A survey of Recruitment: ‘Good hires and bad hires’

Here is scratch pad survey on how hiring panned out for 25 companies in the last two years. If I make a strong suggestion that the results may be taken with an extra large pinch of salt, the reason is simple. The sample size is rather small, just 25 companies, which took about 67 employees on board.

But, the survey has some merits to back it up. 

Image courtesy of renjith krishnan at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

I know the respondents personally: 21 HR managers and 2 decision making C-Level officers shared their experiences informally over a period of last two months.

It’s not a structured interview, meaning the people didn’t have to make cautious or considered replies. Only last week, I jotted down some notes and checked with these friends who agreed with the record. But, for obvious reasons, they prefer to be anonymous and so they shall be.

To summarize the events, the 25 companies planned to hire for 95 positions but could fill only 67 positions.

On an average, 972 applications were received for each job. Believe it or not, one job post didn’t elicit, even one single application! On the max side, a Technical Sales Engineer job attracted a whopping 5,300 hopefuls. How this happened has an interesting story, which will come a bit later.

As many as around 20 selected candidates didn't care to join. The companies had to send out repeat call letters and settle for candidates whom they had marked as ‘second’ or ‘third’ best.

The final tabulation shows these results.

First annual Performance Appraisal Summary	No. of Employees	By Percentage
Achievers who have exceeded expectations	6	9
Good: these employees are meeting the objectives	14	21
Average: These people need constant persuasion, supervision	14	21
Unsatisfactory: Low productivity, inter-personal problems, poor attendance	33	49
Total	67

Some of the reasons given are eye-openers.

How the achievers were hired:

The three companies which report having hired achievers and ‘good’ followed a meticulous process. They prepared a detailed profile of the person who would fit the job role best. In addition to anticipated education, experience and certification qualifications, the HR and the departmental heads wrote a brief note on expected behavioral and attitudinal attributes. The profile was so complete that it could actually mirror the possible candidate. The decision maker vetted the profile and was involved at each important stage of hiring. A meticulous schedule was prepared and adhered to closely. The companies benchmarked competition and were ready with the right salary structure which was announced upfront.

The planning and execution were a model of project management, if it could be put like that.

How the ‘Unsatisfactory’ people crept in:

The story about the below par employee is riddled with the blame game.

‘We were never given sufficient time and brief’ says one HR manager. A very cryptic Email from the boss simply said ‘Hire two Technical Sales Engineers.” The HOD was equally short – “you know what we do – get two chaps.” You can easily imagine how badly the job post was drafted and wouldn't be shocked to hear that 5,300 applications poured in. And, naturally most of the applicants had none of even the basic knowledge. The interview was a hurried mish-mash affair, with as many as 250 people literally ‘walking through.”

In another case, the hiring process was prolonged over some 8 rounds spread over three months. ‘All the good candidates vanished and we simply rushed through at the end picking up chaps who had not found a job in three months.’ the HR lamented.

I am convinced that hiring should be handled like a project and must have the full involvement of the decision maker. More on that in my next post.

Meanwhile, if you would like to have any articles/ blogs on HR, automobiles, IT Enabled services and any other topics, you know what to do. Just shoot an Email. Vvsarma51@gmail.com .