The Concept
In the next two issues we discuss the concept of "selling" the job and/or company to a prospective employee. This can make the difference between hiring the best candidate and a qualified but mediocre one.
One of the major reasons the hiring process so often ends without success is because most hiring managers neglect to sell their job and their company to the prospective employee. What this means practically is that they get so used to being pursued by candidates and so used to creating the air of "I've got the job. If you want it, then you’ll have to pursue me and do exactly what I want," that when they get down to the final candidates they want, they have not created an atmosphere of mutual benefit.
The Market
At least in the Southwest, the employment market over the past few years has been such that there are, in most disciplines, five to ten qualified candidates for every position. Since the demise of the early 80's when it was a seller’s market to the candidate’s advantage, client companies have had the fortune of being able to find a number of candidates to interview for most positions they may have. This buyer’s market promoted the idea that employers could pick and choose whomever they wanted and the candidates would, out of desperation, work for them with no questions asked. It lulled companies into thinking that just because they had an open position and plenty of people whom they could interview, that they could hire anyone they pleased and make no effort to sell their job or company to the candidates. This false security gave rise to the idea that the employer with the open position had total control over the situation.
The Myth of Numbers
The results of this type of environment are not really good. First of all, the myth of numbers, that is, the idea that "there are a lot of qualified candidates out there" promoted the fallacious logic that numbers and quality are synonymous. Just because there are a lot of people to interview doesn't mean there are truly qualified candidates from which to choose. Now, it may be in certain instances that quality will follow volume, but one must be careful not to assume that.
Since there have been so many candidates in most disciplines from whom to choose, employers have become somewhat calloused to individuals. This buyer’s attitude might be fine in initial interviews, but once a few final candidates have been identified, they should be consciously sold on why they should want to work for that firm.
The point is this: Just because there are numerous candidates to interview, companies can become "conditioned" to candidates selling themselves on why they should be hired. These firms forget that they too need to sell their company and their job to the candidates they want to hire. The archaic attitude that a company is in control simply because they have a job to offer someone and therefore they don't need to do anything to attract a good employee just won't do anymore. The idea that the company has the advantage because they have a job to offer communicates offensive superiority. The best candidates are competed for like any other "good" product and go to work for those firms who give them good reasons and benefits as to why they should. Money, title etc. are only small aspects of reasons people go to work for others. The companies that sell their opportunities the best get the best candidates.
People Want To Be Sold
We have seen it time and again where an excellent candidate goes to work for less money, a less prestigious title, or for a little known firm simply because he was "sold" on the company. He liked what he saw and felt about them. His reasons became personal ones. They always do. Going to work for someone, like hiring someone, is a personal and subjective thing. People go to work for companies and people they like. When companies interview and try to pursue candidates they like, they need to sell those candidates on why the firm should be liked, too. The aloof attitude of "we got the job. ...they need to come to us" just doesn't get good candidates anymore.
We have seen excellent candidates not take good opportunities simply because no one in the firm went to the trouble of selling them on the idea of working there. The reasons for this are more benign neglect rather than intentional. Pride and ego play a role sometimes. We have seen employers purposely not try to sell their opportunities so they won't run the risk of being "rejected" by the perspective employee. They can stoically offer a position with no emotion or empathy for the candidate simply to protect themselves from going out of their way, making a commitment, and then being told "No." Not selling a candidate simply because a person wants to avoid an emotional rejection is not a valid reason. This approach is a defense mechanism. We recently worked with a client who wouldn't discuss his offer to the candidate. He kept saying that it was all written down in the letter, there was no need to discuss it verbally or face to face. No empathy: No employee!
