Category Archives: Diversity

Favorite Firing: Do Not Terminate a Disabled Employee Without a Reasonable Accommodation Dialogue


EEOC sealBack in May 2016, Lowe’s, the home improvement store giant, agreed to pay $8.6 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the EEOC over Lowe’s firing of many individuals with disabilities when they exceeded the maximum amount of disability leave Lowe’s provided. The problem, as the EEOC saw it, was that Lowe’s failed to engage in reasonable accommodations beyond the standard disability leave policy. See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Lowe’s Companies, Inc., et al., C.D. Ca., Case No. 2:16-CV-03041-AB-FFM.

The Facts: This lawsuit began with three charges of disability discrimination filed by three employees of Lowe’s back in 2007 and 2009. These three plaintiffs alleged that Lowe’s violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by terminating their employment when their medical leave of absence exceeded Lowe’s 180-day (later extended to 240-day) maximum leave policy. The plaintiffs claimed that failure to engage in any discussion about further accommodations beyond the maximum leave violated the ADA. They wanted extended leaves of absence as a reasonable accommodation.

The EEOC agreed with the plaintiffs and also claimed that thousands of other Lowe’s employees were in the same situation. The EEOC ultimately filed a lawsuit in the Central District of California, the terminated Lowe’s employees were found to be a suitable class, and the case proceeded as a class action.

It was settled in May 2016, and the Court approved the settlement on May 12, 2016. (A copy of the Consent Decree can be found here.) Lowe’s admitted no wrongdoing, and the Consent Decree is not an admission. However, the company did agree to settle the lawsuit for $8.6 million and also consented to comply with a variety of non-monetary provisions. Lowe’s agreed to contact the terminated employees in the class and pay their damages out of the $8.6 million fund, as calculated by the EEOC, and to donate the remainder (if any) to non-profit organizations benefiting the disabled.

Lowe’s also agreed to amend its policies so that it would “engage in the interactive process with any employee with a disability who requests leave as a reasonable accommodation.” And the company agreed to retain Equal Employment Opportunity consultants approved by the EEOC for four years. These consultants will advise on policies, track all requests for accommodation, and educate managers on their duties under the ADA.

The Moral: There are few bright lines when it comes to working through disability situations. If an employee requests an accommodation, the employer ignores that request at its peril. A firm policy regarding leaves of absence is no longer a firm policy—exceptions must be at least considered if the employee claims to be disabled and to need more time away from work.

When the ADA was first enacted in 1990, I worked with managers to parse through how to simultaneously comply with disability leaves, worker’s compensation laws, absence policies, and the like. The situation grew even more complex with the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. I used to tell managers to stack up all the applicable laws and policies like slices of Swiss cheese. Only if an employee’s situation fit in gaps in every layer could the employee be discharged with minimal risk.

What the Lowe’s case shows is that some of the legal layers have no gaps—all employees requesting a reasonable accommodation should at least be given consideration, and an employer cannot have a blanket rule prohibiting certain accommodations. The EEOC will not accept any mandatory maximum leave policy.

The Lowe’s case is also interesting because of the broad relief granted pursuant to the Consent Decree. The provisions in the Lowe’s decree are the types of relief that the EEOC is likely to seek in every disability case it decides to take to court. Employers should consider whether and when accepting these types of interference in their business are worth disposing of a lawsuit, particularly a large class action case of the type that Lowe’s faced. It doesn’t take a loss in court to cause upheaval in the business; settlement can also be onerous.

It is best, therefore, to avoid as many lawsuits as possible. Therefore, engage in an interactive reasonable accommodation dialogue, document that engagement and all options considered, and be clear on why the employee’s requested accommodation is not reasonable and would constitute an undue hardship on the business.

When have you dealt with a difficult reasonable accommodation case?

Leave a comment

Filed under Diversity, Human Resources, Law, Management, Workplace

Bad Networking Advice to Young Women Professionals & Seven Better Ideas


gear-67138_1280A young woman I’ve been mentoring for a few years told me about a women’s professional forum she recently attended. She is not the type who sees gender issues in every office interaction, and, in fact, she didn’t have much interest in attending this women’s forum.

