events, and ways in which they connect our alumni who work there with current students.  They also use social media effectively to attract talented students and inform them about the opportunities at their companies.

Finding People Who are "Coachable"

My kids play a variety of sports, as many children do.  As a parent, the highest compliment that my child can receive from a coach is not about their speed, agility, hand-eye coordination, or ability to put the puck in the net.  The highest compliment is:  "Your child is very 'coachable.'"   In other words, they receive feedback well, listen carefully to the suggestions for improvement, and try hard to execute the new strategies and techniques.  They do not complain when criticized constructively, and they do not try to blame others for their mistakes.  Of course, leaders would love to find tons of employees who are highly "coachable" as well. 

In the New York Times Corner Office column a few weeks ago, Andrew Filev - CEO of Wrike - talked about his leadership style.  Filey described how he hires new employees.  Wrike is a project management software company.  As many leaders are now doing, Filey asks prospective employees to demonstrate their abilities during the hiring process by executing several key tasks that will be crucial to their job at the company.   As Filey says, "I’ve learned to test people in action. So you give them some sort of task to see how they think about things. If it’s for a sales job, you ask them to do a presentation. If it’s an engineering job, you ask them to code something. The task shouldn’t take a lot of effort because you don’t want them to do free work for a month. But the answer also shouldn’t be obvious."  

Filey takes it one step further though.  He doesn't just evaluate how well people perform the assigned tasks.  Instead, he expects it to be far from perfect, and he examines how candidates handle the feedback that he provides.  He doesn't simply want the highest performer.  He wants the best learners, the ones who can improve quickly.  He explains, "You also want them to be very coachable. You give them feedback and listen to how they react. Either they’re learning from it and they’re participating and collaborating in the discussion, or they’re arguing with you. Or, just as bad, they’re telling you “yes” because they think that’s what you want to hear, but their ego is so big that they can’t open up and listen to what you’re trying to tell them." 

One Simple Way to Attract More/Better Job Applicants

The Wall Street Journal reported this week on an interesting new study about recruiting top candidates for a job opening.   David Jones, Joseph Schmidt, and Derek Chapman have conducted  a study that focuses on how employers write job ads.  They compared ads that emphasized the skills and abilities required by the organization for the position (employer-centered) vs. ads that focused on what opportunities the organization can provide for the prospective employee (candidate-centered).     They worked with an engineering-consulting firm to test the impact of these two different types of job postings.  What did they find?   The "candidate centered" postings attracted more candidates than the "employer-centered" ads.  Moreover, the applicants to the "candidate-centered" postings tended to be of higher quality.   In sum, the best applicants want to know: "What's in it for me?  What can you do for me?"  If you don't begin to answer that question in the job ad itself, you won't get as many qualified applicants. 

Companies Using Tryouts Before They Hire

The Wall Street Journal reports that more and more companies (such as Sherwin Williams, Wal-Mart, and Starbucks) have begun to use "tryouts" to evaluate job candidates.   According to the Wall Street Journal, 

"By plunging candidates into simulations that mimic the roles they are interested in, hiring managers can get a sense of a candidate’s decision-making process and temperament. The simulation might be an assignment at the company’s offices, a phone call, or a virtual game.  For example, a candidate for a pharmacist role might be asked to complete online tasks that evaluate her knowledge of medications and skills in preparing prescriptions, Mr. Stern said. Or a would-be salesman might have to draft a pitch and make a sales call, Mr. Bissett said." 

I think the notion of a tryout is a major step forward in the hiring process.  The bottom line - some people can perform beautifully in an interview, no matter the format, but they have a much harder time actually getting things done in an organization.   A tryout asks them to showcase their skills and abilities, not just describe them.  I also know of some firms that are conducting "team tryouts" - examining both the skills of their candidates and the abilities of those individuals to work with others in a group on a challenging task.  We should expect to see more of these types of tryouts in the future.  I also will be interested to see if some research emerges about their efficacy. 

The Thank You Note After the Job Interview

Maureen Dempsey has written an interesting article about job interviews for Fast Company.  She aims to debunk five key myths about the factors that drive success in the job application process.  While I don't agree with all her points, I think she makes a very strong argument about thank you notes after an interview.  Here's an excerpt:

Rather than simply thanking hiring managers for their time—something that doesn’t add value to the decision-making process—Hawley says to make sure your note contains meaningful information that proves you were paying attention and are still interested in the position.  "Think about the conversation, and write something both personal and business-related," she suggests. "Tell them how much you appreciated discussing a certain business topic, then thank them for sharing their insights about something personal."

 

I would agree wholeheartedly on this point.  Be specific in the thank you note. Show that you listened to the interviewer, that you learned something new about the company.   What should you not do? Try to make an expanded case for why you should get the job.  You don't want to be writing a long novel.  However, you can express your continued interest in the job.   If specific concerns arose during the interview process about your qualifications, you could politely offer to provide evidence to address those questions.   In a recent interview situation, my colleagues and I were incredibly impressed with a candidate who very politely offered some additional evidence that was quite compelling.  However, the person was concise and to the point, and most of all, expressed gratitude for the opportunity to compete for the position.  

Networking Leads to Job Growth?

Michael Mandel, president of South Mountain Economics and former chief economist at BusinessWeek, has conducted an interesting new study about job growth.   Using data from LinkedIn, he found that, "the most connected metro regions had more than double the job growth of the least-connected metro areas.” Does that mean networking leads to more economic activity and more jobs?  Not necessarily.   Correlation does not equal causation.  Perhaps, a high growth economy in a region causes professionals to connect with one another more often. The chart to the left summarizes Mandel's findings. 

Résumé Mistakes

What are some the classic mistakes that job hunters make on résumés?  Laszlo Bock, SVP of People Operations at Google, has posted a good article on LinkedIn with the top five common mistakes that he has seen.  It's a good list.  Here are Bock's top five, with some commentary from me:

1. Typos

I would expand his point to include grammatical errors, particularly on the cover letters that accompany résumés.  Poor writing plagues many cover letters.   Examples of writing deficiencies include:  overly complex sentences, improper use of commas and conjunctions, far too much use of the passive voice, and poor paragraph construction.  The list could go on! 

2.  Length

As Bock says, you should be aiming to land a first round interview, not to tell your life story.  You can expand the story during the interviews.  Focus on getting your foot in the door.

3.  Formatting

Bock recommends saving the document as a PDF since other formats can become troublesome as they are passed electronically across various platforms and devices.  Good advice!  He also argues that it should be a clean, easy-to-read document.  I would emphasize the need for plenty of white space.    You do not to jam every inch of the page with words.

4.  Confidential Information

Bock uses the example of a consultant who clearly reveals the names of clients.   Many consulting firms have confidentiality policies.  If an applicant breaks their current or past employer's confidentiality policy, that's a major problem.  

5.  Lying

Lying on résumés appears to occur quite often.  We have just seen a senior executive at Wal-Mart who lost his job due to a lie about his educational background.  We've seen CEOs lose their jobs over these types of lies.  I think the harder-to-detect lies are even more common, specifically exaggerating job responsibilities and accomplishments.  I also think that résumés sometimes fail to give proper credit to those who helped an individual achieve certain goals at a prior employer.  Was it a team effort?  Does the résumé reflect the fact that a team achieved the goal, not just that individual?  Not giving others proper credit seems to be a major issue in the job application process.