An interview technique that takes most of the guesswork out of hiring; a delegating trick from the "Best Mayor in America"
Alan Pedersen was looking to improve his interviewing and hiring techniques, not write a corporate philosophy. But that is exactly where he had to start.
Pedersen, the 27-year-old president of Healthcare Affiliates Inc., in eastern Pennsylvania, hadn't yet had major trouble with his hiring, but saw potential problems in his senior staff's interviewing style. "They weren't asking the right questions," he says."They used the 'halo effect.' If they saw themselves in the person, someone who dresses nicely and has a good personality, they'd hire. They weren't placing enough emphasis on the candidate's prior work history."
He searched for a way to train his employees, wanting to avoid the high turnover and union problems that infest the health care industry. Since 1982, Pedersen has bought three "long-term healthcare facilities" (a term he prefers to "nursing home" because some of his patients are young convalescents), and he manages another. In all, he employs just over 200 people. A few months ago, he confided his concerns about his company's haphazard interviewing style to the awyer who negoiated the labor contract at his only unionized site.
It so happened that the lawyer's firm -- which specializes in labor management -- was selling a remedy. The firm, Pechner, Dorfman, Wolffe, Rounick & Cabot, markets a system aimed at taking the guesswork out of interviewing. In addressing the most critical hiring issues -- defining the job and assessing the candidate's ability to do it -- the method converts a subjective exercise into a reasonably objective tool.
"Most problems arise in companies because they hire the wrong type of person," says Stephen Cabot, the Philadelphia-based senior partner in charge of the program. "Corporate America's mentality is, 'I'll hire now and if it doesn't work out in 30 days, I'll fire.' The starting place has to be, What are you looking for?"
Cabot's three-step solution begins on that note. He first requires clients to define their corporate philosophy. "I invariably get cute phrases straight from their guts," he says."But it's important for them to make a formal commitment to what they stand for." He asks clients to articulate the keys to their company's success and how they would reward employees for helping meet corporate goals. The result is a formal statement, signed by members of the management team.
Alan Pedersen's philosophy springs from a fundamental goal of providing quality health care at a fair price. That can be achieved, his statement reads, only through the efforts of employees with "ability, patience, personality, and character" who are "meaningfully involved in their work." He promises that his company will treat each worker as an individual with unique feelings, concerns, and aspirations, and that "each individual here is free to express himself honestly and openly and communicate with all levels of management." The document goes on for several pages, spelling out the firm's commitment to long-term job security, competitive pay and benefits, and cooperative working relationships.
In step two of Cabot's employee profile system, management is asked to identify the qualities of its ideal employee. Responses can vary widely from business to business, says Cabot; aggression, for example, might be valuable in a reporter but a serious liability in a loan officer. When defining Healthcare Affiliates' ideal employee, Pedersen's staff came up with such words and phrases as "goal-oriented," "traditional values," "respectful," "flexible," and "trusting of authority" as desirable traits; they listed "confrontational," "inflexible," "restless," and anti-establishment" in the undesirable column. Both extremes reflect Pedersen's desire to build cooperative teams headed by administrative supervisors and nurses and supported by nursing, dietary, and housekeeping aides.
As the final step, Cabot's firm develops a series of interview questions keyed to the desirable-employee profile that has emerged from steps one and two. Some deliberately repetitive questions are included to double-check important attitudes.In addition to the questions, the client gets a list of anticipated responses and a guide to their interpretation."I've found that you can ask the best questions," says Pedersen, "but if you don't know how to judge the answers, it means diddly."
Seeking to gauge attitudes toward authority, for example, Healthcare Affiliates interviewers ask would-be aides, "What role should your supervisor play?" Some candidates tip their negative prejudice by responding, "Supervisors do nothing but sit behind a desk, while we do all the work." The preferred response is more along the lines of, "I like working with supervisors who will consider a subordinate's points of view even if they disagree."
To guard against interviewer biases, Cabot suggests that each candidate be interviewed at least twice. When Pedersen meets with people, they have already passed muster with the supervisor to whom they would report. Midway through the session, Pedersen hands them a copy of the company philosophy and asks them to read it."I tell them that this is how we treat our employees and how we expect to be treated in return. Their reaction is important," he says. Pedersen generally won't hire anyone who skims the material and hands it back without a word.
Designing and interpreting questions can be quite complex, Cabot says. Even within a single company, questions may differ significantly depending on the position to be filled. Geography can also be a factor. For example, one question on performance evaluation, developed for a national retailer, was, "Would you rather be judged individually or as part of a group?" New Yorkers stressed individually, while the company's Texas workers gave more conservative, team-centered responses. In interpreting these answers, the regional differences had to be taken into account.