I come from an earlier generation. As a young female attorney thirty years ago, I was glad of opportunities to speak with older women about how they had handled problems in the workplace and in balancing work and home activities. I appreciated the stories they told of how they coped—with clients, with colleagues, with managers.

The working world is a (mostly) easier place for women now than thirty years ago. But I still believe there is a need for senior women to mentor more junior women. We can all benefit from hearing how people like us have survived and thrived in difficult circumstances—and every career has its share of difficult circumstances.

But some of the advice given at women’s forums is appallingly bad. At the conference my young friend attended, there was a session on networking. Many of the young women in attendance expressed their discomfort with the small talk that networking requires and wanted to know what to talk about.

What were they told? Compliment the women on their hair and shoes; talk to men about sports.

Why would senior women perpetuate this stereotyped view of men’s and women’s interests? Why would experienced women professionals tell their younger colleagues to focus on women’s appearance?

It so happens that my friend is a better athlete than most of her male peers. It so happens that if men were given similar advice—talk to men about sports and women about hair and shoes—they would risk charges of sexual harassment.

Why are we still segregating men and women with the advice we give them?

Here are some much better conversation openers:

1. When meeting someone at a conference, ask what they thought of the last speaker. Or if the introduction takes place before the sessions begin, ask what they hope to get out of the conference.

2. Ask if they’ve ever been to this location before—depending on the circumstances, you could ask about the city, the hotel, or the conference center. Then ask follow-up questions about what they like or dislike about the venue.

3. Try to find shared experiences with the person you are trying to speak with. You can use their clothes as a clue—if you are a runner, ask a person in running clothes if they know of a good running route in the area. But I wouldn’t comment on the “cute top” they have on. If you’re not a runner, stay away from the topic. Remember, the point is to find shared experiences.

4. Another technique is to build empathy. If someone drops something, pick it up, and say, “They’ve given us way too much to carry here.” If someone looks like they’ve lost something, ask, “Can I help you find something?” Be friendly and helpful.

5. You can also find ways to let the other person shine—if they made an intelligent comment during a meeting, let them know, and ask another question on that topic.

6. Once the ice is broken, ask where they grew up. Perhaps you’ve been to that city or state and can take the conversation toward sights you’ve seen there. Or comment on what you’d like to see there. Or ask what they liked best about growing up in that location.

7. If nothing else, talk about the weather. It’s safe. Religion and politics are not, unless you’re at a meeting related to those topics.

But avoid conversation about hair and shoes and clothing and any other personal attributes. At least until you know them better.

Remember, if you couldn’t make the comment to someone of the opposite gender, it probably isn’t appropriate for any networking situation.

For a list of questions that might help (though some of these seem outlandish to me for a first meeting), try 48 Questions That’ll Make Awkward Small Talk So Much Easier, by Aja Frost at TheMuse.com. Even if these particular questions don’t work for you, it is a good idea to have some topics prepared in advance when you know you’re going to have to meet new people.

What bad networking advice have you heard over the years?

Leave a comment

Filed under Diversity, Human Resources, Leadership, Management, Workplace

Favorite Firing: When a Supervisor’s Actions Make a Termination Difficult to Defend


4th cirI am typically suspicious of lawsuits in which a plaintiff employee alleges every possible form of discrimination against his or her employer. It seems unlikely that an employer is motivated by many different forms of bias when deciding on a disciplinary action or termination—race and gender and age and pregnancy can’t all be the basis for the decision, can they?

And yet, when an employer and its supervisors screws up a case so badly with multiple derogatory statements over a lengthy period of time, and when they then fire the employee shortly after she complains about the harassing conduct, the case is likely to get heard on the merits and will cost the company a lot of money to defend.

Such a case, Guessous v. Fairview Property Investments, LLC, No. 15-1055 (4th Cir. July 6, 2016), recently came before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant, and now the employer must gear up for a trial.

