Honest HR

When Good Hires Become Bad Employees (Pt. 2 of 2)

Episode Summary

In this episode of Honest HR, host Amber Clayton, Director of SHRM’s Knowledge Center, continues the conversation on sound hiring with SHRM Knowledge Advisors Rosa Hardesty and Patty Graves on topics that include how to avoid filling a job too quickly, what to do when a new hire emerges as a bad employee and what they each love most about hiring.

Episode Notes

Have you ever extended a job offer to a candidate who turned out to be a total dud? In this episode of Honest HR, host Amber Clayton, Director of SHRM’s Knowledge Center, continues the conversation on sound hiring with SHRM Knowledge Advisors Rosa Hardesty and Patty Graves on topics that include how to avoid filling a job too quickly, what to do when a new hire emerges as a bad employee and what they each love most about hiring.

Earn 1.00 SHRM PDC for listening to both Part 1 and 2 of this two episode mini-series (When Good Hires Become Good Employees). All relevant details are provided during the episodes.

This episode of Honest HR is sponsored by Greenhouse.

Episode transcript

Episode Transcription

Speaker 1: This episode is sponsored by Greenhouse. Greenhouse customizes, streamlines, and scales the hiring process for organizations of all sizes, helping to reduce bias, source the best talent, and create a more structured hiring process so you can hire for what's next visit Greenhouse.io or search Greenhouse Software to learn more.

Gloria Sinclair...: Welcome to Honest HR, the podcast for all of us HR professionals, people managers, and team leads intent on growing and developing our companies for the better.

Amber Clayton: We bring you honest, forward thinking conversations and relatable stories from the workplace that challenge the way it's always been done. Because after all, you have to push back to move forward.

Wendy Fong: Honest HR is a podcast from SHRM, the Society for Human Resource Management. And by listening, you're helping create better workplaces and a better world. I'm Wendy Fong.

Amber Clayton: I'm Amber Clayton.

Gloria Sinclair...: And I am Gloria Sinclair-Miller.

Wendy Fong: Now, let's get honest.

Amber Clayton: Hello everyone. And welcome back. I'm your host, Amber Clayton, director of SHRM's knowledge center. On our episode today, we're going to start part two of our mini series on the technical competency, HR expertise, talent acquisition, when good hires become bad employees. This podcast is approved to provide re-certification PDCs, but only if you listen to the full mini series. In episode one, we talked about the disappointment when you thought you found the perfect candidate for the job, but they actually turned out to be a bad hire. We discussed workforce planning, red flags to look out for in resumes, interview questions to ask, and ensuring that the person's a cultural fit. On our episode today, we will pick up where we left off and discuss what happens when we decide to move forward with that candidate, what steps employers often miss, and what employers can do to mitigate the risk of hiring the wrong person. I'm pleased to be joined again by Rosa Hardesty and Patty Graves, SHRM knowledge advisors. Welcome.

Patty Graves: Thank you.

Rosa Hardesty: Thank you for having us.

Amber Clayton: Yeah, thank you for being here again. So to pick up where we left off, let's talk the need to move candidates in quickly. We often hear that some employers just need a warm body or they want to move quickly because the candidate has other offers, and especially nowadays there's the so-called turnover tsunami, resignation tsunami, there's some challenges with employers trying to find talent, and this is globally. And so Patty and Rosa, what steps do employers often miss when trying to get a job filled too quickly?

Rosa Hardesty: I think employers often miss following their traditional schedule. A lot of times employers have a process and that could be in compliance with state laws as well. And they have so much pressure from the operational managers that they need a body, they need a body. They find that great candidate. They make an offer and forget the other steps. Maybe they do reference checks. Maybe it's an offer pending background check, or just not going through the full process of taking the time to go through all the candidates that are in their applicant pool. And so when we, as recruiters, when we have that pressure, we forget that balance of our obligations to our process and then also to the managers. So you really got to balance it. And so I think when we are pressured and we want to fill those positions that we missed some of those steps.

Amber Clayton: Yeah, absolutely. And I think too, and I could be wrong on this, but recruiters oftentimes might be held to different metrics within the organization. So it's not just the getting that job filled quickly for the manager, but also for the recruiter, especially if it means their job performance or performance management, bonuses, commissions, things like that might be tied to it.

