By Art Osten, Jr.

In the March 2014 issue of PM magazine, with a little help from my management peers, I wrote about improving the recruiting process (“A Guide to Better Recruiting”). During a recent stint as an interim village administrator, after first removing myself as a candidate for the position, I coordinated the village administrator hiring process and was able to test the ideas I had set forth in that article.

A “Model” Process

The 2014 article laid out a model recruiting process in four steps: identify key needs, mind the “recruiter’s cut,” use an evaluation checklist, and be considerate of applicants. Here’s what happened when I put the four steps into action:

1. ID key needs. This step included defining the position’s duties and applicant characteristics being sought; discussing the “do’s and don’ts” of recruiting with elected officials; providing the hiring body with selection criteria; and then helping it define and discuss its subjective reflections of the candidates interviewed.

In this administrator recruitment, the village president had private sector recruiting experience and the village board followed his and my lead, so a “how-to-recruit” discussion wasn’t felt to be necessary.

I did present a draft job description, position advertisement, selection criteria, and questions to ask for the board’s review and comment. All were tailored to the organization’s specific needs, including any personal characteristics that board members felt were important.

2. The recruiter’s cut. The nature of the beast dictates that a majority of applicants in any search won’t make it past the all-important recruiter’s cut. A community and position profile was not prepared for this job because it was deemed important for applicants to do their own research.

Plus, the basics about the community and organization were available online; however, the website and the help-wanted ad could only say so much about the organization’s particular needs.

I was surprised by how few applicants, even experienced managers, asked me what I perceived to be the key issues and needs facing the organization prior to applying or being interviewed. This information would have helped them determine whether they were a good fit for the community. It also would have helped them tailor their cover letters and prep for an interview.

3. The evaluation checklist. The village president collaborated with me to select the candidates to be interviewed. A detailed evaluation checklist of eight key characteristics with descriptors and space for comments, plus a summary rating sheet with all the interviewees’ names, were provided to the board for the interviews.

(Note: To this was added, at the mayor’s request, the results of an e-mail inquiry sent to potential interviewees asking their previous three salaries, minimum acceptable salary, likely start date, and relocation plans for those from outside the area.)

The officials said these sheets were extremely useful in helping them think about what they were looking for in a candidate, but they weren’t able to be used for formal scoring due to the short amount of time between candidate interviews, as well as being distracted by the ensuing discussions about the candidates. They did make their own notes during the interviews.

In hindsight, I should have allowed more time between interviews and then provided a hard copy of each candidate’s checklist sheet to each of the board members. This would have generated more discussion about a candidate and helped avoid the semi-awkwardness of candidates crossing paths between interviews.

I sat in on all the interviews but only offered my opinion when asked during post-interview discussions.

4. Be considerate of the applicants. Receipt of each application was quickly acknowledged by a brief e-mail that included a thank you and a promise to keep each person updated.

Those not selected for an interview were sent a short e-mail summarizing the general criteria used to determine who was selected and inviting them to call me as the process coordinator if additional constructive feedback was desired.

Throughout the interviews, candidates were invited to ask questions. This helped generate the two-way dialogue critical for both parties in determining how well they fit each other’s needs. Immediately after the interviews, I provided my impressions to each candidate who asked. After discussions with the selected candidate were completed, the mayor called and thanked those not selected.

I sent a follow-up e-mail reiterating our appreciation and offering to provide additional feedback to those who wanted to call me. Phone conversations made it possible to better understand and respond to inquiries for constructive feedback and avoided the potential of written comments being used against the village.

One valuable takeaway from this recruiting process was the candidates’ comments. They expressed their appreciation for being kept informed, for the constructive feedback, and for the considerate way they were treated. The mayor’s thank-you call to those not selected was especially lauded.

To my chagrin, I wasn’t always able to follow my own recruiting guide. The real world of time constraints got in the way as I was managing the organization at the same time. The model, however, proved itself a helpful guide—used to the extent that circumstances permitted—and it resulted in the selection of a good fit for the organization and for the candidate.

My experience confirmed the validity of the model process discussed in the 2014 PM article. I hope readers can use and be part of similar efforts directed toward better recruiting.