We like to ask: “Why do you need a degree?” We usually hear that “it’s “corporate policy” or “the boss thinks we have to have one”. We don’t argue. If degreed people are available, we guess it’s all right to hire them. But the fact of the matter is we don’t know why companies insist on degrees when the function of the job doesn’t require it.

It has become a socially acceptable business practice to want degreed people. We have become conditioned to think that a degree denotes some kind of business acumen. That is only because America has sold us on the fact that education in the form of a degree qualifies people. The myth is perpetrated on the basis that having a degree demonstrates that a person knows how to complete something. Somehow it’s supposed to demonstrate accomplishment. We ask for degrees in certain disciplines because we think we should. It gives us a feeling of security, an external form of certification that states this person has passed inspection. We use degrees as qualifiers that let us off the hook when considering some aspects of the candidate. Since an impartial college or university certified this person with a degree, we surmise the person must be better than those without such certification.

The Truth
Sociologists have proven that social and economic mobility has no correlation to educational attainment. In other words, social and economic mobility are affected more by other environmental issues than by one’s level of education. Many socially and economically secure people get both undergraduate and post graduate degrees. That is because America deems education good, so these people, wanting to do good, will get degrees. But their degrees do not cause them to do better. These people can get ahead anyway for many reasons other than their education. We do business with firms that insist on degrees, and that is fine. In fact, there are some companies that insist on certain grade point averages from certain schools before they will consider a candidate. We can assure you, however, that the overall quality of candidates, quality of employee performance, retention of employee, and overall business success is no greater or less than those firms that are not that insistent. Their turnover, in some cases, is even higher, because they set high standards for average jobs. They hire notably above average people that meet their standards then lose them six months to a year later because the job isn’t commensurate with their ability and they are not challenged.

The message behind all this is that when companies hire they need to ask themselves WHY people need degrees to function in certain jobs. There are many ways to measure a person’s previous performance other than their ability to attain a degree. A strong case can be made these days for purposely hiring people without degrees. These people have a tendency to have more stability in their jobs. Their lack of degree often causes them to not leave jobs as often (because they think they will have limited opportunities) so they stay longer. These people often work harder because they know they have to make up for the fact they don’t have a degree. Initial salaries for non-degreed employees are usually lower for obvious, logical (even though fallacious) reasons. They can save employers money and they usually appreciate an opportunity to prove themselves more than degreed candidates. Saving money and getting a long term, dependable, appreciative employee isn’t a bad idea!

The point is we all need to assess the duties, responsibilities and functions of the position we have open. We need to conclude if a degree requirement is necessary for the function of the job. Can a person without a degree compensate with experience? Most of us, even those with degrees, will agree that experience is a great, if not the greatest, teacher. We aren’t criticizing firms who have a policy requiring degrees. We are saying, though, that they miss a lot of good talent when they do. Those of us with the option to hire both degreed and non-degreed people need to consider the real needs of our job. We need to avoid lump thinking that only degreed people can do certain jobs. From a practical day in, day out point of view, the qualities that make us function well in our jobs are rarely related to the degree we have.

Tony Beshara is owner and president of Babich & Associates.   Beshara has been in business since 1973, and he alone averages $2.5 – $4 million per year in billings. If you have any questions about this article, please call (214) 823-9999.

© Tony Beshara, Babich & Associates

Sell, Sell, Sell!!
We discussed the fact that most individuals in companies create their own cold monster out of ignorance, defensiveness, and conditioned thinking that everyone and anyone who is looking for a job would go to work for them simply because they have a job to offer. Our message is that good candidates need to be sold on why they should go to work for a company. A company doing the interviewing needs to hear features, advantages, and benefits about the candidate, and by the same token the serious candidate needs to hear the same from the prospective employer.