The Facts: In Guessous v. Fairview Property Investments, LLC, Monica Guessous, a female Muslim-American bookkeeping assistant of Moroccan descent, sued her employer, a property management firm, after she was discharged. Her complaint contained multiple claims, including discrimination based on religion, national origin, and pregnancy, hostile work environment, and retaliation.

Shortly after she was hired by Fairview, Ms. Guessous began reporting to a new supervisor, Greg Washenko. She alleged that Mr. Washenko began making offensive remarks when they were first introduced, when he said he had previously worked with a “bunch of Middle Easterners and they are a bunch of crooks who will stop at nothing to screw you.”

As their work relationship continued, Mr. Washenko allegedly discussed Moroccans, Muslims, and Middle Easterners repeatedly in disparaging and offensive ways, and asked Ms. Guessous questions about Middle Easterners, about suicide bombers and other terrorist acts, and about Islam. When Ms. Guessous told Mr. Washenko that Muslims were not terrorists, Mr. Washenko responded, “Yeah, sure. Like my buddy says . . . not all Muslims are terrorists, but most are.”

The Fourth Circuit opinion goes on for pages about Mr. Washenko’s comments. According to the Fourth Circuit, Washenko consistently conflated Ms. Guessous’s identity as a Moroccan Muslim with other Middle Eastern identities, so that the court had difficulty determining whether his remarks related to race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion.

When Ms. Guessous became pregnant, Mr. Washenko didn’t want to grant her a three-month maternity leave, and she had to tell him she was legally entitled to a 12-week leave. When she returned from maternity leave, her work duties had been assigned to other staff. Two months later, she asked Mr. Washenko for her old duties back and complained about his past behavior. Just 75 minutes after this meeting, the company president asked Fairview affiliates if they had openings for Ms. Guessous, because Fairview did not have enough work for her.

Then Ms. Guessous was terminated in March 2013. She was told the company did not have work for her. Her responsibilities were transferred to an outside accountant and to Mr. Washenko.

The Moral: This case demonstrates several problems for employers.

First, of course, is the alleged behavior by Mr. Washenko. In summary judgment rulings, the facts must be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff—in this case, Ms. Guessous. It is possible that a judge or jury after a trial will find that Fairview did not discriminate against Ms. Guessous. But with the allegations described in the Fourth Circuit opinion, Fairview is facing an uphill battle on liability.

Second, the Fourth Circuit indicated that the fact that Fairview didn’t have work for Ms. Guessous was not sufficient rationale to defeat her claims of discrimination. The Fourth Circuit said that the lower court had granted summary judgment for Fairview solely because the company did not replace her after she was fired.

“The court offered no elaboration in its opinion, but its logic appears to have been that, because the work was absorbed by Fairview’s other employees, Guessous cannot show that there was enough work to justify keeping her on staff and she therefore cannot prevail. If that is, indeed, the court’s reasoning it is a fallacy: because Fairview has shown it could operate without Guessous does not mean that it would have done so absent the protected activity.”

Thus, once an employer or its supervisors have engaged in discriminatory or harassing behavior, a restructuring of duties to get rid of an employee is also discriminatory. It seems unlikely that an employer can show any evidence to defend itself in such a situation.

In this case, the facts were particularly egregious. As the Fourth Circuit said,

“A reasonable jury could easily conclude, however, that the termination decision was made only seventy-five minutes after Guessous’ complained to Washenko about past comments and treatment, and that it was therefore motivated by the complaint itself.”

Thus, the Fourth Circuit said that a reasonable jury could find that Fairview’s argument that it lacked work for Ms. Guessous was a pretext for discrimination.

The morals to this case, then, are that (1) employers, including all supervisors, should refrain from disparaging comments about employees’ national origin, religion, and other protected categories; (2) employers should provide employees with all mandated leaves and other benefits without question; and (3) employers should not respond to employee complaints by immediately doing away with the employee’s job.

More broadly, the moral of this case is that employers need to be sure that discussions in the workplace about political and newsworthy events remain civil and that no racial, ethnic, or other protected group is mentioned in disparaging ways. A good moral for us all to take to heart in the middle of this political season.

