|
| Model for Win-Win Interviewing (Paper) The following paper by Professor Susan Eisner is revised from an earlier version of the paper presented at the 2004 Society for Advancement of Management (SAM) International Conference, and published in the Proceedings of that conference. This revision has been accepted by SAM's refereed Management in Practice for publication. (Note: The software for this webpage does not support tables. Figures and tables that appear in the published paper may not appear "boxed" or tabled, here, as a result; spacing within tables and the reference section may also be distorted.) ABSTRACT Research suggests that today’s hirers and candidates have a common interest in conducting effective employment interviews. In the cost-conscious global market, employers gain when they identify reliable, loyal, high performing candidates who will assimilate, produce, and remain once hired. In the competitive job market and uncertain economy, candidates gain when they identify durable, attractive, and comfortable employment that will reward their competitive advantage and propel them forward. The “Five C’s Model” presented in this paper provides a foundation for the mutual satisfaction of interviewer and candidate during the employment interview, to result in win-win outcomes. INTRODUCTION By many indicators, finding and keeping jobs have become a priority for the American workforce, and finding and keeping high producing workers have become a priority for American employers. There are about one million fewer United States (U.S.) jobs than there were three years ago, as outsourcing to countries with lower labor costs combined with new technologies impacts the workplace (Leonhardt, 2004). U.S. public opinion polls report widespread concern about the economy in general and jobs in particular. Only one out of three Americans report the economy as good or excellent (Jacobe, 2004, July 14), and almost half of Americans rank unemployment as the number one economic issue facing the country (Jacobe, 2004, February 10). Some one out of three Americans cite the economy or unemployment as the nation’s chief problem; together, these top the list of public concerns (Jones, 2004, June 15). Seven out of ten Americans say this is a bad time to find a good job (Hanway, 2004, March 2). The rising layoff rate is receiving particular attention by economists and media. In the twenty-three years that the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics has surveyed U.S. worker displacement, the 2001-2003 layoffs of 8.7% of adult jobholders is second only to the 9% 1981-1983 layoff record that it approaches. Jobs that re-employ today’s displaced workers tend to pay less than the jobs they lost (Uchitelle, 2004). Six out of ten Americans say that they know someone who was laid off or fired recently. Seven out of ten Americans say that, if laid off, they would have to find work within four months before experiencing significant financial hardship (Carroll, 2003). One out of five Americans worry that they or their spouse will lose a job within the year (Jacobe, 2004, February 10). Against this backdrop, the need for effective employment interviewing may be particularly timely. New college graduates face a tough job market (Jones, 2002, June 25). Job seekers face keen competition as they search for ever-scarce work in unpredictable times. Interviews are a primary method used by companies to decide whom to hire (Posthuma et. al., 2002). Coincidentally, it is in the interest of companies in this cost-conscious era to hire well. Competent and motivated employees drive organizational effectiveness (Allen et. al., 2004). High performing workers help companies keep labor costs down (Bloomberg.com, 2003). Additionally, the U.S. aDepartment of Labor estimates the price of replacing a new hire to be one-third of his/her annual salary (Bradley, 2003). An article in Workforce Management describes the resulting corporate imperative this way, “In a slow economy, no one can afford to make bad hiring decisions. Every failed hire causes companies to throw precious dollars down the drain” (Gale, 2003). Yet a Harvard Business School study finds that 75% of employee turnover is due to poor interviewing and hiring (Bradley, 2003). CONCERNED STUDENTS Tomorrow’s workforce is being educated in colleges today. The “Career Building” module is a staple of many business school courses and workshops, and is presented by many schools ranging from Harvard University to Rutgers University to Nassau Community College in additional forums ranging from for-credit classes to non-credit workshops to student-accessed websites. At the School of Administration and Business at Ramapo College of New Jersey, a four-year public college, Career Building was originally an afterthought in the undergraduate Management and Organizational Behavior courses. But student interest in career topics was so strong that we intensified their coverage in undergraduate and graduate Business Communication courses, created a Career Building one-credit course, and devised a Career Building Workshop for our Delta Nu Chapter of Delta Mu Delta National Honor Society. In teaching these sessions, we have found effective interviewing to be of particular concern to students. Relatively few students are confident when facing the prospect of being interviewed for employment. Moreover, a surprising number of students who are in a position to interview and develop others for employment are also unsure of themselves when on that other side of the table. Similar experience at Wellesley College suggests that the needs of Ramapo College students are not atypical. Wellesley College, a four-year private college correlated with high levels of alumnae career success, tends to offer a “Management Basics” program in the January