From time to time, you need to make a key hire to achieve your nonprofit's mission, and that sometimes requires the services of an executive search firm who specializes in nonprofit executive placement.
Your organization's reputation in hiring not only affects who you can recruit, but also the level of compensation you must offer to land your top candidate. (Highly reputable organizations can typically offer lower salaries.) And for job seekers, the reputation of their current organization is a significant factor in how future employers perceive them.
Far too many employers get tangled up in defining their job descriptions. In particular, one common mistake is the belief that if one person had a particular set of skills, more people like them must exist. In other words, your star employee Karen had a particular set of skills, so there must be "another Karen" out there in the market---someone that could perfectly fit the Karen-shaped hole she left behind.
Let’s start with what happens to Monster. This deal is doomed. As famed investor Warren Buffet once observed, "When a management team with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for bad economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact." Monster is a business with a reputation for bad economics (as employers spend less money on Monster and more money on job aggregators like Indeed and social media sites like LinkedIn.) That's why it could be acquired for only $429 million, down from a peak market cap of nearly $8 billion.
If you are one of the few organizations still posting jobs with Monster, what does the Randstad acquisition mean for you?
Hiring requires you to make decisions about people you don’t know particularly well. But people-evaluation is prone to pitfalls. Although most people trust their own assessments of candidates, extensive research shows that we’re just not that good at it. We give too much credit to the individual and not enough credit to the work environment. (Pro tip: If you want to get better at hiring, you need to learn from your mistakes and stop blaming the candidate. Most people don’t understand all the factors that led to their success. Every time you hire someone and they disappoint you later, you just might have missed something in the hiring process.)
Big data in hiring is all the rage, but don’t be fooled into thinking that big data is just for Silicon Valley technology companies or large organizations. The use of data and science to make management decisions benefits small organizations every bit as much as large firms. The only difference is the higher amount of press coverage large firms get for their innovative HR decisions.
Too many people forget the key to a great interview: what the interviewer remembers about you.
The vast majority of what happens in any given interview is pretty forgettable...for the interviewer. As the candidate, you have one experience of the interview question. When the interviewer asks about your greatest weakness and you cleverly reframe a strength by saying, "Gosh, Jim, you know sometimes I work too hard." You probably feel like you nailed it.
When you're looking for a new job, an interview offer is exciting. It's a chance to make your case for why someone should hire you. Sadly, most people are terrible at doing so.
Some executives mistakenly think of hiring as an HR function. But hiring cannot be thought of as solely an HR issue, as something separate from the "real work" of the department. Whenever a new hire fails to make a significant business impact, it is a business problem.
The hiring process seems familiar to most managers. Everyone has been through the process. It seems like hiring should be simple---everyone involved wants the same thing. Executives want to hire the best people. Candidates want a job where they can be successful. Everyone wants a recruiting process that accurately predicts performance on the job...and yet hiring is often disappointing.