In my career, I've been through quite a few interviews; some have gone well, a few have gone poorly, and a handful have left me downright puzzled. To be sure, I'm not the world's best interviewee; thinking on my feet is not my strong suit and I tend to lock up under pressure. As a result, I feel I may have missed out on a few opportunities for which I thought I was qualified and well-suited because of a poor interview, and I know I'm not the only one. In fact, people regularly lose out on opportunities not because of a lack of ability or aptitude, but because of poor interview practices and simply succumbing to the pressure of the moment. That said, a new trend is emerging (pioneered by the IT industry) that has the potential to rectify this issue for good... but at a high cost.
The problem that every recruiter faces is that they have to accurately gauge a candidate's ability to perform a job, compare him/her to others, and ultimately decide which one(s) to hire. This is particularly difficult in the IT industry, where technical skills are vitally important but difficult to measure in a traditional interview. To address this, some companies are experimenting with an approach that I call "trial" hiring.
In trial hiring, a company will simply hire an applicant for a "trial" period in lieu of performing a formal interview. During this trial period (typically two weeks), the candidate in question will perform his/her job as normal while being evaluated by a manager. At the end of this trial period, the manager will make a decision on whether or not to hire the candidate permanently. As you can see, the idea (and the benefit) is clear; candidates get to show off their skills doing real work (as opposed to submitting to an arbitrary and potentially inaccurate technical examination), giving the prospective employer a good idea as to whether or not they would be a good fit while also allowing the candidate time to develop a feel for the workplace (making it easier he/she to decide if that is the right place for them).
A downside of this approach is that for the trial period, the candidate is unpaid. Companies don't want to invest capital in unproven quantities and definitely don't want unqualified candidates signing on for a quick paycheck (especially if the position is a particularly lucrative one). However, on the other side, the candidate is giving up a full two weeks of his/her time to perform full-time work for which he/she will not be paid. This could be a deal breaker for many candidates who simply can't afford such an arrangement; traditional interviews typically take no more than a few hours and yield a definite yes/no answer within a day or two, but the trial hiring approach essentially stretches that process out for the duration of the trial.
Additionally, there may be a situation where multiple candidates are being evaluated simultaneously for a single position; in this case, each candidate is essentially in competition with one another for the job. The kind of competition could foster a "Survivor"-like environment that would not be beneficial for the candidates or the company (I've seen this firsthand in IT consulting). For example, the candidates, under pressure to win a position, might elect to work harder than normal and to do so at an unsustainable pace; in the end, they might be giving their future employer an inaccurate reading on their potential for long-term productivity and/or cause themselves to "burn out" (that is, to lose interest in a job and look for opportunities elsewhere), in addition to all of the other ill-effects that accompany excessive work under stressful conditions. Furthermore, candidates in this situation may also become actively hostile and attempt to "sabotage" one another by making unwarranted negative or damaging statements regarding a candidate or actively disrupting a candidate's work; Such actions can tarnish a company's reputation and drive away quality talent (see this article written about Amazon in the New York Times).
Personally, I'm split on the idea of trial hiring. On one hand, I do like the fact that candidates get to perform real work to demonstrate their skills and thus have a greater hand in determining the outcome of the process. However, the time and compensation loss is a tough pill to swallow, not to mention the unpleasantries that could ensue should a candidate find himself/herself in a competition with others for the same position. To help mitigate these two drawbacks, I would recommend that companies offer at least some compensation for the work performed during the trial period (a single check at predetermined percentage of the regular rate for the position, for example) and that companies also avoid placing more than one candidate at a time on trial for a single position (to keep from forcing candidates into direct competition with one another).
In the end, is trial hiring right for corporate America? The strategy has already elicited strong opinions on boths sides of the argument (for both moral and practical reasons), but it is still far from mainstream. Ultimately, as with all practices, the effect of trial hiring on the bottom line will provide the clearest indication of it's future in business.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Trump Card
With Super Tuesday behind us and another 595 delegates awarded, Businessman Donald Trump looks to be unstoppable in his quest to become the Republican Party's nominee for the 2016 Presidential Election. Currently, Trump holds commitments from 319 delegates, almost a hundred more than the next closest candidate. Polls currently have Trump ahead in most of the upcoming primaries/caucuses, including the crucial March 15 contests of Florida and Ohio; wins in those two states could virtually guarantee Trump the nomination.