Rosa Hardesty: Yeah, and I actually got a question the other day from, from a member talking about what's the average requisitions that a recruiter has? So when we look at now missing steps, if it's an industry such as hospitality where there's high turnover, well now how much are they handling? So I think even having a lot of open positions is creating the missteps too.

Amber Clayton: Oh, absolutely. So Patty, what do you think? What do you think employers often miss when they're trying to fill a job quickly?

Patty Graves: Yeah. Well, I definitely agree with what Rosa was saying and employers need to really do the due diligence in performing reference checks and background checks. Another thing could be like not looking for warning signs when an employer is doing an interview. So if an employee has up upfront demands or arriving late, different things that an employer might overlook and not pay attention to that could be a sign of filling a job too quickly.

Amber Clayton: Great. So let's say now they're hired. They're doing well within the first week or two, but you notice that something is different in their personality, they begin asking for time off, as you mentioned, the attendance, or they seem disengaged. I've had this happen many times in my career. One that I can think of off the top of my head was a person who seemed to be great in the interview, they were personable, they were friendly, they had the experience needed for the job, they also seemed to be a good cultural fit. But then within a few days of employment, I did notice that they were quiet, they were not really engaged, almost hiding behind the cubicle wall. I knew right away that the person didn't feel like the job was for them. There was just something about their demeanor that was different.

And I did let it play out rather than confronting it and sure enough, the person applied for a job elsewhere, but it was within the organization, which was great. They did tell me upon leaving that they didn't feel the job discussed was the role that they had and I personally felt like we did a good job of explaining it. However, after that situation, I've tried to become more transparent and I think I mentioned this before giving the good, the bad, and the ugly of the job. So Patty and Rosa, what should employers do when they recognize that their new hire is turning into a bad employee? And let me just say that the person I'm talking about is not a bad employee because they just felt the job wasn't for them, but what I mean by that is that's just not the right person for the job. So what do you think employers can do when they recognize that's happening?

Patty Graves: So I think that employers need to really act quickly when they see those concerns. Addressing it with an employee, having a one-on-one conversation just as you were given in your example, Amber, with that employee to understand what's really going wrong and document job performance, take steps to try to get an employee on the right track. Those could be helpful. And then, and employers should also learn from those experiences of what as well and find out what went wrong and what they could do to avoid that going forward.

Amber Clayton: Rosa?

Rosa Hardesty: Yeah, I think addressing it right away is the key thing. Oftentimes, especially when I'm talking with members, I hear the lag in time to address things is what really creates those big employee relations issues. And also if it's not a right fit, making the employee feel comfortable. I think a lot of times people are not honest because everybody comes to work because they got to pay their bills. So if they made a mistake, what is going to be the process? Is the employer going to embrace it as, oh, you're out of here? Or are they going to work with the employee to find a better fit, could be within the organization or is it helping them find something elsewhere? Because remember, even though an employee might be the right fit, that's still the employer's brand and reputation of how you treat people even on the way out. So I think keeping in mind that mistakes do happen, employers make them, employees, but also what's worse, addressing it now or letting something bigger happen later that really isn't a good reflection on the employer?

Amber Clayton: Yeah, absolutely. So we didn't really talk about this, but you mentioned about leaving the organization. When people leave the organization, they typically will have employees do exit interviews and there's also something called stay interviews, and we've talked to members about this here in the knowledge center. Can one of you explain what's the difference between a stay interview and an exit interview and what do you think can help with employers in as far as retaining employees? What can they get out of these interviews basically is what I'm asking.

Patty Graves: The stay interviews is being more proactive in trying to check in with those employees to find out if they're engaged in their jobs. So that would be a little bit more on a proactive instead of reactive with your exit interviews and trying to find out why an employee is leaving.

Rosa Hardesty: And I think in my HR experience, it's more common that employers will do the exit interview. I have yet to be really part of in my past employment where the stay interviews were part of it. I think sometimes employers shy away from that because they want to make, they're like, oh, if they don't say anything nothing's happening. But with the exit interviews, I remember when I was first starting, sometimes the people in HR really didn't want to bring it up because they don't want to face the fact of something that is happening, and the reality is it's okay because you want to get that feedback like we were talking about.

Amber Clayton: So let's talk a little bit more about the stay interviews. I know we talked about exit interviews, which are commonly done by employers, but for me personally, I don't recall in my past HR experience ever doing a stay interview, we had done of course employee engagement surveys, or employee experience surveys, which have some similar questions to stay interviews, things like how do you feel about the benefits, how do you feel about the culture? Things that we know could potentially keep someone or have someone lead the organization. What has been your experience if any, with stay interviews?