We will admit that in initial interviews, candidates are responsible for selling themselves. They have the monkey on their backs to give the prospective employer reasons as to why they should be hired. The employer may be a buyer in these initial stages. But once one or two prime candidates have been identified, the employer needs to become a seller of his company, opportunity, and, especially, of himself. This is most important for a hiring manager to do. Having the personnel department sell the opportunity might help, but most candidates don’t go to work for the personnel department on a day to day basis. Hiring managers must recognize their roles here. The better they do, the better luck they will have in getting the best candidates.

“Regular” Companies
The vast majority of companies in the U.S. are not Fortune 500, their stock isn’t traded on the big board. Our names and faces of our boards, presidents, etc., won’t appear on the cover of Fortune Magazine or U.S. News and World Report. Their shares of stock aren’t likely to be a bargaining chip in hiring negotiations.

The vast majority of businesses are good honest medium sized businesses run by people trying to provide goods and services at a profit. For the most part, there are no miraculous, glitsy things we can do for people that come to work for any of us. If we are going to sell ourselves and our companies to our prospective employees we need to think about the reasons why any of us work for our particular firms. We need to come up with solid concise reasons as to why someone should work with and for us. Writing them out and having them on hand when we interview a .final list of candidates will help us hire the best people available.

People Work For People
We recommend that our clients remember that people don’t work for companies, they work for other people. Why other people work at a firm is very, or should be, very important to perspective employers. A. conscious recognition of this makes selling an opportunity with a firm easier to do. These should even go beyond the corporate philosophy, down to individual personal reasons why hiring managers and others work at the company. Nothing glitsy, just simple solid “what its done for me” kind of stuff.

Every once in a while we work with a firm who truly doesn’t know how well they stack up against other employers. Part of our service is to help companies recognize what unique qualities they have and what they might sell to prospective employees. Since we deal with so many different kinds of organizations and have since 1952, we can readily compare the features and benefits for working for a particular firm. Since many companies don’t hire enough people often enough, they are not as used to selling themselves, let alone know what aspects of their personality to sell to candidates. We are very sensitive to these issues because we deal with them every day.

Selling a job to a candidate should be an essential part of the hiring process. The effort to do so can make the difference in hiring quality candidates and missing them.

Tony Beshara is owner and president of Babich & Associates.   Beshara has been in business since 1973, and he alone averages $2.5 – $4 million per year in billings. If you have any questions about this article, please call (214) 823-9999.

© Tony Beshara, Babich & Associates

One of the major reasons the hiring process so often ends without success is because most hiring managers neglect to sell their job and their company to the prospective employee. What this means practically is that they get so used to being pursued by candidates and so used to creating the air of “I’ve got the job. If you want it, then you’ll have to pursue me and do exactly what I want,” that when they get down to the final candidates they want, they have not created an atmosphere of mutual benefit.

The Market
At least in the Southwest, the employment market over the past few years has been such that there are, in most disciplines, five to ten qualified candidates for every position. Since the demise of the early 80′s when it was a seller’s market to the candidate’s advantage, client companies have had the fortune of being able to find a number of candidates to interview for most positions they may have. This buyer’s market promoted the idea that employers could pick and choose whomever they wanted and the candidates would, out of desperation, work for them with no questions asked. It lulled companies into thinking that just because they had an open position and plenty of people whom they could interview, that they could hire anyone they pleased and make no effort to sell their job or company to the candidates. This false security gave rise to the idea that the employer with the open position had total control over the situation.

The Myth of Numbers
The results of this type of environment are not really good. First of all, the myth of numbers, that is, the idea that “there are a lot of qualified candidates out there” promoted the fallacious logic that numbers and quality are synonymous. Just because there are a lot of people to interview doesn’t mean there are truly qualified candidates from which to choose. Now, it may be in certain instances that quality will follow volume, but one must be careful not to assume that.

Since there have been so many candidates in most disciplines from whom to choose, employers have become somewhat calloused to individuals. This buyer’s attitude might be fine in initial interviews, but once a few final candidates have been identified, they should be consciously sold on why they should want to work for that firm.