When have you encountered managers who behaved inappropriately?

Leave a comment

Filed under Diversity, Human Resources, Law, Management, Workplace

Workplace Culture and Psychological Safety


teamwork-383939_1920

Photo from Pixabay

One of the Human Resources topics I follow is workplace culture. I was struck this past week by an article discussing Google’s Project Aristotle, which analyzed what workplace culture best leads to high-performing teams. In this post, There’s No Quick And Easy Fix To Building A Successful Workforce, by Carol Anderson, April 26, 2016, on TLNT.com, the author discusses another blog post by Aamna Mohdin that concluded:

Google now describes psychological safety as the most important factor to building a successful team.

In short, just be nice.

See After years of intensive analysis, Google discovers the key to good teamwork is being nice, by
Aamna Mohdin, February 26, 2016, on Quartz.

Ms. Anderson disputed this conclusion, arguing that psychological safety and “niceness” are not the same thing. I agree.

I once worked in an organization where people were almost always “nice” to each other, but the important decisions did not get made, or did not get made in a timely fashion, or were not communicated effectively to the people who needed to know. In fact, “niceness” got in the way of good communications and decision-making. People were too afraid of hurting others’ feelings to make the tough calls and then explain their decisions to each other. The problem began in the executive suite and trickled down through most divisions in the organization.

According to a New York Times article entitled What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team, by Charles Duhigg, published February 25, 2016, in Project Aristotle, Google realized it was important for teams to have norms and to communicate those norms.

The right norms . . . could raise a group’s collective intelligence, whereas the wrong norms could hobble a team, even if, individually, all the members were exceptionally bright.

But which norms made for the best teams? Google found two important behaviors that good teams shared:

First, on the good teams, members spoke in roughly the same proportion, a phenomenon the researchers referred to as ‘‘equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking.’’

. . .

Second, the good teams all had high ‘‘average social sensitivity’’ — a fancy way of saying they were skilled at intuiting how others felt based on their tone of voice, their expressions and other nonverbal cues.

To sum up these traits,

. . . all the team members speak as much as they need to. They are sensitive to one another’s moods and share personal stories and emotions. While [the successful team] might not contain as many individual stars, the sum will be greater than its parts.

In the Quartz article cited above, Aamna Mohdin summarized the Project Aristotle conclusions as follows:

the best teams respect one another’s emotions and are mindful that all members should contribute to the conversation equally. It has less to do with who is in a team, and more with how a team’s members interact with one another.

These traits are part of “psychological safety,” which has been defined by Professor Amy Edmonson of the Harvard Business School as:

a ‘‘shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.’’

‘‘a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject or punish
someone for speaking up,’’

‘‘. . . a team climate characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect in which people are comfortable being themselves.’’

The reason that Carol Anderson believed that these conclusions have nothing to do with “niceness” is that

. . . psychological safety, at its root, means that team members feel comfortable to say what they need to say, because they trust that their team will not shut them down, humiliate them or otherwise ignore their words. It is about getting all of the issues on the table in an environment where the team members can focus on solving the problem rather than on being defensive.

As I noted above, “niceness” can in fact interfere with the communications necessary for good decision-making.

Psychological safety wasn’t the only norm found to be important in Google’s Project Aristotle—having clear goals and a culture of dependability were also important—but this safety was critical. And it has to be forged through experience and gaining trust in your team members.

In my opinion, the conclusions of Project Aristotle relate directly to diversity issues as well. As the NYT article by Mr. Duhigg describes, Google learned that

. . . no one wants to put on a ‘‘work face’’ when they get to the office. No one wants to leave part of their personality and inner life at home.

That feeling of leaving a part of one’s self at home is what many workplace minorities describe—whether their “difference” is based on their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, introversion, or any other category. A psychologically safe environment is critical to true progress on improving diversity in the workplace.

What difference has feeling a sense of “psychological safety” at work or lack of it made in your career?