Rosa Hardesty: So we didn't exactly call them stay interviews, but we had a process where part of my job was to check in with the new hire after two weeks and then 30 days, 60 days, 90 days. I think sometimes when we think stay interviews, people are thinking of a formal piece of paper. It can be casual. I had a spreadsheet even like with dates on my calendar and I would check off that I did it and put notes. And some questions were how is it going? Open ended. How are you feeling? What's the training been like? And then when you get further along maybe it's at the 60 day mark, so what's keeping you here? To really understand what we're doing well and things that we can continue to do. Because maybe something isn't going well and you can get that feedback and we can make adjustments to the onboarding process and I think in turn that helps retain your employees. So not only seeking out the good, but also really asking questions that may trigger if something's wrong too.

Patty Graves: So in my experience, I've not done stay interviews. I think stay interviews is more of a trend that we've seen in recent years and it's more because of your tight talent market and trying to compete for talent. Employers are using stay interviews to try to find out why an employee stays and what might make them even leave the company and then asking those questions.

Amber Clayton: Yeah. And I do like the thought of having an informal and a formal, because I think there are employers that do those check-ins. I remember doing those when I was out in the field and we'd have like a 30, 60, 90 check-in, but I do like the formality of it too so that if you can compare and contrast with other employees, why they're staying with the organization, I think the biggest thing is communication and keeping connected with those employees and building that work culture of trust. I think with stay interviews, with exit interviews. . . Well, let me first say with exit interviews, I think the employees tend to be a little bit more hesitant to complete those because they don't want to burn a bridge. And if they do complete them, oftentimes they aren't honest about the reasons why they've left, because again, they don't want someone to get in trouble, they don't want to feel bad, they don't want to burn that bridge.

Stay interviews on the other hand are different because it can build trust with the manager because the manager's saying, hey, let's sit down. Let's talk about why you love working here. What is it that we're doing that makes you stay, and would you recommend other people to work here and why? And unlike an employee engagement survey that sometimes does not have an outcome, employees will take the employee engagement survey and then the employer will do nothing with it so then employees feel like it's not valid. Why should I complete it? Nothing's going to happen with it. Stay interviews can be one on one with the manager and the employee and the manager could use that information to help build that relationship with the employee, which will then hopefully retain that employee.

So like you said, Patty, I didn't remember hearing about them when I was an HR practitioner many years ago. I think that there's definitely been more of a trending topic of stay interviews over the last several years. But even though the three of us haven't formally done it, I definitely think it's something that would be good for employers to do, especially in the midst of the time that we're in where employee retention is really quite low right now for many employers.

Sometimes we think that the new hire is actually not the right fit for the position, but sometimes it really isn't the new hire that's not the right fit, it's actually the manager who might have a certain perception. Rosa's already laughing. That the manager might believe that the person is not a good fit, but they actually are. Rosa, did you have something that came up in your mind when I said that?

Rosa Hardesty: I mean, just all the time. Or you worked so hard to bring on these employees. The manager goes through the whole process and then sometimes, in my experience I'm like, did the manager really interview this person? Were they in the same room as me? And again, I use hotels as the example, it's a 24/7 operation so it's like, I need these people, I need these people, but then they don't have the time to hire the people. So and then they're like, oh yeah, they're great. So I truly believe sometimes it's the manager not even remembering the process or remembering the person and then once they get the new hire, they make up their mind that they don't like them. I was like, we're not starting over with this.

Amber Clayton: So what is your advice or guidance, either Patty or you for managers who do this?

Rosa Hardesty: I think we have to really encourage them in the process to slow down and invest the time. And I think that comes from educating that it's going to be worth it to take the time to hire who they truly want or is the right fit. And we also get red flags, it's not just the applicants, red flags from your managers. If you see a behavior or maybe they're not paying attention, maybe it's you as the recruiter you got to slow the process down. Because terminating someone and recruiting, it's just, it's a lot of time is money, in that essence.

Patty Graves: And I would say also there's biases that can be present when managers are interviewing or when even HR is interviewing. So being aware of those biases, making sure that there's training for managers on how to interview effectively would be helpful too. And then focusing on the skills that are needed for that job, not just on experience or what an employee has on their resume.