The point is this: Just because there are numerous candidates to interview, companies can become “conditioned” to candidates selling themselves on why they should be hired. These firms forget that they too need to sell their company and their job to the candidates they want to hire. The archaic attitude that a company is in control simply because they have a job to offer someone and therefore they don’t need to do anything to attract a good employee just won’t do anymore. The idea that the company has the advantage because they have a job to offer communicates offensive superiority. The best candidates are competed for like any other “good” product and go to work for those firms who give them good reasons and benefits as to why they should. Money, title etc. are only small aspects of reasons people go to work for others. The companies that sell their opportunities the best get the best candidates.

People Want To Be Sold
We have seen it time and again where an excellent candidate goes to work for less money, a less prestigious title, or for a little known firm simply because he was “sold” on the company. He liked what he saw and felt about them. His reasons became personal ones. They always do. Going to work for someone, like hiring someone, is a personal and subjective thing. People go to work for companies and people they like. When companies interview and try to pursue candidates they like, they need to sell those candidates on why the firm should be liked, too. The aloof attitude of “we got the job. …they need to come to us” just doesn’t get good candidates anymore.

We have seen excellent candidates not take good opportunities simply because no one in the firm went to the trouble of selling them on the idea of working there. The reasons for this are more benign neglect rather than intentional. Pride and ego play a role sometimes. We have seen employers purposely not try to sell their opportunities so they won’t run the risk of being “rejected” by the perspective employee. They can stoically offer a position with no emotion or empathy for the candidate simply to protect themselves from going out of their way, making a commitment, and then being told “No.” Not selling a candidate simply because a person wants to avoid an emotional rejection is not a valid reason. This approach is a defense mechanism. We recently worked with a client who wouldn’t discuss his offer to the candidate. He kept saying that it was all written down in the letter, there was no need to discuss it verbally or face to face. No empathy: No employee!

Tony Beshara is owner and president of Babich & Associates.   Beshara has been in business since 1973, and he alone averages $2.5 – $4 million per year in billings. If you have any questions about this article, please call (214) 823-9999.

© Tony Beshara, Babich & Associates

Step one: Build a powerhouse employer brand. You need a killer employer message that answers the question, “What’s the deal?” With that message, you can create a widespread impression about your organization through effective marketing. For example, RES (Recruitment Enhancement Services) works with clients to turn their workplace culture into a brand and sell that brand through print, electronic, and interactive advertising. The focal point is a candidate-friendly career website. All marketing efforts drive traffic to this website, which facilitates candidate processing and relationship marketing.

Step two: Create a partnership between staffing professionals and hiring managers. RES provides its clients with relationship coordinators to work with hiring managers, technical specialists to manage integrated technology systems, cybrarians to perform web-based talent searches, recruiters to network via telephone and email, and support staff to tie it all together. The team is available around the clock to facilitate candidate convenience.

Step three: Create a user-friendly requisition process. In the RES system, hiring managers complete new-hire requisitions through an easy-to-use online process. RES receives the requisition and an RES staffing professional immediately contacts the hiring manager to clarify the hiring need. Once the need and the corresponding requirements are crystal clear, the RES staffing professional and the hiring manager agree on a tentative timetable and RES goes to work.

Step four: Tap multiple sources of talent. RES maintains a proprietary talent database for each of its clients and begins every search there. The proprietary talent database may include former job applicants, internal job searchers, candidates from employee referrals, and former employees who departed on good terms. If the internal search does not yield a sufficient number of qualified applicants, RES cybrarians begin mining web-based sources for available qualified applicants. Meanwhile, RES recruiters start working their own talent networks through telephone and email contacts. When it makes sense, RES will market positions through print, electronic, and interactive media. RES then directs responses to their streamlined online and telephone applicant-management system. This system feeds a single proprietary database and allows RES recruiters to engage applicants immediately in a dialogue.

Step five: Select the best and close the deal. RES prescreens candidates until a sufficient number are available for hiring managers to consider. RES recruiters sell the opportunity to these candidates and work with hiring managers to schedule interviews, facilitate the hiring and on-boarding process, and generate metrics to evaluate the process for each new hire.   