Leave a comment

Filed under Diversity, Human Resources, Leadership, Management, Workplace

How Trends in Corporate Governance Vary for Smaller Firms


11080482376_602d236a44_z

Flickr photo from reynermedia on Creative Commons

I work mostly with smaller organizations, especially family-run companies, but I’m interested in corporate governance trends at larger institutions. I’ve written before about why privately held companies might want independent boards of directors. What is good for large institutions is often also helpful in small companies. And sometimes smaller organizations are ahead of stagnated large companies—they can change more rapidly when the need arises.

Here are some recent trends in corporate governance, together with how I think the trends may work differently in large and small companies:

  • Focus on independence and diversity

The Council of Institutional Investors (CII) states in its Corporate Governance Policies that at least two-thirds of a board’s members should be independent. Most small businesses rely primarily on company management to serve as directors. When most of the shareholders are also managers in the organization, this makes sense.

However, as a business grows, a focus on independence becomes more important. Large institutional shareholders will demand a voice on the board, and their opinions might or might not agree with what management wants. Because shareholders are the ultimate decision-makers, their voices should decide who is on the board.

Diversity may or may not be a focus in both large and small companies. Public sentiment desires more diversity in corporate decision-making, and greater racial, ethnic and gender diversity can keep consumer products, entertainment, and other companies with a public base more in tune with its customers. However, shareholders at some institutions may feel less strongly than others.

Here is another trend where small and large companies may diverge. Shareholders at family-run companies are more likely to want continuity and consensus than larger companies with institutional owners. Board diversity is particularly likely to be important where the shareholders are public entities, such as government worker pension plans or universities.

  • More scrutiny of the board, through self-assessment and shareholder assessment

The U.S. National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) recommends that the Governance Committee of boards should have a process to routinely assess its own performance, the performance of its Committees, and its individual directors. Moreover, a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is one of three standing committees—along with an Audit Committee and a Compensation Committee—that the NYSE requires be composed entirely of independent directors.

This self-assessment is a growing trend in corporate boards. Along with self-assessment is an increased scrutiny of the board by institutional shareholders. With only independent shareholders on the governance committees of publicly traded companies, these large shareholders have the opportunity to assess the board and make changes when necessary.

At smaller and privately held companies, self-assessment and shareholder assessment may be less rigorous. But all companies should develop some form of board member assessment. For these smaller companies, it might be an outgrowth of internal succession planning and leadership development.

  • Increased transparency and disclosure

Along with board assessment comes the need for transparency in board activities. Shareholders cannot assess what they cannot see. The NACD expects boards to disclose sufficient information to shareholders to enable them to assess whether the Board is functioning effectively.

What is sufficient information will vary from organization to organization. In larger organizations, what is material to the company’s functioning will be much greater than at smaller companies. But as the number of independent board members increases and there is less involvement of management directors (who presumably know what is going on internally), the amount of disclosure will increase.

  • Attention to a broader array of risks, such as cyber-attacks

It used to be that boards only needed to worry about the corporate balance sheet and CEO succession (and they could avoid the succession issues for years at a time). However, in today’s environment, cyber-crimes will only become more sophisticated, and every organization needs to consider its vulnerabilities, along with those of its suppliers and customers.

Now, not only must directors focus on financial threats, but other existential risks as well. These risks might come a wide variety of causes even beyond cyper-attacks—natural or environmental disasters, terrorism, and public relations debacles.

A good board of directors at any institution, large or small, thinks about these threats. Each organization will need to undertake its own risk assessments, then educate its board of directors about its conclusions.

* * * * *

Flickr photo from thetaxhaven on Creative Commons

Flickr photo from thetaxhaven on Creative Commons

Institutional investors at large organizations will continue to demand greater influence not only on financial strategies, but also on risk assessment and board member assessment. As these demands grow, shareholders at smaller organizations, including family-run companies, need to analyze what makes sense in their companies.

Furthermore, managers interested in developing themselves to be board members someday—regardless of the size of institution on whose board they might serve—would be well served to educate themselves in these areas of corporate governance. To be a serious candidate for any corporate board, an individual needs to be savvy about what shareholders expect in today’s environment.