session. At Wellesley, I originally presented Career Building as a brief insert when teaching the Business Communication session of Management Basics. Student interest in effective interviewing was so intense that we extended the Business Communication session to fully address Career Building concerns. Research confirms the legitimacy of attending to effective employment interviewing. One study reports that 80% of managers with hiring authority have had no formal training in choosing employees. This is particularly problematic since unstructured interviews conducted by untrained interviewers are estimated to have less than a 15% chance of selecting the best applicant for a position (Bradley, 2003). Academic literature and textbooks, practitioner publications and websites, and career services facilities abound with advice for those seeking to improve their interview skill. In consulting these sources, one can understand the confusion expressed by many students. On the one hand, job hunters are instantly privy to a wide array of career-related information. On the other hand, many are overwhelmed by the amount and variety of that information. A MODEL FOR WIN-WIN INTERVIEWING: THE FIVE C's In developing materials to support both student interests in this area and student need for synthesis, I have created a Career Building model that has been well received in classes and workshops. This model recognizes that successful employment interviewing is a process of mutual exploration through which interviewer and candidate determine whether their goals will be met by the interviewer’s decision to hire and the candidate’s decision to accept. It draws upon academic and practitioner literature detailed in the reference section of this paper. ABI Inform Complete (Proquest), Academic Search Premier (Ebsco), Extended Academic ASAP (InfoTrac), and Gallup Brain were the primary databases used to review 75 recent articles covering the subjects of employment interviewing, recruitment, selection, and hiring. Posthuma’s 2002 review of 278 studies on the employment interview published since 1989, coupled with Philip’s 1998 meta-analysis of realistic job previews, several works on testing (Talent-based hiring, 2004; Garrett, 2001; Flynn, 2002; Krohe, 1997), and representative on-line career websites and academic career center websites, provided particularly important foundation. From that compilation, it appears that a successful employment outcome centers on the interviewer and candidate being mutually satisfied on five “C’s:” capability, compatibility, commitment, contribution, and credibility. Response to its use suggests that this “Five C’s Model for Win-Win Interviewing” might be of interest to others who teach or train in this area, and so contribute to our field of Management. The first of the Five C’s is capability. Capability satisfies the “can do” aspect of effective career matches. The interviewer will seek to determine if the candidate is technically qualified, wanting to hire someone able to perform the job. Proficiency is to be investigated; that may include “if trained,” if the organization is willing and able to provide training. The interviewer, then, seeks to answer, “Is the candidate technically competent?” On the other hand, the candidate being interviewed will seek to determine what it takes to do the job, wanting to accept a position in which s/he can succeed. Ability to fulfill job requirements is to be assured; that may include “if trained,” if the candidate is willing and able to accept requisite training. The candidate, then, seeks to answer, “Am I able to do this job?” The second of the Five C’s is compatibility. Compatibility satisfies the “cultural match” attribute. The interviewer will seek to determine if the candidate’s norms are similar to those with whom s/he would be working if hired, wanting to hire someone with whom the chemistry is right. Ability of the candidate to work collaboratively in the organization, acclimate to its practices, and share its vision is to be investigated. The interviewer, then, seeks to answer, “ Will the candidate fit in?” On the other hand, the candidate being interviewed will seek to determine the norms of those with whom s/he would be working if hired, wanting to accept a position where s/he can be comfortable and appreciated when being her/himself. Parallel expectations with the organization regarding customs and core attitudes are to be investigated. The candidate, then, seeks to answer, “Can I be myself and be accepted here?” The third of the Five C’s is commitment. Commitment satisfies the “staying power” criteria. The interviewer will seek to determine if the candidate will remain with the organization at least as long as, and work at least for the number of hours and at the level that, the company wants. The interviewer wants to hire someone for the timeframe and with the productivity it has targeted. The candidate’s interest in the position and willingness to work intensively are to be investigated. The interviewer, then, seeks to answer, “Will the candidate stay, and produce?” On the other hand, the candidate being interviewed will seek to determine if s/he will be retained at least as long as s/he wants, and be able to work for the number of hours and at the level that s/he wants. The candidate wants to accept a position that will enable the job security and work-life balance that s/he has targeted. The organization’s expectations and plans regarding the position and the candidate are to be investigated. The candidate, then, seeks to answer, “Is there job flexibility and security?” The fourth of the Five C’s is contribution. Contribution satisfies the “value added” aspect of effective hiring. The interviewer will seek to determine what positive difference the candidate will make to the