Amber Clayton: And Patty, I'm glad that you mentioned the training because that's what I was thinking about when Rosa was talking about the examples. Training is so important and many HR professionals, of course we learn from our educational background, we learn from our experiences, and the resources that we have but sometimes there are managers who maybe haven't managed people before, maybe they haven't been part of the interview process before and so training is really important. And I know for our SHRM members, we actually do have resources around training managers. I believe we've got a sample presentation that our members can use to help train their managers on how to interview appropriately, because we know that there are things that should be done and things that shouldn't be done or should be asked or shouldn't be asked.

And I know we talked a little bit about this when we talked about the interviewing, but yes, training, so important. The other thing is when we have this new hire who comes in, and again, we start to see very quickly that they're not the right fit, one of the things that I remember hearing from members was, well, can't I just get rid of them, they've only been here for 90 days or less than 90 days? Talk to me about that.

Patty Graves: Yeah. I just had that question myself too, from a member. And I think a lot of times there's a false understanding that an employer can terminate within an intro period or within a 90 day period and it makes it easier and there's not any repercussions for that. But that's not always the case. So an employer should really be having those conversations with an employee, finding out what's going on, making sure that they're engaged, making sure they understand what's required of them for that. And if they're not performing, continue at that disciplinary process, just as you would for anyone that's an ongoing employee.

Amber Clayton: But Patty, I'm a manager and I don't want to have to give a verbal written final and then terminate employment. I want to get rid of this person now. This is what we get. We know we had people ask this and we've had it in our own experiences. So what do you say to that?

Patty Graves: Well, and I've had that in my experience. That's the operational piece and a manager is just like, I'm just done. I don't want to deal with this individual anymore. But from a compliance piece, HR wants to make sure that an employee is given every opportunity to succeed in that role and that they are doing everything that they can to reduce any type of liability they might be subject to. Discrimination, retaliation, any of those things could come up.

Rosa Hardesty: And I think a lot of times, managers, I think what you might be referencing, Amber, is this at will employment?

Amber Clayton: Yes, I was actually going to go there next.

Yeah, well, wait a minute, my state's at will. Why can't I let them go?

Rosa Hardesty: And we actually have a Q and A on it that's really good about the 90 days. So I'd encourage people to look at that. But this at will employment, what I remind when members when they ask me a question, is that keep in mind, yes, in these at will employment states the employer or the employee can end the relationship at any time as long it is not something like discrimination, just as an example, but the employer has the burden of proof at the end of the day. So, if you are going into an unemployment hearing or any other outside person that's coming in that's saying, hey, you wrongfully terminated or this employee is saying this, what are you going to say? Or how can you demonstrate that the efforts that you made to make this new hire feel at home or go through the training? So I think that's where we kind of, I don't know, maybe the managers use that lingo differently, but we're always like, but wait a minute, did we take the steps to ensure that the employee was successful? And can you demonstrate that?

Patty Graves: Yeah, I think going back to the training piece too, with that, and helping your managers know what the expectations are when you have those employees that don't seem to be performing and they want to just sever the relationship. Go through your company policies, go through the training, help managers get better prepared. And we have that people manager qualification credential, which is excellent for employers to have their managers go through to learn how to be better and effective.

Amber Clayton: Okay. So let's talk social media for a second. So with background checks, we know that some employers look at the new hires or the candidates social media. What do you say to a member who is doing that or wants to do that as part of their recruitment process? I mean, we're talking about how to avoid those bad hires. What advice would you give to those employers?

Patty Graves: So that's really not something that we would recommend, using social media, because it can be subjective with the information that they're seeing and an employer would really have to be cautious with what they're going to do with that information that they find on social media.

Rosa Hardesty: And also employers have to look at what are their state laws about outside conduct? Are there any regulations that would prevent an employer, violations of privacy. In addition, is that truly the person? So I think you never know, could be completely different person with the same name.

Amber Clayton: Or the same picture on their profile.

Rosa Hardesty: Yeah, absolutely. There's people stealing profiles all the time. So is that truly them?

Amber Clayton: So when the person is hired and the employer has the information, then let's just say all of a sudden that this is a good hire or you think it's a good hire and someone comes to the HR professional and says, I saw something on this new hire's social media site that I think is illegal and you shouldn't have hired this person. What would an employer do in that particular situation?

Patty Graves: I've heard that from members before. If an employer actually feels that it's a reliable source that they're getting that information, they could have the conversation with an employee and see how it impacts their ability to do their job or how it impacts the company as a whole. So starting with that conversation might be the first step.