What other corporate governance trends do you see? Which trends that I mentioned do you think are most important?

2 Comments

Filed under Diversity, Leadership, Management

Diversity in Universities and Beyond


VOTE – Early or on November 6, but VOTE!The world is full of new tragedies every day—suicide bombers and machine gun attacks on several continents, refugees streaming across borders, and natural disasters from floods to ice storms to hurricanes. Yet some days recently, the front page story has dealt with complaints of racism on university campuses. From Amherst to Claremont McKenna, from Mizzou to Yale, students protest what they see as institutionalized racism and lack of inclusion.

Racism in our society is an important topic and deserves attention. College faculty and administrators who do not take complaints seriously are doing their institutions—and their students—a disservice. Universities are no different than other institutions, such as corporations, police departments, and military units. Many organizations have faced complaints of racism and sexism and other discrimination and have had to change their attitudes and policies to manage the problem. Protests are often necessary to bring about change.

And yet university campuses should be places where opposing viewpoints can live, if not in harmony, at least in juxtaposition. The word “university” is derived from the Latin “universus,” meaning “the whole.” If a university cannot at least provide a forum for all perspectivies, it does not deserve the name. The word “diversity” means “variety,” and institutions claiming to support diversity must be open to a variety of opinions.

I am not excusing racist remarks. I am not shrugging at harassment of anyone. I am not approving of faculties or workplaces that do not include minorities or women or other underrepresented groups.

But I am suggesting that universities are not places where students should feel comfortable all the time. I am suggesting that everyone—students and faculties and administrators—should be open-minded in listening to opposing viewpoints and in conversing civilly when perspectives vary. Part of obtaining a university education is a broadening of one’s outlook on the world and its problems.

It’s not just conservative politicians that can’t find a place to speak on college campuses. Stand-up comedians also feel they cannot perform on campuses, out of fear someone will complain about being offended. It seems the pendulum of “political correctness” now swings too narrowly. Any speech too far from liberal righteousness must be quashed.

Yet this attitude cannot continue in light of the broad protections granted to freedom of speech under the First Amendment, which must be preserved on public college campuses.

One of the best articles I’ve seen on this topic was written by Mary Sanchez of The Kansas City Star. On November 16, 2015, she wrote an opinion piece entitled, “By focusing their protests, KU students can be vocal and effective,” regarding student protests at the University of Kansas.

Ms. Sanchez differentiated between micro-aggressions and racism. Micro-aggressions are wearying for those who experience them often, but racism occurs when that lack of understanding becomes institutionalized to the detriment of some group. Those are the issues on which protesters should focus to be effective.

She suggested that students cull their fifteen demands into those that were most important and focus on those. She said:

“Pick a few doable, impactful items. Then study them for all their nuances and tentacles.”

She also compared the university to corporate settings, and wrote:

“’Diversity’ never works unless the top people, the decision-makers holding the purse strings get behind it. Middle managers, (as the people who will carry marching orders forward) are crucial. Middle managers will implode the best-intended policy unless they buy into it. Who is the equivalent in a college setting — the regents, second-tier administrators, the deans? Figure it out for your campus.”

In addition to businesses providing a lesson to campus protesters, the campus protests can offer a lesson for businesses as well. The University of Missouri situation came to a head when the football players refused to practice or play until certain issues were addressed.

Every organization has segments that have more influence than others. Who are the football players in your organization—the visible, influential groups that, if aligned against the institution, can damage it? Be sure you address the concerns of those groups.

Let’s use the campus protests as an opportunity for dialogue, not as an excuse to shut down communication.

Where does your organization draw the line between permitting opposing viewpoints and protecting against offensiveness?

Leave a comment

Filed under Diversity, Leadership, Management, Workplace

Five Skills Top Recruiters Must Have


Business HandshakeI don’t write about recruiting much, even though I managed a corporate staffing department for several years and worked with recruiters for several additional years. I don’t write about recruiting because I don’t like it and I don’t think I’m very good at it.