organization, wanting to hire someone who will add more than those who might have been hired instead. What the candidate will do for the organization – the candidate’s competitive advantage – is to be investigated. The interviewer, then, seeks to answer, “Will the candidate be a high performer?” On the other hand, the candidate being interviewed will seek to determine what positive difference that accepting this position will make to her/him. “What’s in it for me” is to be investigated. S/he will want to accept a position that will do more for her/him than positions that might have been accepted instead. The candidate, then, seeks to answer, “Will this job add value for me?” The fifth of the Five C’s is credibility. This satisfies the “believability” factor. The interviewer will seek to determine if there is anything significant that the candidate has not told. The organization wants to hire someone about whom all relevant information has been made available, and who can be relied on to be honest in the future. Full disclosure and character are to be investigated. The interviewer, then, seeks to answer, “Can we trust the candidate?” On the other hand, the candidate being interviewed will seek to determine if there is anything important that s/he has not been told, wanting to accept a position about which there are no dramatic surprises. Organizational transparency and reliability are to be assured. The candidate, then, seeks to answer, “Is there anything key they did not tell me?” Figure 1 summarizes the five attributes that win-win interviewing mutually satisfies: Figure 1: The Five C’s of Win-Win Interviewing Attribute - Interviewer Seeks -Candidate Seeks 1. Capability: Can do. Is the candidate technically able? - Can I do this job? 2. Compatibility: Cultural match. Will the candidate fit in? - Can I be myself and be accepted here? 3. Commitment: Staying power. Will the candidate stay, and produce? - Is there job security and flexibility? 4. Contribution: Value added. Will the candidate be a high performer? - Will this job add value for me? 5. Credibility: Believability. Can we trust the candidate? - Is there anything key they did not tell? APPLICATIONS The essential purpose of the Model for Win-Win Interviewing is to pull together recurring points, extract common thrust, and identify essential strategy from numerous sources to assist those seeking to improve interview effectiveness through focus and clarity. A recent survey of 2,000 recruiters and hiring managers identified 15 most frequently asked interview questions (Worthington, 2004). A search of representative on-line interview support sites found links to 28 topics at MSN Careers, links to 24 interview tips at Yahoo! hotjobs, and links to 21 topics at Monster Interview Center. Some 42 sample questions were at Harvard University’s Office of Career Services website, while some 58 sample questions were at Wellesley College’s career website. Figure 2 illustrates that the myriad of representative questions found on such sites conform to, and can be approached through, the Five C’s Model: Figure 2: Representative Interview Questions Illustrating the Five C’s Attribute - Questions 1. Capability: Can do. What strengths and weaknesses could you bring to this position? What problems have you encountered; how did you deal with them?What are the best and worst aspects of your last job? 2. Compatibility: Cultural match. In what kind of work environment do you do your best work?With what kind of people do you like to work?Describe your ideal job and boss? 3. Commitment: Staying power. What do you see yourself doing in five years?What other jobs/fields are you considering? How long do you plan to stay if you get this position? Will you travel/relocate? 4. Contribution: Value added. Why should we hire you?What makes you different from other candidates?What kinds of tasks and responsibilities motivate you the most? 5. Credibility: Believability. What do you know about our company? What would your former boss and colleagues say about you?Why are you seeking a job? Why did you leave your last job? Given the confusion expressed by students regarding the volume of readily available career-related information, it is not surprising that their feedback suggests the strategic component of the Five C’s Model to be particularly helpful. Using it, they no longer view an interview as an intimidating need to formulate or memorize answers to a seemingly infinite number of questions. Instead, the interview is perceived as a manageable and meaningful occasion to mutually explore common ground. Having clarified the attributes one should seek assurance on through the Five C’s, formulating questions becomes more approachable. Similarly, understanding the attributes the other interview party is seeking makes answering questions less daunting. Students, for instance, say they are less thrown by the “Where do you want to be in five years?” question once they understand that the questioner is seeking to determine a candidate’s commitment. Further, the advantage of creating a portfolio becomes clear when students understand that documentation demonstrates candidate credibility. Additionally, students are less likely to be de-railed if interview questions they had not anticipated are asked. Rather, they see each new question as a chance to provide answers that assure the interviewer on the Five C’s. The Five C’s Model can be used in classes or workshops in various ways. I have found it particularly effective in providing a framework for those formulating career materials (cover letter, resume, and portfolio) and preparing for the interviews that will follow. The Model appears to provide conceptual continuity that ties these various components together, orients them toward target purpose and audience, and strengthens their