Many in the Republican Party are concerned about the implications of a Trump candidacy both for the party and the nation; his eccentricities and character flaws are well-documented (so I won't bore you with rehashing them here), and most Americans not directly supporting his candidacy harbor a highly negative opinion of him. This has brought into question his ability to win enough "mainstream" support to win a general election, as well as the impact he will have on the image of the RNC going forward.
In this unfamiliar scenario, three questions come to mind: What, exactly, has led to Donald Trump's rise to prominence? What mistakes did the other Republican candidates make that allowed Trump to obtain the mantle of frontrunner? And what can be done now to prevent Trump from winning the nomination? I'll explore each of these questions and present my answer for each one.
From Novelty to Frontrunner
For all of his shortcomings, Donald Trump has one thing going for him: He has a larger-than-life persona. Whether it's because of his multi-billion dollar business, his reality TV show, or his foray into politics, everyone knows Donald Trump. However, I think the more interesting question is this: What does he represent? What does a New York City jet-set billionaire have that makes him so appealing to the American blue-collar Average Joes that they will turn out in huge numbers to support him?
Simply put, many Americans are upset. They're upset with the economy, where low-skill jobs that offer middle-class wages are quickly disappearing. They're upset at the state of the world, where the threat of terrorism is at its highest point in years. And they're upset with the government, which has been stuck in political gridlock for years. These same Americans see Donald Trump as the answer to these issues, an outsider who isn't afraid to clean house and make the bold moves that'll get the country running again without regard for political expediency (as opposed to the other candidates, who ostensibly represent the status quo). After all, why wouldn't someone who possesses the acumen to build and run such a successful business empire on sheer force of will be a good fit for President of the United States?
Misunderestimated
At the beginning of the race, the other Republican candidates didn't see Trump as being a serious threat. After all, they were the established figures in the party and he was a political newcomer who had to pay people to attend his campaign announcement! How could anyone take him seriously as Commander-in-Chief? In fact, you could see this dismissive attitude toward Trump in the early debates where the other candidates scarcely acknowledged his presence and instead took potshots at the Democrats and one another. In retrospect, this was a missed opportunity to cut Trump down to size early.
In addition, the fracturing of the Republican field hasn't helped. Trump's support comes mainly from those looking for an "non-establishment" candidate and he has rallied almost all of those voters behind his campaign. However, the non-establishment supporters are still outnumbered by the "establishment" supporters; should these voters rally behind a single candidate (like the non-establishment voters have done for Trump), then that candidate would likely win the party's nomination. The problem is that there were/are quite a few establishment candidates and each have been hesitant to drop out; Rand Paul only dropped out after Iowa, Chris Christie didn't drop out until after New Hampshire, Jeb Bush waited until after South Carolina, and John Kasich's campaign is still active.
While these candidates haven't won many delegates, they have kept support away from Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, the two who could conceivably defeat Trump one-on-one. Had the Republican candidates who knew from early on that the nomination was unwinnable dropped out then, more support would have been opened up to rally behind a non-Trump candidate.
No Lead is Safe
As imminent as a Trump candidacy looks now, it still isn't a foregone conclusion. Many elements of the Republican Party are strongly opposed to him and he still needs to win over 900 additional delegates to clinch the nomination. In addition, Cruz and Rubio had strong performances on Super Tuesday (Cruz winning Oklahoma, Texas, and Alaska, and Rubio winning Minnesota), which could be a telling sign that Trump's campaign can be defeated. Should the remaining non-Trump candidates win enough delegates to prevent Trump from clinching the nomination before the convention, this would force a "brokered" convention.
In the event of a brokered convention, the delegates are free to vote for whichever delegate they choose. In this scenario, the delegates who were previously pledged to candidates other than Trump will need to coalesce around a single "alternative" candidate to defeat Trump. Since it is understood that in this scenario the non-Trump delegates will outnumber the Trump delegates and the non-Trump delegates will be unlikely to support Trump, this would effectively give the nomination to the alternative candidate (likely Cruz or Rubio).
In conclusion, while Donald Trump's rise to the front of the RNC race has been remarkable (for better or for worse), the fact is that it's the stresses that today's world has placed on everyday Americans that have helped put him there. In addition, missteps by the Republican establishment early in the race allowed Trump to shore up his support build a lead to the point where he's nearly unsurpassable. However, all is not lost: Trump can still be defeated and there are still many more primaries/caucuses yet to take place. Should the Republican candidates (and their supports) play it smart from here on out, there is a possibility that they could Dump the Trump.
