Don't make long-term hiring decisions using short-term information

Job-seekers are in a hurry to get another job, companies are in a rush to fill positions, recruiters have too much to do, and hiring managers aren’t fully engaged. As a result, all sides make critical hiring decisions using incomplete information, with short-term satisfaction often leading to long-term disappointment.
(Note: I'll be answering your questions at a special webcast on March 28)
A case in point: I received an email from one of my LinkedIn connections a few days ago. The person was in an HR trainee role for a European organization assigned to figure out why many of their new hires were underperforming, unsatisfied and leaving at an alarming rate. She specifically asked if there were other than financial motivators the organization should be considering as they hire new people. The solution I offered was based on something I learned long ago.
When I started out as a recruiter (30+ years ago), I quickly recognized that there was never enough money in the compensation budget to hire the best people. Rather than compromising on quality I decided to reframe the conversation. Job-seekers needed to evaluate the new job as a career move with a modest salary change, not a lateral transfer with a big compensation increase. In parallel, hiring managers had to be convinced to evaluate candidates based on their past performance and future potential, rather than on the possession of the skills and experiences listed in the job description.
If a job required someone who had X years of skills or experience in some area, I would ask the hiring manager to define how this would be used on the job. For example, if the new person needed 5+ years of logistics experience with hands-on experience using the Microsoft Dynamics AX business process system, the equivalent performance objective might be “within 12 months upgrade the entire inventory management and MRP system on a Dynamics AX platform.” When a job was defined this way, most managers were willing to see people who had done comparable work, even if they had a slightly different mix of skills and experience.
Every job has 5-6 performance objectives like this that represent the bulk of the work. I refer to this list as a performance-based job description. Using this as the benchmark there was at least a chance of a Win/Win.
To create the career opportunity I'd compare the person's past performance to what was described in the performance-based job description. (This is how the Two-question Performance-based Interview was developed.) The gaps could then be presented as a career move. For example, if the person hadn’t led as big a project or team, or was in a different industry, or wasn't using as much advanced technology, or didn’t have as much visibility, the job could be presented as more challenging, more satisfying and one offering more upside potential (of course this all had to be true and tied to specific evidence). Collectively, this "opportunity gap" then became the tradeoff for a modest financial increase.
I first started using this reframing process about 30 years ago when one of my candidates rejected an offer for a plant manager job. When I asked him why he was taking the other offer, he said the financial package was bigger, the company was closer to home, and he wanted a VP Manufacturing title rather than Plant Manager. Although stunned, I blurted out something like, “are you aware you just made a major long-term career decision using short-term data.” I then went on to explain how the job he was rejecting had more upside opportunity, the work itself was more challenging, reporting to the CEO was better than reporting to a VP Operations, and a 5% difference in compensation was insignificant since my client’s company was growing much faster. I then asked him to think it all over.
The candidate called me the next morning, profusely thanked me for getting him to examine both opportunities as a business decision rather than an emotional one, and accepted my client’s offer. Eight months later he called and thanked me again. He told me he was just named the VP Operations, earned a special bonus, and got a significant increase in pay.
In the rush to find a job or fill one, critical issues are often overlooked. To minimize this possibility, I suggest that candidates honestly ask themselves if the job is really one they want or are they just taking it for the money or some short-term convenience benefit. When long-term decisions are made based on short-term information there's bound to be disappointment in the long-term.