contents. Capability, compatibility, commitment, contribution, and credibility begin as a set of guidelines, and transform into a checklist for the career builder. As a result, students seem far less likely to wonder what information to include and how to present information that should be included. They have a strategic focus, and implementation appears to follow. A second application has been in assisting students who are formulating questions and answers when preparing to be interviewed for employment. Previously, I approached this by asking each student to list the five questions they most dreaded being asked in an interview and the answers they would give, the five questions they most hoped to be asked in an interview and the answers they would give, and the five questions they most wanted to ask in an interview and the answers they hoped to hear. After preparing these questions and answers, each student was paired off with another. The interview partner asked the student each question that student had written, and listened to that student answer the question. Following this, the students reversed roles. Mutual feedback was then exchanged. That process of practicing for interviews in student pairs was always welcome by students. The sessions were kinetic; energy levels were especially high. Students expressed a comfort level derived from working on this with peers that allowed them to disclose more fully than they might have if working with an authority figure. The relief they felt having conducted a “successful” interview was almost palatable. On the other hand, I was concerned that such confidence might be misleading. The employment interviews students were preparing for would in fact be conducted by authority figures. Moreover, most peers they were practicing with were not qualified to assess the questions and answers. To a trained eye, those questions and answers were inadequate. Using the Five C’s Model in such a setting has made it possible to maintain the positive dynamics and overcome the deficiencies. Questions and answers are now prepared to portray to the interviewer that the candidate possesses all five attributes the position seeks, and to assure the candidate that accepting the position will satisfy all five attributes their employment search seeks. After student pairs have exchanged questions and answers, the instructor enters the process. Students select questions and answers they would like to probe further with the instructor. The instructor responds first to the query as a consultant would. Subsequently, students and instructor again address the targeted questions. Now, though, the instructor simulates the role of interviewer. On the graduate level, this application extends to preparing students to conduct effective interviews, in addition to being effectively interviewed as candidates. The process described above continues in a second session. There the students simulate interviewers who prepare ten questions they would most like to ask of candidates and the answers they would most like to receive, five questions they would least like to be asked by candidates and the answers they would give, and five questions they would most like to be asked by candidates and the answers they would give. Again, student pairs seek satisfaction on each of the five attributes, followed by instructor intervention first as coach and then as the other interview party. In this case, the instructor simulates the candidate. A third application applies the Five C’s Model to a simulation allowing participants to role-play interviewer and candidate in a scenario familiar to them. If the participants are new to me, they are polled to determine an appropriate company and position opening. At Ramapo College of New Jersey, a scenario seeking to hire a customer service manager at a nationally known technology store located in a near-by suburban mall has worked well. At Wellesley College, textbook manager of the campus bookstore was chosen. Other workshops have selected venues ranging from trainer at a health club, to buyer at a major department store, to marketing manager at a video store. The only selection criterion is that participants must be somewhat familiar with the company and position vacancy that they select for their simulation. This simulation is enacted in groups of four students. One student will role play the interviewer, a second will role play the candidate, a third will serve as a coach-observer for the interviewer, and a fourth will serve as a coach-observer for the candidate. The simulation proceeds in stages. In the first stage, the interviewer and his/her coach-observer pair off and prepare for the interview; similarly, the candidate and his/her coach observer pair off and prepare. Next, the interviewer and candidate simulate the interview. The performance of each is observed and assessed by his/her coach, who uses the Five C’s as analytic criteria. Then, the interviewer recommends to the coach-observer whether or not to hire the candidate; the coach-observer agrees or disagrees, using the Five C’s. Simultaneously, the candidate recommends to the coach-observer whether or not to accept the job if offered; the coach-observer agrees or disagrees, using the Five C’s. Finally, each coach provides feedback to the person about the interview performance observed. Again, the Five C’s are the criteria. Having completed the simulation, each student reports to the class one observed strength s/he possesses, and one observed characteristic identified for improvement. The atmosphere is supportive. All are engaged. Learning is clear to all. Many request the opportunity to explore the Five C’s even further. If time allows, the simulation is reenacted with students switching roles. OTHER ARENA The applications described above are designed