Many in the Republican Party are concerned about the implications of a Trump candidacy both for the party and the nation; his eccentricities and character flaws are well-documented (so I won't bore you with rehashing them here), and most Americans not directly supporting his candidacy harbor a highly negative opinion of him. This has brought into question his ability to win enough "mainstream" support to win a general election, as well as the impact he will have on the image of the RNC going forward.
In this unfamiliar scenario, three questions come to mind: What, exactly, has led to Donald Trump's rise to prominence? What mistakes did the other Republican candidates make that allowed Trump to obtain the mantle of frontrunner? And what can be done now to prevent Trump from winning the nomination? I'll explore each of these questions and present my answer for each one.
From Novelty to Frontrunner
For all of his shortcomings, Donald Trump has one thing going for him: He has a larger-than-life persona. Whether it's because of his multi-billion dollar business, his reality TV show, or his foray into politics, everyone knows Donald Trump. However, I think the more interesting question is this: What does he represent? What does a New York City jet-set billionaire have that makes him so appealing to the American blue-collar Average Joes that they will turn out in huge numbers to support him?
Simply put, many Americans are upset. They're upset with the economy, where low-skill jobs that offer middle-class wages are quickly disappearing. They're upset at the state of the world, where the threat of terrorism is at its highest point in years. And they're upset with the government, which has been stuck in political gridlock for years. These same Americans see Donald Trump as the answer to these issues, an outsider who isn't afraid to clean house and make the bold moves that'll get the country running again without regard for political expediency (as opposed to the other candidates, who ostensibly represent the status quo). After all, why wouldn't someone who possesses the acumen to build and run such a successful business empire on sheer force of will be a good fit for President of the United States?
Misunderestimated
At the beginning of the race, the other Republican candidates didn't see Trump as being a serious threat. After all, they were the established figures in the party and he was a political newcomer who had to pay people to attend his campaign announcement! How could anyone take him seriously as Commander-in-Chief? In fact, you could see this dismissive attitude toward Trump in the early debates where the other candidates scarcely acknowledged his presence and instead took potshots at the Democrats and one another. In retrospect, this was a missed opportunity to cut Trump down to size early.
In addition, the fracturing of the Republican field hasn't helped. Trump's support comes mainly from those looking for an "non-establishment" candidate and he has rallied almost all of those voters behind his campaign. However, the non-establishment supporters are still outnumbered by the "establishment" supporters; should these voters rally behind a single candidate (like the non-establishment voters have done for Trump), then that candidate would likely win the party's nomination. The problem is that there were/are quite a few establishment candidates and each have been hesitant to drop out; Rand Paul only dropped out after Iowa, Chris Christie didn't drop out until after New Hampshire, Jeb Bush waited until after South Carolina, and John Kasich's campaign is still active.
While these candidates haven't won many delegates, they have kept support away from Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, the two who could conceivably defeat Trump one-on-one. Had the Republican candidates who knew from early on that the nomination was unwinnable dropped out then, more support would have been opened up to rally behind a non-Trump candidate.
No Lead is Safe
As imminent as a Trump candidacy looks now, it still isn't a foregone conclusion. Many elements of the Republican Party are strongly opposed to him and he still needs to win over 900 additional delegates to clinch the nomination. In addition, Cruz and Rubio had strong performances on Super Tuesday (Cruz winning Oklahoma, Texas, and Alaska, and Rubio winning Minnesota), which could be a telling sign that Trump's campaign can be defeated. Should the remaining non-Trump candidates win enough delegates to prevent Trump from clinching the nomination before the convention, this would force a "brokered" convention.
In the event of a brokered convention, the delegates are free to vote for whichever delegate they choose. In this scenario, the delegates who were previously pledged to candidates other than Trump will need to coalesce around a single "alternative" candidate to defeat Trump. Since it is understood that in this scenario the non-Trump delegates will outnumber the Trump delegates and the non-Trump delegates will be unlikely to support Trump, this would effectively give the nomination to the alternative candidate (likely Cruz or Rubio).
In conclusion, while Donald Trump's rise to the front of the RNC race has been remarkable (for better or for worse), the fact is that it's the stresses that today's world has placed on everyday Americans that have helped put him there. In addition, missteps by the Republican establishment early in the race allowed Trump to shore up his support build a lead to the point where he's nearly unsurpassable. However, all is not lost: Trump can still be defeated and there are still many more primaries/caucuses yet to take place. Should the Republican candidates (and their supports) play it smart from here on out, there is a possibility that they could Dump the Trump.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)