8 September 2015

Screening Process and Selection Criteria

This is a topic I have written about many times before, but it keeps presenting itself- selection criteria and the screening process!

It's interesting and equally disturbing to hear literally hundreds of recent stories from candidates about their application, interview process and reasons for rejection from clients!

We all know it is currently, to some extent (depending on the role) a "buyers market". That's the incorrect perception. There are some brilliant technical professionals seeking work and many have been out of work for up to 2 years! Their fault? Not always. Poor resume formatting? Not really. It's generally and predominantly a function of the global mining market at present. Easy to get disheartened, no doubt, but try not to take it personally.

So what is the issue for these great candidates? Two things - the selection criteria and initial screening process. 

Now, we all see the Seek ads by clients stating that you must have (for example): 5 years experience, nickel, Surpac, open pit production, must be based in WA, be left handed, support Hawthorn and own a 15 year old pair of worn in RM Williams. Certainly narrows the field, doesn't it!

I am seeing SO many candidates screened out of the process for missing one of the criteria! They might have different software exposure - so what!? What's the difference? If you can drive software, it doesn't take long to become proficient in another. They might have other commodity exposure! Gimme a break! How long does it take a Geo to adapt and become proficient in another commodity - skills & fundamentals are transferrable, theories and procedures for mining (for example) are often identical. They might be living in another state - so? Have you bothered to ask whether they have a house in Perth (for example), or can relocate back there at zero cost on short notice? Nope - they're screened out.

Worse yet - you are screening out candidates that might not tick every menial & often irrelevant box (Want Vs Must Have), but will easily adapt and evolve quickly into the role. You are screening out some of the best cultural fits you'll ever see due to your overly specific "key word" search criteria?

Every day I see it! I can put forward some of the best people around for your roles - massive assets to any organisation culturally AND technically, but do they progress further? Rarely. They don't "tick" every box.

The candidates that tick every box on the resume "key word" screening process are the ones to progress. At this stage they're just words on paper - not the best people culturally. You are missing out.

Other examples I hear daily are not dissimilar to Goldilocks and the 3 Bears! "The client wanted 5 years experience and I got told I had too much experience with 7 years!" Are you joking me! How much value could someone like that add to your organisation? It was only a few years ago that clients were walking over broken glass for candidates like that. They're keen, will accept the $$ and if screened correctly will likely be a long term, loyal employee who can easily be promoted over time and add massive value to your bottom line. 

It's a counter intuitive mentality and frankly the screening process is broken!

It's this narrow minded, short sighted screening approach that is severely affecting great candidates securing roles and great clients equally missing out on the best people!

Can I fix it? Absolutely. I am a mining professional - I know people - I am networked - This is what I do - I know how to balance the right skill set you need with the relevant cultural fit required.

Balance your internal recruitment function by partnering with an external provider - achieve the best results, secure the best people! Simple.

Try me!