primarily for classroom or workshop use. The literature suggests that the Five C’s Model may be equally helpful for employers interested in preventing the costs associated with ineffective hiring. All too often, the absence of strategic orientation by interviewers results in rater errors such as projection, stereotyping, halo effect, and contrast. Subjective gut reaction to a candidate replaces distinct criteria, and personal liking replaces objective assessment (Williams, 2003). Research increasingly points to resulting flaws in candidate selection. One such article states, “Companies don’t make hiring decisions on the basis of the candidates’ responses to interviewers’ insightful questions, but based on some indefinable quality they evoke when they enter a room” (Job Interview Myths, 2002). Of the Five C’s, capability may be the criterion most frequently applied, as the description for the job being interviewed for should include technical requirements. Versed with that knowledge, interviewer and candidate have a concrete basis upon which to formulate questions and assess answers. Additionally, companies who use testing as part of the selection process commonly measure candidate ability to perform specific job-related skills (Krohe, 1997), and can pursue in the interview areas of interest suggested by test results (Prengamen, 2001). For their part, candidates in today’s increasingly electronic career world have wide access to industry standards and expectations, in addition to a given position description. As a result, interviewers are more likely than ever to be supplied with a comprehensive list of candidate achievements. Recognizing this, Stern pointedly advises candidates to “Write long: The one-page resume is passé. The most effective resumes today are loaded with specific information, and if that takes five pages, so be it. Include buzzwords, software programs and acronyms of your field, and the kinds of projects you’ve completed. If you’ve ever saved an employer money or helped fix a problem, say so. No padding, though. Fudging is out in the post-Enron era” (Stern, 2003). The credibility attribute, then, may be particularly timely. A study by the Society for Human Resource Management found three-quarters of the respondents feeling that reference checking is becoming more important. At the same time, though, only one-third to one-half of the respondents said that they would give reference information about employees. Careful interaction with a candidate during the interview may serve to close that gap between hirer’s desire to know and information’s unavailability. Querying a candidate about claims made on the resume may surface contradictions and facilitate clarification (Edwards and Kleiner, 2002). The value of credibility is further seen in that candidates who come through personal referral tend to outperform and be more loyal than others. Through that process of referral, the candidate has already been screened and identified as one the organization will want to consider. Moreover, having “likely got the straight scoop on the company” from the referring party, the referred candidate tends to have a more realistic view of the target job (Veverka, 2003). Realistic job previews (RJPs) offer an additional route to delivering the benefits of credibility. Informing applicants of both positive and negative aspects of a job prior to employment tends to enhance the applicant pool through appropriate applicant decisions to self-select out of the process, and to enhance post-hiring outcomes by inoculating against negative reactions through provision of realistic expectations. Meta-analysis of RJPs indicate they tend to lower turnover, decrease hiring and training cost, and raise performance of the hired applicant (Phillips, 1998). RJPs communicated face-to-face, by an interviewer, are attended to more by a candidate, and perceived as more relevant and credible, than RJPs presented in writing (Allen et.al., 2004). An additional impetus for determining credibility is the assertion by Choi and Kleiner that resumes are increasingly flawed as a predictor of successful employment. They point out that resumes are frequently written for, rather than by, candidates, and that resume quality does not correlate with success of a candidate once hired (Choi and Kleiner, 2003). The importance of determining credibility is also evidenced by increased concerns about interviewer errors due to candidates being ever-more skilled at impression management. Interview materials and training not only prepare candidates to answer questions substantively; they also help candidates to convey likability through tactical presentation. Research suggests that impression-management behaviors such as “self-promotion” and “playing hard-to-get” may contribute to interview error by positively inflating the interviewer’s rating of the candidate (Posthuma et. al., 2002). It is not uncommon for candidates to exaggerate accomplishments, motivation for doing the job, and interest in the position; deficiencies and other interests may be withheld. Ralston and Kirkwood conclude, “Many applicants have learned all the tricks of impression-management strategies that can easily mask their personality qualities. When we assume that the behavior of the applicant at the interview reflects his or her true personality and behavior in other settings, we take a major leap of faith” (Ralston and Kirkwood, 1999). The significance of the mutual commitment attribute also appears to be timely. Research shows that employee satisfaction and productivity depend on a strong sense of loyalty to the company and a belief that the company reciprocates (Hanway, 2003, September 2). Furthermore, loyal companies are associated with lower worker stress levels. As higher stress levels are associated with increased