So often we see businesses who are having difficulties hiring the right people and one reason is the start of how they assess candidates.
Imagine a hiring system where you don't even need to look at a resume, but you do get to find out about the return you would get on that investment, and whether it would be a wise decision.
Usually when someone applies for a position they send their resume which is usually written in a particular way to match automated resume matching systems or try to impress the hiring manager.
You will see comments including "I'm enthusiastic, a quick learner, autonomous..." We know, there is usually only one or two things we are really interested in when we read resumes and even those may not be true or maybe embellished to impress you.
But imagine....
A system where a resume comes in and the system automatically sends out questionnaires to a person, and the answers to that questionnaire tells us what the potential of production is for this person without needing to check a resume.
It provides an accurate potential return on investment for this person. This tends to be the most overlooked aspect of hiring which is dangerous because it can cost you both directly and indirectly, and steer your organisation in the wrong way.
For example, 100 candidates will apply, 100 questionnaires will be sent and approx. 80 - 90 responses come back. We will see that the return on investment for a few people is extremely high and for some others it's actually going to cost us a lot more because we can identify those who are below the zero productivity line.
We have that system. The first step whenever trying to screen or assess somebody is "can they add value to your organisation? Is there potential for that?"
BE SELECTIVE
If there is no potential for a person to add value to your organisation, why would you ever consider to take on that investment in your time and money? This is the very first step.
This is how Performia reverses, and to some degree revolutionises the whole screening and candidate selection process.
Traditionally, the first area that is looked at is 'knowledge', which is training and experience. However, training / experience does not make a person productive. I remember reading a few years ago that more than half of the one hundred richest people under 40 years old did not finish university.
In fact more than half of them didn't even finish high school. They just had an idea, they had motivation and they had a compelling purpose and the skills to be able to inquire and learn things so they could become successful. These are the core things that make a person productive – not their training or their experience.
If a productive person gets trained and gets experience they become even more productive.
This is why we're not interested in experience until really much further down the track when we have gone through 1 - 200 applicants and found the 2 or 3 that come up with the highest potential return on investment.
And when I say investment - you are investing in this employee. You pay them a salary each week and usually for the first one week to one year they may not start producing value, so you could invest as much as $100,000 in an employee before you start to get a return on them.
ONE VITAL QUESTION
One question you should ask is "how much time, money and resources do I need to invest in someone compared to how much value they will create for the business?"
If you look at any successful organisation, that return on investment ideally should be more than 10 x, meaning, you will pay the person $100K a year and they return to the company $1 million. That is what we're looking for.
This is a target - This, is the strategy.
The way to achieve this is to reverse your hiring flow.
- Ceo Negar Riazati, Performia Australia -
Comments