There are no two views about the fact that for maintaining a sustainable competitive advantage, an organization needs to attract, hire, engage and retain the best talent relevant to the industry or the competitive landscape it operates in. To ensure that the recruitment strategy aligns with this philosophy, it is very important to properly assess and filter the right candidate to the mapped or anticipated positions. The generic strategies used to minimize recruitment errors include assessment tests (aptitude, technical/functional, behavioral, case studies etc.) and detailed interviews (techno-functional, managerial, HR etc.). In theory it all looks good and comprehensive, however the effectiveness of a good strategy is primarily based on how well it is executed and whether it helps in achieving the desired goals. Interviews can be conducted in multiple ways ranging from one-on-one interviews to cross-functional panel interviews. One of the interview type’s that is gradually growing in popularity is the peer level interview, which is the topic of this article. Here we will look at the strengths, weaknesses and how to manage the potential opportunities & threats that peer interviews pose in the organizational recruitment strategy.
The Good:
Many HR professionals argue that the best assessment of job competencies (knowledge, skills and abilities) of any applicant can only be done by the members of the hiring team, especially the hiring Manger. Though there might be more competent people in the organization who can technically evaluate a candidate better, the assessment cannot be complete without the involvement of these primary stakeholders. The reasoning is simple, who can understand the tasks, responsibilities and work environment better than the actual team? They can easily map not only the candidate’s competencies, but also his/her capabilities (attitudes and attributes) to the job position and arrive at an informed conclusion whether the candidate will actually be able to assimilate properly into the team and become an engaged member. As the peers possess equal or equivalent competencies, as the candidate being interviewed, it is easier for them to judge these candidates most objectively, making it a much easier task for the hiring Manager to identify and select the best ones. Hence logically this should be the adopted strategy for most hiring’s, especially for all the critical positions.
The Bad:
Unfortunately the opponents of the peer interview concept are many as well! If done objectively, peer interview makes sense. However are all interviewer’s objective and neutral or does their emotions also play a part? Observations show that during peer interview the interviewer(s) often end up comparing the competency and capability of the candidate with their own. A candidate considered to be “too smart” is often sensed as a threat to their own position or future promotion/movement in the organizational hierarchy. On the other side, a candidate considered “average or below average” are sometimes recommended for hiring, as they are perceived to be less of a threat going forward. In fact I have personally observed in one of the peer interview in which I was sitting as an observer that the interviewer got into an unnecessary heated argument with the candidate on an answer to a certain technical concept. Instead of listening to the candidate’s justification to the initial response to his question, the interviewer started presenting his own solution and made the candidate go into a defensive retreat. On paper the candidate was a complete fit with the job description and job specifications. He had also secured high scores in his aptitude and technical tests, however going by the interviewer’s assessment the candidate was considered to be “not a good fit” for the role and rejected. Fortunately based on my observation a second opinion was taken by two organizational experts, who were not part of the hiring team, and the candidate was selected on merit.
Critical Analysis:
The success of any candidate becoming assimilated to the organization and an engaged team member lies collectively with the Manager, HR (through Employee relations and engagement activities), the Organization (Management style, Policies, Processes etc.) and the peers or team members. The importance of the latter to organizational success is often overlooked; however it still remains one of the key factors in talent management. Making the peer group a stakeholder in the hiring process automatically makes them the gatekeeper for all potential talent coming into the organization. Hence if the selection process is compromised even a little bit; it can have long term consequence for the organization. In a peer interview even if the interviewer remains originally neutral, their peer group pressure can influence their decision to accept or reject candidates who do not fit their internally valued team norms or standards.
The Solution:
Based on these facts, should Peer interview be scrapped? Not really, there are simple yet effective ways which can help in leveraging the strength of peer interviews while controlling the negative factors. Some of the possible solutions are:
1) No pre-screening of candidates by peers – once a candidate is found to meet the qualifying criteria by the recruitment team, his/her resume should be forwarded only to the hiring Manager for initial discussion/evaluation. There should be no peer evaluation at this stage, as sensitive data like compensation, academic scores, certifications etc. can create a bias prior to the interview.
2) Have a clear interview dos and don’ts – for example the peer interviewer(s) should only limit their questions to technical or functional areas. These interviews should not be used as a “show of knowledge” sessions, but rather on listening to the candidates critical reasoning and answer to these questions.
3) There should at least be one neutral person – a peer should never be allowed to interview a candidate alone. A person from other team, ideally a senior or even HR, should sit in the interview to ensure that the assessment is done fairly and objectively.
4) Never have the same peer interview all candidates for a position – this will help in balancing any interviewer bias and ensure better evaluation of candidates. It will also help in load balancing, as the peer interviewer’s also have other work priorities.
5) When rejections are high go for a second opinion – if the rejections exceed 10 straight candidates, then something is obviously wrong in either the screening of candidates or the peer interview. The first check should be with the latter and an identified organizational expert should reassess the rejected candidates to ensure that the grounds of rejections were genuine. Based on his/her feedback corrective action needs to be taken.
6) Counsel, Coach and Train peer interviewer(s) for better interview experience of candidates – to maintain an organizational brand as an employer of choice, it is essential that all candidates are treated fairly and with respect. All first time peer interviewers should go for orientation training by HR on “Interview dos and don’ts.” Refresher programs can also be designed based on feedback given by other organizational stakeholders.