health problems, absenteeism, and turnover, demonstrated organizational commitment may contribute to reduced costs and higher productivity. Such commitment may be of particular strategic value, then, given current widespread concerns about economic conditions and unemployment (Brooks, 2003). Mutual compatibility, a fourth C, lies in the fit between organization and candidate on the unwritten cultural rules that contain their guiding principles and values. Daly reports, “These values determine everything from who gets rewarded to how the work gets done… Each type of culture can be productive and satisfying, depending on the worker. One who thrives in one culture may find another problematic … The trick is to focus on your own preferences and find out which culture fits” (Daly, 2004). Research consistently points to the importance of compatibility. Posthuma’s review of the employment interview literature finds a key interview objective to be determination of whether a candidate fits with the interviewer’s perception of the organization. He describes that process as one in which the interviewer tends to assess the candidate’s values and personality, and then assess the candidate’s fit with organizational culture and values (Posthuma et. al., 2002). Candidates’ perceptions of organizational culture, in turn, influence their employment decisions and job performance (Cable et. al., 2000). Those who sense a better fit with the organization are more likely to be attracted to it (Allen et. al., 2004). Additionally, the growing interdependence of workers as workplaces become more team-based heightens the value of compatibility; organizations become vulnerable where interpersonal tensions interfere with generating products and services (Crabtree, 2004). Compatibility may be particularly relevant when interviewing younger workers. Although some may feel that Gen Y and younger Gen X workers will require major changes in office culture, Gallup’s 2003 annual Work and Education survey suggests that concern to be a misperception. Attitudes and norms of workers aged 18-29 are reported to be similar to those of workers 30 and older. Today’s workers share a strong sense of loyalty to their companies, and work a similar number of hours. Younger workers are at least as satisfied with both their supervisors and the recognition they receive for their accomplishments as older workers are, and are as satisfied as older workers with retirement and health insurance benefits offered by their companies (Saad, 2003). The fifth C, contribution, is equally important. As Ganzach reports, “The most salient concern for a candidate during the recruitment phase is caring that she will make a decision that will serve her own needs and interests” (Ganzach et.al., 2002). Bradley points out the benefits employers gain by hiring those who will make a positive difference to the organization. She explains, “If you want top quality employees, there’s no substitute for making good hiring decisions, which not only strengthen the organization, but also reflect well upon you.” In addition to reducing the often significant costs resulting from employee turnover, she links effective hiring with improving the company’s bottom line through increased productivity, enhanced customer relations, and high morale resulting from having added high performers (Bradley, 2003). The quintessential “Tell me a little about yourself” question seeks to ascertain if a candidate will add that value. Straits expresses the significance of the contribution attribute clearly: “There are two dominant reasons why job seekers are successful in the job search. The first is focusing on the needs of the organization. The second is focusing on the needs of the people within the organization” (Straits, 2004). RESOURCES The Model for Win-Win Interviewing is intended to provide an organizing framework within which the complex processes of employment decisions proceed, for those who find such focus helpful. It does not intend, and should not be used, to overlook or oversimplify the intricacies intrinsic to such decisions. Researchers have long detailed the many social, cognitive, individual difference, measurement, and outcome influences on hiring efficacy. Hirers and candidates seeking to maximize the impact of such factors may find Posthuma’s recent review of that literature valuable when constructing strategies targeting specific aspects of interviewer-applicant similarity, applicant fit, verbal and nonverbal behavior, impression management, decision-making, pre-interview impression, confirmatory bias, appearance, demographic characteristics, training, personality, recruiter behavior, attributes measured, applicant reactions, and interview purpose (Posthuma et. al., 2002). Many companies grappling with the difficulties of effective hiring are including pre-employment tests in their selection practices. Various tests have been designed to identify germane attributes of a candidate ranging from personality and behavioral style, to aptitude and job-related skills, to work ethic and leadership ability. An estimated one out of two companies with 300 or more employees uses some type of pre-employment screening test. Costs can range from a low of $3 per candidate for a mass-produced test that assesses style, to $2500 plus consultant expenses for a tailor-made leadership instrument designed and administered by consultants (Buchanan, 1999). Companies who have used such testing include GE, Motorola, Dell Computer, AlliedSignal, GTE, DowChemical, and Pioneer Hybrids (Krohe, 1997). Gallup is one organization that designs and operates such tests. Its instruments derive from a process in which characteristics and talents of relevant top performers are identified. Job candidates are then surveyed to identify those who match those success