Nevertheless, I believe that recruiting is critical to a company’s success. In fact, I think that the people hired into an organization and the way that they are onboarded does as much to contribute to the profitability of a business as how much employees are paid or how their performance is managed.

But I don’t think I possess the some of the talents that good recruiters need. What are those talents?

1. Sales Ability and Persistence

A good recruiter must be able to sell top candidates on the merits of working for the employer and in the value of accepting the particular position for which the candidate is under consideration. Sometimes this is easy—after all, the candidate probably applied for the job in question. However, often, especially in executive searches, recruiters must convince top candidates to leave positions where they are doing well to take on the risk of a new role and probably a new company.

This is an area where I know I fall short. I do not like to sell. I am too introverted. If people are happy where they are, who am I to tell them they should move?

By contrast, one of the best recruiters I worked with had an outgoing, engaging personality and also had the ability to read people quickly. She vigorously pursued people she thought fit our needs, and she didn’t back down until convinced she couldn’t budge them.

2. Focus

The best recruiters keep a laser focus on what the job in question requires. They assess every candidate against these skills and competencies, and they don’t let themselves get talked into hiring based on the candidate’s charming personality.

Good recruiters also probe until they are satisfied with the candidates’ answers. Often, candidates can bluff their way through an initial response, and it is important for recruiters to push to be sure the candidates have sufficient depth to get beyond a cursory answer to a question.

It takes tenacity to continue to probe on every competency that is important for the role. That is difficult to do in today’s fast-paced environment, where an interview may only last thirty minutes. The best recruiters can balance speed with depth, maintaining control over the interview throughout the process. They can quickly determine which candidates are not qualified, so they can spend more time with those who are.

The recruiter I mentioned above was dogged in her questioning. She didn’t let an issue drop until she understood the candidate’s abilities. And she could pack a lot into a thirty-minute interview.

3. Open-mindedness

The other side of focus is open-mindedness. While quick judgments are important in recruiting, it is equally important that those judgments be based on competencies, and not on the expected profile of the ideal candidate. Thus, receptivity to candidates with diverse experiences and backgrounds is just as important as making a quick decision.

Good recruiters are good at outreach into minority communities and other groups where strong candidates might get overlooked. They spend their discretionary time developing relationships that might turn into good hiring leads.

Again, as a strong introvert, relationship-building is not my strength. I could see a good candidate that might not have a traditional background, but I didn’t spend time in outreach efforts.

4. Listening

By now it should be obvious that listening skills are critical during recruiting. The best recruiters listen to the candidates more than they talk. They don’t just run through a checklist of questions. They follow up on initial answers and push until they feel comfortable that they understand a candidate’s strengths and weaknesses in each critical competency and skill area.

Most recruiters who are any good can listen or develop the skills to listen. But it takes practice and it takes time.

5. Customer Service

Ideally, recruiters are good at serving their clients, who are the hiring managers. They understand the client’s business well enough to help identify critical skills and competencies.

They also act as if the person they are hiring will be working for them—they don’t hire someone who can’t get along in the organization or who would be a pain to work with.

And they are sensitive to costs, both during the recruiting process and in negotiating the employment offer with the successful candidate. Another excellent recruiter I worked with treated his corporate staffing department like it was his own business and managed his costs as well as his clients’ costs. He could relate well with executives across the company, because they knew he appreciated their problems and would work with them to meet their needs.

* * * * *

Where I fell short was primarily in sales skills and outreach. I wasn’t pushy enough to find the best candidates. I also tended to let candidates’ initial answers slide, rather than delve deeper into their answers.

Fortunately, I had recruiters who worked for me who excelled in these areas, as well as in the client service needed to find exactly the person the hiring manager needed for their assignments. Well, almost exactly—no candidate is ever perfect. At least I staffed my own department well, because I hired people who had the skills I lacked.

Are there any other skills that you think top recruiters should have?

1 Comment

Filed under Diversity, Human Resources, Leadership, Management, Workplace