Bruce Tulgan is the author of Winning the Talent Wars, published by W.W. Norton. Bruce is the founder of RainmakerThinking, Inc., which is a research, training and consulting firm focused on the working lives of those born after 1963. Based on the pioneering employee interview research they have conducted since 1993, RainmakerThinking advises leaders and managers in a wide range of organizations on realigning recruiting, performance management, and retention practices to fit the new “free agent” career path. Visit their Web site at www.rainmakerthinking.com

© Bruce Tulgan, Rainmaker Thinking

Once an opening is created, for whatever reason. It is a good business decision to first decide if it is necessary to fill it, and if so, to take steps to fill it immediately. When companies put off immediate interviewing and hiring they can create a major monster.

Resentment
First of all, when someone is not doing a job someone else in the company has to. Even if two or three other people are “sharing” the function, these others aren’t doing their regular duties as well simply because they resent having to do someone else’s work. This perception in the group or department becomes a resentful attitude the longer a position goes unfilled.

If the vacated position has anything to do with customers as in sales or customer service, the absence of an employee is even worse since the clients or customers just won’t get the attention they need. Again, when someone else has to contact and work with these customers there is normally a credibility erosion due to uncertainty on the part of the customer. Temporarily assigned sales or customer service people just can’t provide the psychological comfort level most customers or clients need.

Indecisive Management
Management appears indecisive even down right uncaring and ambivalent the longer a position stays vacant. Not only do peers of such positions feel put upon in having the extra duties they feel management is insensitive in it’s desire to relieve them of the extra burdens. Management appears indecisive ‘when it can’t make up its mind about what to do regarding a vacancy. Good managers do want to fill vacant positions. It’s just that the priority for it is low because other more immediate business issues seem to stare them in the face. Other day to day business issues are easier to work on than filling vacant positions. Since we do those day to day business functions easily and comfortably there is a tendency to avoid interviewing and hiring by putting it off. It is an unattractive duty we don’t do regularly. How enthusiastic can one get over the idea of interviewing and hiring? It’s just not a highly charged gratifying experience so it gets put off until absolutely necessary. Postponing interviewing and hiring makes it more and more difficult to do. This furthers the perception of indecisive management.

Weeds
The longer a position goes unfilled the more the “weeds grow” just like an unattended garden. The vacancy and filling it becomes a “monster.” Most managers believe that it takes no more than two to three weeks to fill a vacancy. The truth is, as we have discussed in other issues of HIRING LINE, (without the use of a professional recruiter), it takes an average of 90 days to fill most mid to upper mid level positions, even when there is an urgency to do it. A professional recruiter can cut that time in more than half but even then, the length of time is greater than most managers perceive. Newton’s law of motion and rest comes to mind. Other business issues, the end of the year, the end of the quarter, holidays, vacations, etc., can all be used as reasons to postpone interviewing and hiring. It’s just a relatively unpleasant risky duty that can be easily postponed by rationalized excuses. Like most problems the longer the solution is put off, the harder it becomes to do. Interviewing becomes elongated over extracted periods of time. Viable candidates take other positions. Interviewing becomes confusing because too few or too many are interviewed over too long a time. Candidates perceive the interviewing company to be indecisive. Other managers, usually ones up the ladder, wonder about indecisiveness too. We have seen situations where the filling of a position was attempted four different times over a period of six months. Believe it or not, everyone in the firm stated that the filling of the vacancy was essential to the running of their business. The monster just grew and grew. The situation became more and more confusing, messy, unorganized, mired, etc. It was finally due to the wrath of the president telling his subordinates that one or all would be fired if the job wasn’t filled quickly.

“Do it now” has got to be the approach to filling any vacancy. Lack of commitment to urgency only allows monsters and weeds to grow.

Tony Beshara is owner and president of Babich & Associates.   Beshara has been in business since 1973, and he alone averages $2.5 – $4 million per year in billings. If you have any questions about this article, please call (214) 823-9999.

© Tony Beshara, Babich & Associates