One of the most commonly discussed topics at any gathering of small businesses is the hiring and retaining of good employees. We can all agree that strong, loyal employees can really push an organization over the top. Conversely, lackluster employees can drag your business down like an anchor. No one seems to have a magic bullet for this perpetual challenge, but I have noticed that the manner in which certain companies conduct their employee interviews seems to have a bearing on employee longevity. It all boils down to this: Are you hiring for a position or are you recruiting a team member?
Like many things we do in life, this question is all about perspective. To the untrained eye, the end result is the same. We have a new person on the payroll. This is where the similarities end. Hiring and recruiting are two very different actions. The difference comes in how we conduct ourselves during the interviewing and screening process.
When we hire for a slot, we tend to think in terms of how the new candidate will benefit the company. We have a need. They are here to fulfill that need. In return for fulfilling that need, we grant them some level of compensation.
Since we are hiring to fulfill a need, we also tend to look at the process as a negotiation. Companies stuck in the hiring mentality will look to get new employees at the lowest possible wage with respect to experience. Again, the prevailing mentality is: What can this person do for me? Companies that follow this philosophy are often unsatisfied with their entry-level employees and have a difficult time moving them up in the progression of the company. You can’t build a solid bench without a solid foundation. During the interview process, I often see people asking the person to discuss his/her past employment and what kind of skills he/she acquired along the way. This hiring mentality places all of the emphasis on the candidate selling himself/herself to the company and focuses heavily on the resume or a set of pre-scripted questions about historical information. Again, the prevailing notion is that it would be some sort of privilege to come work for the hiring company.
Look, I have been to a lot of companies out there and their entry-level jobs are not too glamorous. Should they really be surprised when they have to settle for candidates from the lower end of the employable pool?
To improve the caliber of the entry-level candidate, first change your perspective on the new employee process. Recruiting is the antithesis of hiring. A recruiting mentality requires the organization to sell its benefits to a prospective candidate. Companies tend to do this when they are hiring for upper-level positions, but struggle with bringing this mentality down to hiring for entry-level positions.
In most cases, the entry-level position in a distribution company is in the warehouse. This is the place where all of the money is stored. Why not try to get the best and the brightest watching over this asset? I bet if they were protecting real money—tens, fifties or hundreds—they would have a different mentality. Those who want better results should look at how they conduct the interview process for entry-level candidates.
.jpg)
When I was recruiting for my family business, I spent most of the time selling the opportunity. I talked about the culture of the company, the progression in the operation, the benefits we could offer and how the position could be a career rather than a job. I asked about a few things that popped out on the resume, but they were clearly not the focus of the interview. My goal with every candidate was to have him/her leave the interview hoping to become part of our company. I am proud to say that many of the entry-level people I recruited during that time are still with the company and in key management positions.
The first step toward recruiting has to be reviewing what you have to offer. I would suggest bringing a few people together to talk about why they like working for the company. Be sure to get a cross-section of employees with different job levels and responsibilities. Their contributions will help you solidify your value proposition to the candidate. This sounds a lot like what we do for prospective customers, doesn’t it? Distributors can sell. It’s what they do best. This is just a sales job to a different audience.
Although I had a good run of success by employing the recruiting mentality, I could have taken the process one step further. I recently started looking at some employee testing and screening programs. These can range from simple questions determining aptitude or the ability to learn or more complex questionnaires that help to uncover personality traits. Used in conjunction with recruiting, these can help a company determine the best path for a new employee. I have lost really great inside people because we didn’t help foster opportunities beyond the outside sales position. I challenge you to look at these systems and see how they could augment your process.
Beyond the recruiting process, companies need to develop a culture of continual employee development by providing opportunities for employees to improve both professionally and personally. I often hear managers complain about investing so much time in developing someone and then having them leave the company. Employees are not indentured servants. They can go elsewhere—even the competition. I was taught early in my career that a manager’s job is to have employees leave better than they came in.
We are responsible for the effort; the end result was up to someone else. I know that this is not always an easy concept to adopt.
Many of us are still stuck in the belief that entry-level people are lucky to have a job with us. I want to challenge that notion and state that we are the lucky ones to have them supporting our success. Distribution companies are made up of hardworking people who rise to the challenge they are given. It is our responsibility to show them what we can offer them.