People Thrive, Companies Thrive Podcast: Low unemployment and what that means for hiring

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

This is Don Schuler certified trainer and business consultant at the shooter group with the people thrive companies thrive podcast. Few days ago. I saw something on social media either Lincoln or a line -able with the question. The low unemployment rate that the US in general is currently experiencing. Do you take candidates who are perhaps a seventy percent fit versus a ninety percent fit? That is your goal in has been your aim over time. I thought that was a really interesting question. And I don't recall if we're ever this was posted at there was a a forum for people to respond, and you may have your own answer to that. I certainly have our own answer from here the shooter group, so let me restate this. You have to hire low unemployment rate. So there's there's a lo- candidate pool. Do you hire somebody at a seventy percent fit for the company for the seat versus ninety percent? There's pros and cons to each. Right. If you decide to stick to your guns and stick to the ninety percent. Well, it might take longer to find that candidate. Who is that ninety percent fit? If you stick it out and you do find that ninety percent candidate. Well, then you've got much more likely to have the right person in the right seat, which means decrease employee turnover. More engagement, more productivity improves, the culture, at least contributes, positively to the culture, all those wonderful fabulous things. If you go with the seventy percent than perhaps you can hire more quickly. But then the downside is you're going to start to run into problems because it's not an ideal match. They may think seventy percent, that's a majority. Yes. Seventy percent when I was in school that was barely passing sixty nine was failing. So seventy is barely passing to see at the C minus is that. Okay. Do you wanna see minus employees? Because that's really what we're looking at. We're looking at a C, minus employees. Why why are they a C minus where they seventy percent for all sorts of reasons we are proponents of the right person in the right seat? Right person means that that person's values aligns with that of the organizations. The right seat means that person's skills experience fits what that job description calls for want. Both you want the person who is able to do the job and aligns with the organization's values. If you have seventy percent that means you don't have that fit. Something's off either in the right person side with the values alignment or in the right seat side with the skills and experiences. Or both. So if if there's a thing of like a leak, you don't have the right person there's going to be a leak. If the right person's not in the right seat. There's going to be a leak, and that could look like dysfunctional communication, even toxic relationships. Wasted time lowered productivity more time spent training. If you if you are the one who has to train that person they're taking more time to train will then that takes you away from the work that you're supposed to be doing. So there's wasted time in lowered productivity on your end as well. You can probably guess where I come down on that question. I believe you waited out and. Wait for that ninety percent candidate. Now, you may be saying, but we need people right away. There are alternatives for that. There are staffing agencies temp agencies. If you need somebody to do the work, and it's not possible or or logical for other people in the organization to take on the work of the the empty seat. Then get a temp in. There we worked with a CPA firm hill was trying to hire a senior accountant, and they didn't find the right person. And so they discussed it do we just hire anybody who can you know, who can hopefully do the job. Because we it's it's getting to be tax time. We we need somebody or do we do we find other alternatives? They chose to find other alternatives. So they're counting temp agencies. They hired a freelancer who had her own business to help them part time. So they short term fix the problem by having a temporary person to fill the seat to do the work. And that right. There is the piece that might click for you. If they hit taken the seventy percent candidate that might look like they were solving the problem long term because if they brought in temporary that the short term solution. But actually if they brought in seventy percent. Fulltime employees. They're actually not creating a long-term solution. They're creating a long term problem. And that is why I believe wholeheartedly in. It's what we coach and consultant train our clients on is that whole hire the right person in the right seats. Make sure you're you've got a recruiting process that weeds out those seventy percent are candidates. Make sure you've got a great on boarding and mentoring and training programmes set up. Get them involved in the culture of the organization as quickly as possible all those things because what we know we've seen it we've experienced it. Our clients have seen and experienced it is when you don't have the right person in the right seat, it creates long term problems. And you don't want that. So now, let me ask the question again in this era where unemployment is relatively low, which means our candidate pool is not as full as we'd like it to be. And you have to hire. Do you go for the seventy percent or do you go for the ninety percent? Do you wait and go for the ninety percent? You're really looking at short term solutions versus long term problems. And I can't stress that enough. And that isn't that a great way to look at it. I I mean, honestly, isn't that a great way to look at any situation. I've done a couple of different episodes on being proactive versus being reactive reactive looks like short term solutions, but can actually cause long-term problems. What other situations in your organization that you've tried to solve challenges and issues and problems that you've tried to solve where the solution was actually just a short term solution and caused a long term problem. That's what we hear to Shula group. Do we help provide long term solutions? So that your organization thrives. I'd love to hear your thoughts though. I think there could be an interesting dialogue on that seventy percent. Versus ninety percent where you come down on that where you would decide to higher and also as you look back over your staffing history, your employees history. Looking at the people who weren't good fits perhaps are no longer there. Was that was that a lot did that did having them in that position? 'cause a long term problem that didn't end until they were gone when you've had the right person the right seat. That cause long-term solutions because all of those those things that could be leaky that we talked about at the beginning are no longer there. Long term solutions. Are part of what makes organization thrive? So until next time may you and your entire organization thrive.

Coming up next