Conclusion:
With the changing organizational dynamics, peer group interviews are here to stay. However it remains a double-edged sword based on how effectively it is implemented. Used in the right way it can help the organization find the right talent. However if not done properly it will ensure that the organization remains mediocre at best, which can have disastrous results for any organization in the long term. Hence it is essential that it is critically evaluated (for improvement) and periodically audited (for compliance) to ensure organizational hiring effectiveness and efficiency is not compromised.
This article has been published in the March 2013 edition of HR News & Views - http://www.rda.co.in/hr_news_views.html
The Good:
Many HR professionals argue that the best assessment of job competencies (knowledge, skills and abilities) of any applicant can only be done by the members of the hiring team, especially the hiring Manger. Though there might be more competent people in the organization who can technically evaluate a candidate better, the assessment cannot be complete without the involvement of these primary stakeholders. The reasoning is simple, who can understand the tasks, responsibilities and work environment better than the actual team? They can easily map not only the candidate’s competencies, but also his/her capabilities (attitudes and attributes) to the job position and arrive at an informed conclusion whether the candidate will actually be able to assimilate properly into the team and become an engaged member. As the peers possess equal or equivalent competencies, as the candidate being interviewed, it is easier for them to judge these candidates most objectively, making it a much easier task for the hiring Manager to identify and select the best ones. Hence logically this should be the adopted strategy for most hiring’s, especially for all the critical positions.
The Bad:
Unfortunately the opponents of the peer interview concept are many as well! If done objectively, peer interview makes sense. However are all interviewer’s objective and neutral or does their emotions also play a part? Observations show that during peer interview the interviewer(s) often end up comparing the competency and capability of the candidate with their own. A candidate considered to be “too smart” is often sensed as a threat to their own position or future promotion/movement in the organizational hierarchy. On the other side, a candidate considered “average or below average” are sometimes recommended for hiring, as they are perceived to be less of a threat going forward. In fact I have personally observed in one of the peer interview in which I was sitting as an observer that the interviewer got into an unnecessary heated argument with the candidate on an answer to a certain technical concept. Instead of listening to the candidate’s justification to the initial response to his question, the interviewer started presenting his own solution and made the candidate go into a defensive retreat. On paper the candidate was a complete fit with the job description and job specifications. He had also secured high scores in his aptitude and technical tests, however going by the interviewer’s assessment the candidate was considered to be “not a good fit” for the role and rejected. Fortunately based on my observation a second opinion was taken by two organizational experts, who were not part of the hiring team, and the candidate was selected on merit.
Critical Analysis:
The success of any candidate becoming assimilated to the organization and an engaged team member lies collectively with the Manager, HR (through Employee relations and engagement activities), the Organization (Management style, Policies, Processes etc.) and the peers or team members. The importance of the latter to organizational success is often overlooked; however it still remains one of the key factors in talent management. Making the peer group a stakeholder in the hiring process automatically makes them the gatekeeper for all potential talent coming into the organization. Hence if the selection process is compromised even a little bit; it can have long term consequence for the organization. In a peer interview even if the interviewer remains originally neutral, their peer group pressure can influence their decision to accept or reject candidates who do not fit their internally valued team norms or standards.
The Solution:
Based on these facts, should Peer interview be scrapped? Not really, there are simple yet effective ways which can help in leveraging the strength of peer interviews while controlling the negative factors. Some of the possible solutions are:
1) No pre-screening of candidates by peers – once a candidate is found to meet the qualifying criteria by the recruitment team, his/her resume should be forwarded only to the hiring Manager for initial discussion/evaluation. There should be no peer evaluation at this stage, as sensitive data like compensation, academic scores, certifications etc. can create a bias prior to the interview.
2) Have a clear interview dos and don’ts – for example the peer interviewer(s) should only limit their questions to technical or functional areas. These interviews should not be used as a “show of knowledge” sessions, but rather on listening to the candidates critical reasoning and answer to these questions.
3) There should at least be one neutral person – a peer should never be allowed to interview a candidate alone. A person from other team, ideally a senior or even HR, should sit in the interview to ensure that the assessment is done fairly and objectively.
4) Never have the same peer interview all candidates for a position – this will help in balancing any interviewer bias and ensure better evaluation of candidates. It will also help in load balancing, as the peer interviewer’s also have other work priorities.
5) When rejections are high go for a second opinion – if the rejections exceed 10 straight candidates, then something is obviously wrong in either the screening of candidates or the peer interview. The first check should be with the latter and an identified organizational expert should reassess the rejected candidates to ensure that the grounds of rejections were genuine. Based on his/her feedback corrective action needs to be taken.
6) Counsel, Coach and Train peer interviewer(s) for better interview experience of candidates – to maintain an organizational brand as an employer of choice, it is essential that all candidates are treated fairly and with respect. All first time peer interviewers should go for orientation training by HR on “Interview dos and don’ts.” Refresher programs can also be designed based on feedback given by other organizational stakeholders.
Conclusion:
With the changing organizational dynamics, peer group interviews are here to stay. However it remains a double-edged sword based on how effectively it is implemented. Used in the right way it can help the organization find the right talent. However if not done properly it will ensure that the organization remains mediocre at best, which can have disastrous results for any organization in the long term. Hence it is essential that it is critically evaluated (for improvement) and periodically audited (for compliance) to ensure organizational hiring effectiveness and efficiency is not compromised.
This article has been published in the March 2013 edition of HR News & Views - http://www.rda.co.in/hr_news_views.html
Comments
Post a Comment