factors (Talent-based hiring, 2004). Audi is a company that turned to Gallup for help in identifying candidates consistent with its brand and customers – that is, compatibility. Len Hunt, Vice President for Audi America explains: “We aren’t just looking for good technicians or good salespeople, we are looking for good Audi technicians and salespeople – employees who empathize with the company’s identify and, therefore, empathize with the customer.” He says that such employees outperform others and are more likely to stay with the company, which saves the company turnover costs and furthers customer service. For Audi, Gallup constructed an instrument based on talents of top-performing Audi dealers. Success traits identified and tested for included ability to develop relationships with customers, individualize rather than typecast customers, and empathize with customers not comfortable with mechanics. The result? Audi’s sales worldwide reached all-time highs last year, and net profits rose an average of 8% at dealerships with its “brand-sympathetic staff” (Garrett, 2004). Such pre-hire testing is an example of the resources available to organizations seeking to formulate and find specific aspects of the Five C’s relevant to a search. Pre-hire testing appears consistent with a contemporary business trend to rely on statistically significant data rather than subjective judgment. Experts tend to recommend, however, that such tests be used to supplement traditional employment practices rather than take their place. Krohe explains, “Even the more comprehensive test batteries won’t tell you everything about a person. By themselves, neither personality profiles, cognitive tests, or simulations are perfectly predictive, although any one of them probably offers more dependable clues to future performance than does any traditional measure. The wise firm will not replace one type of pre-hiring assessment with another, but will use all of them to achieve the most comprehensive portrait of each candidate possible…The critical thing is that they can’t be used for more than one third of the decision at best” (Krohe, 1997). His observation is affirmed by Posthuma’s findings that the interview’s interpersonal nature allows it to assess central applicant characteristics not easily measured by other means, and that candidates react more positively to selection interviews than to testing since interviews allow the applicant to see job-related results (Posthuma et. al., 2002). CONCLUSIONS Research suggests that today’s hirers and candidates have a common interest in conducting effective employment interviews. A recent Towers Perrin survey of 1300 organizations around the world underscores the importance of optimizing contemporary hiring. It concluded that companies are going into “growth mode” in which finding, keeping, and motivating highest performing employees are top priorities worldwide (High-performing companies have switched focus, 2004). In the cost-conscious global market, employers gain when they identify reliable, loyal, high producing candidates who will assimilate, produce, and remain once hired. In the competitive job market and uncertain economy, candidates gain when they identify durable, attractive, and comfortable employment that will reward their competitive advantage and propel them forward. The Five C’s Model provides a foundation for the mutual satisfaction of interviewer and candidate during the employment interview, to result in win-win outcomes. Academic research points to the operational presence of the Five C’s. Buda and Charnov, for instance, specify the employment need to match abilities with job requirements - capability, fit organizational climate and culture – compatibility, optimize retention - commitment, fulfill wants and needs - contribution, and provide realistic information – credibility (Buda and Charnov, 2003). The relevance of the Five C’s Model for interviewers is echoed by career expert Richard Bolles. He advises that interviewers could hypothetically ask a candidate thousands of questions, but that those questions ultimately boil down to a few: 1) What are the candidate’s accomplishments, 2) Will the candidate fit in, 3) Why is the candidate here, 4) What can the candidate do for us – what makes him/her different from the others – can we afford the candidate, and 5) What evidence is there of the candidate’s past record (Bolles, 1999)? The first of these questions targets capability, the second targets compatibility, the third targets commitment, the fourth targets contribution, and the fifth targets credibility. The viability for candidates of the Five C’s Model is mirrored by a recent article in Career World. It describes the employment interview as a “two-way street” in which candidates who come through are prepared with the right questions and ask them. Candidates are advised to determine: 1) What the company seeks in an employee, 2) Whether there is a personal fit with the company, 3) The company’s strengths, needs, and potential concerns, 4) If the job is right for them, and 5) All about the job (Sherman, 2004). The first of these areas recommended for inquiry targets capability, the second targets compatibility, the third targets commitment, the fourth targets contribution, and the fifth targets credibility. The Five C’s Model, then, should help interviewer and candidate determine if they are going in the same direction. Through its application, both parties may be able to prevent the unwanted costs associated with collision, and to ascertain whether they should drive forward together. REFERECES Allen, David G., Van Scotter, James R., & Otondo, Robert F. (2004, Spring). Recruitment communication media: Impact on prehire outcomes. Personnel Psychology. