I received a call from a small (but growing) business client last week about the lead candidate for a critical customer-facing position that they needed to fill.
The candidate (who had been laid off from their last position and unemployed for nearly a year), had done very well in their interviews with the company's leadership team. The last step was a final interview with the CEO, during which the CEO planned to extend the employment offer.
The candidate never showed up for the final interview. Nor did they call or email in advance to cancel the final interview. Nor did they respond to subsequent phone calls or emails from the company. For two weeks. (And at this writing, still no word from the lead candidate. Obviously, they're no longer the lead candidate, and the company is better off learning this now rather than post-hire.)
The company's hiring manager was a bit shocked, to say the least; until their recent growth trend, this particular company has not done a great deal of hiring on a regular basis. "The candidate was great, we wanted to hire them. They did say they would need some minor surgery before starting the position with us, but we were fine with that. And then, when they didn't show up for the meeting with the CEO -- or didn't call or email to cancel the meeting --- or didn't call or email us back when we followed up to see what was wrong -- well, that was weird. Is that normal?"
It's not normal; it's rude; and it's bad business, particularly in a local (and recovering) economy like SmAlbany where you never know who knows you or the company hiring authority who's interviewing you -- it's more like 2 or 3 degrees of separation rather than 6, and your reputation is core to the product -- you -- that you are marketing and hoping that a hiring authority will purchase.
However, in the last 10 years or so, I've seen candidate finalists who progress to the phone or face-to-face phase of the interview process do the exact same thing more and more: they don't call, they don't write -- they just drop off. I say the last 10 years or so, as I first noticed the trend as a hiring authority around the Y2K hiring frenzy with IT candidates, when there were jobs aplenty and companies were competing furiously for candidates by constantly upping the hiring incentive ante with dueling hiring bonuses, etc. (Those days will return with the next economic uptick cycle!)
Now, in my role as an HR Director, I've certainly run into situations when bad luck strikes both candidates and employees, incapacitating them to the point of being unconscious / missing in action and therefore temporarily unable to communicate -- however, those are the very rare exceptions. (In July 2001 for example, when my son decided to change my plans and make his appearance via C-section at Albany Med, I was at the ready on my cell phone with my friend and mentor Patty while in labor to ask her advice, which was to get off the phone and listen to the doctor.)
When an employee goes missing in action, it's almost always a message that the employee no longer wants to work for the company but doesn't know how or doesn't want to resign gracefully. It's either fear, passive aggressive behavior, or usually both.
And when a candidate goes missing in action, it's (obviously) almost always a signal that the candidate is not interested in pursuing a position with the company, but for some reason they do not know how to say proactively and professionally something as simple as "I'm pursuing a position with another company that better meets my career interests and needs; thank you for taking the time to consider me as a candidate." Great reputation management with that simple phrase. Best to communicate that message to the hiring authority in person or on the phone, but an email with the same message, while not as effective, is at least better than radio silence.
We've all experienced in a dating situation (or vicariously through recent pop cultural references) the "They're Just Not That Into You" behavior, when the person you're interested in dating just stops calling, emailing, texting and does not respond to your calls, emails and text messages. It's rude, it's hurtful, and frankly, demonstrates a lack of courage, authenticity and emotional intelligence.
Whatever you do in your personal life clearly is your prerogative. The "They're Just Not That Into You" behavior however does not translate at all well in a business transaction, which absolutely includes the interview process. Here is where interviewing is not like dating at all: the company or the hiring authority will not experience hurt feelings by a candidate's professional and proactive declination; they will just move on to the next most qualified candidate.
But if you just drop off -- if you don't call or write -- that company probably will never consider you again as a candidate. And if that company (perhaps you didn't care for the company and didn't want to work for them anyway) happens to be consulted by one of their fellow hiring authorities on your candidacy with another company in the future (and it does happen more frequently than you realize), the hiring authority will share their negative experience with you as the candidate who dropped off unprofessionally. That's where the business -- and ultimately, your career and economic success -- transcends any personal that may be attached to the interview process on the part of the hiring authority.
I also have a theory that candidates who engage in the "They're Just Not That Into You" behavior are responding (in not the most strategic manner, granted) to companies and hiring authorities who demonstrate the same behavior, especially to candidates who have progressed to the face-to-face interview stage and then are not selected as finalists or hired, and they never hear back from the company. (Well, in a sense, they do: in this case, silence means "no.") The ill-conceived rationale might be something to effect of: "Companies blow off candidates all the time; why can't I as a candidate take the same tactic?" Like I said, it doesn't quite make sense for either candidates or companies.
From a hiring authority reputation management standpoint, I subscribe to at least a phone call to let face-to-face and phone-interview candidates either know how they're progressing in the hiring process, or not (If you need advice or coaching on this as a hiring authority or as a candidate, I'm here to help). Runner-up candidates, on both sides of the interview table in my experience, often end up being hired in the future, or even more interesting, in a decision-maker role like customer. At the very least, companies who spell out the interview process in their email auto-responders or on their websites are at minimum setting the stage for candidates with regard to realistic communication expectations during the interview process.
I had a great experience during a phone-screen with a hiring authority, where we switched places at the interview table. "You hired me as an entry-level candidate over 10 years ago," the HR recruiter said. I chuckled at the SmAlbany factor. "I assume it was a good experience, since you called me for a phone-screen."
"Yes," they responded. "The hiring process was long and might have been more frustrating, but you called me every week to let me know that my candidacy was trending positively, and that I was a strong candidate, but that your company was not in a position to make a hiring decision until all the candidates were interviewed and assessed. It helped to keep me interested in working for the company."
In the interview process, reputation management can indeed cut both ways: the key is for both candidates and hiring authorities to proactively and respectfully manage that process, which will yield business and career wins that you cannot predict or imagine.
Have a great and prosperous week!
No comments:
Post a Comment