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from ProQuest database. Bloomberg.com. (2003, June 4). U.S. first-qtr productivity rises at 1.9% annual rate, update 1. Bloomberg L.P. Retrieved February 15, 2004, from http://quote.bloomberg.com/news. Bolles, Richard .(1999, March 7). What color is your parachute? San Francisco Chronicle & Examiner. Bradley, Elizabeth. (2003,July/August). Hiring the best. Women in Business 55 (4), 12 (4). Brooks, Deborah Jordan. (2003,September 17). Job stress: A price of success. The Gallup Organization. Retrieved January 29, 2004, from Gallup Brain database. Buchanan, Jean. (1999, October). Pre-employment testing. Office Systems 16 (10), 14 (4). Buda, Richard, & Charnov, Bruce H. (2003, Fall). Message processing in realistic recruitment practices.Journal of Managerial Issues. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from ProQuest database. Cable, Daniel M., Aiman-Smith, Lynda, Mulvey, Paul W., & Edwards, Jeffrey R. (2000, December). The sources and accuracy of job applicants’ beliefs about organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal. Retrieved July 12, 1004, from ProQuest database. Carroll, Joseph. (2003, May 7). Six in 10 Americans know someone recently unemployed. The Gallup Organization. Retrieved January 29, 2004, from Gallup Brain database. Choi, Soon, & Kleiner, Brian. (2003). Effective employment screening practices. Managerial Law 44 (1-2), 62-68. Crabtree, Steve. (2004, June 10). Getting personal in the workplace: Are negative relationships squelching productivity in your company? The Gallup Brain. Retrieved July 22, 2004 from http: institution, gallup.com. Daly, Kay. (2004, January). Watch out for culture shock. Career World 32 (4), 26 (3). Edwards, Rex M., & Kleiner, Brian H. (2002). Conducting effective and legally safe background and reference checks. Managerial Law 44 (1-2), 126-150. Flynn, Gillian. (2002, June). A legal examination of testing. Workforce 81(6), 92(2). Gale, Sarah Fister. (2003). Putting job candidates to the test. Workforce Management 82 (11), 90 (17). Retrieved January 29, 2004, from Ebsco database. Ganzach, Yoav, Pazy, Asya, Ohayun, Yehudit, & Brainin, Esther. (2002, Autumn). Social exchanges and organizational commitment: Decision-making training for job choice as an alternative to the realistic job preview. Personnel Psychology. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from ProQuest database. Garrett, Jill. (2001, June 15). The human side of brand. Gallup Management Journal. Retrieved June 4, 2004, from http://gmj.gallup.com. Hanway, Steve. (2003, September 2). Do layoffs affect worker’s loyalty? The Gallup Organization. Retrieved January 29, 2004, from Gallup Brain database. Hanway, Steve. (2004, March 2). Women more skeptical than men about finding jobs. The Gallup Organization. Retrieved July 22, 2004, from Gallup Brain database. High-performing companies have switched focus. (2004, January). Work & Family Newsbrief. Retrieved July 12, 2004 from InfoTrac database. Jacobe, Dennis. (2004, February 10). Is job creation a presidential obligation? The Gallup Organization. Retrieved July 22, 2004, from Gallup Brain database. Jacobe, Dennis. (2004, July 14). What’s the outlook for “back to school?” Gallup News Service. Retrieved July 14, 2004, from www.gallup.com. Job interview myths. (2002, March). Journal of Accountancy 193 (3), 104. Jones, Jeffrey M. (2004, June 15). About 6 in 10 Americans dissatisfied. Gallup News Service. Retrieved July 22, 2004, from http://institution.gallup.com. Jones, Jeffrey M. (2002, June 25). Seeking jobs and finding pessimism. The Gallup Organization. Retrieved January 29, 2004, from Gallup Brain database. Krohe, James Jr. (1997, November/ December). Beyond appearances. Across the Board 34 (10), 18 (6). Leonhardt, David. (2004, August 7). Slow job growth raises concerns on U.S. Economy. The New York Times, p. 1. Phillips, Jean M. (1998, December). Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational outcomes: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from ProQuest database. Posthuma, Richard A., Morgenson, Frederick P., & Campion, Michael A. (2002, Spring). Beyond employment interview validity: A comprehensive review of recent research and trends over time. Personnel Psychology. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from ProQuest database. Prengamen, Thomas. (2001, January 26). E-testing: New High-tech twist on hiring good people. Business First-Columbus 17 (23), 29. Ralston, Steven M., & Kirkwood, William G. (1999, April). The trouble with applicant impression management. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 13 (2), 190-207. Saad, Lydia. (2003, October 14). Are young employees harder to manage? The Gallup Organization. Retrieved January 29, 2004, from Gallup Brain database. Talent-based hiring. The Gallup Organization. Retrieved on June 4, 2004, from http://gallup.com. Sherman, Marilyn. (2004). Questions are us: What to ask at a job interview. Career World 32 (4), 20 (2). Stern, Linda. (2003, February 17). New rules of the hunt. Newsweek 141 (7), 67 (2). Straits, Don. (2004). Tell me about yourself. MSN Careers. Retrieved February 16, 2004, from http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Custom/MSN/CareerAdvice/Interviewing. Uchitelle, Louis. (2004, August 2). Recent layoff rate was highest since early 1980’s. The New York Times. Retrieved August 3, 2004, from http://www.nytimes.com. Veverka, Amber. (2003, April 2). Combination of posting resumes online, networking best ways to find a job. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Williams, Marie. (2003, Summer). How to hire good people. Personnel Psychology, 55 (2), 551-553. Worthington, Michael. (2004). Top 15 job interview questions. ResumeDoctor.com. Retrieved February 16, 2004, from msn.careerbuilder.com/Custom/MSN/CareerAdvice. |
|