Rosa Hardesty: Yeah. I think you're spot on. Is it job related? Does it have anything to do with their employment or is this someone that's just, maybe they got into a fight now they're out to get this employee.

Amber Clayton: I've actually had that. Yeah. I've had where a member called in and someone received another call on an employee that had just started and they were saying that the person had a situation at a previous employer that the employer did not find out about during the reference check or background check process and now all of a sudden the employer wants to let that new employee go based on this information. So I think it does happen pretty frequently. I think the message is that if, not that we recommend, but if an employer uses social media for recruiting, for background checks, be cautious about it. Because again, as Rosa mentioned, we don't know if that person is the same person in that social media. We hear about it all the time social media being hacked and so you may not be aware of the context of the information that's on there as well. So if you're looking for red flags through social media, just be careful doing so is the message.

I don't know how you both feel about background checks, but I know in my past experience, I found them to be really helpful, especially with positions that we had that had driving responsibilities. I worked in a hospice where our employees had to go from house to house or to the hospital and so we did do driving record background checks. We also did, of course, the criminal background check, and we did social security number verification and employment references. Education we did as well. I will say that we did have some who lied about their education and nowadays though looking back on it, I question whether or not we really needed that bachelor's degree for that particular position. I may have treated it differently now as opposed to back then. But I think background checks overall can be good and it can help the employer.

It can actually mitigate some risk for the employer, especially in a job like hospice, where you're in people's homes. You don't want to send someone who had a sexual assault or robbery, but you want to be careful about the types of crimes that somebody may have committed and been convicted for and then what the job is. And that again goes into a whole another thing about arrest and convictions and employment decisions. But I personally feel strongly about background checks for employees of an organization. What do you all think about it?

Rosa Hardesty: I think it's really important and it doesn't mean that someone with a conviction can't be hired, it's going to depend on the job. And being in from the hotel business and having employees that have access to rooms, or for example, we had a lot of dance groups with lots of children, I think it's a huge liability for an employer to not do the due diligence of knowing who is in their building. And again, it's doesn't mean that someone doesn't have a place to work at all, it's just there might be a different place. And I think employers have to get as many resources as they can to make the best decisions, not only for the staff, but also their clients.

Amber Clayton: Absolutely.

Patty Graves: So let me weigh in, I kind of have mixed emotions on this piece and I understand the purpose of the background checks and it's really to keep current employees safe and making sure that you are hiring individuals that are going to fit within that culture. But from my experience, and I had a small family owned business and we did not do background checks and we had excellent candidates that could do the job well, but they can't get a job anywhere else because of those background checks that are done. So having a mistake in their past has actually prevented them from even moving up in a career where they can only do entry level positions or work for a company like in our case with small, I mean, we did offer benefits, but a lot of small organizations don't don't offer benefits, don't offer good pay. So they might be, those are the only things that they have available to them. So they're kept into a poverty level. They're not able to succeed at all.

Amber Clayton: Yeah, that's interesting because I think that, of course, the background check in that particular scenario, the employer or the HR professional, whoever is the one that is doing the background checks needs to know how to use that information. So they don't want to disqualify someone right away because they have a conviction. I mean, obviously there are guidelines from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC relative to arrest and convictions and employment decisions, and then of course there are state laws as well, but I think it boils down to how that information is used, not necessarily what is on a background check. I mean, we all, we're human, people make mistakes and I don't think there's anything on my background check, but I couldn't say that a former employer wouldn't say that they didn't like me or that I didn't agree with maybe the way that they handled something.

I can't say that for sure, and that would be horrible if that were to prevent me from getting employment elsewhere. And so I think the background checks in my opinion are necessary for many positions. Like you said, small businesses don't always do them and that's up to them. It's up to a business whether or not they want to do a background check, unless there's some industry specific rules, regulations within a state for healthcare or working with vulnerable populations, children, there may be some requirements, maybe federal government requirements, depending on security clearances and things of that nature. But I definitely think that all employers should at least look and review for their particular place of employment and determine whether or not background checks are required or should be done. And then of course, be trained on how to use that information properly.

Rosa Hardesty: Yeah. And be more open. I think there's a lot of misconceptions. I think, Patty, probably what you were getting to is that some employers just see something and they're not asking the right questions. Ask the candidate to be up front. Tell me more about what happened. My gosh, when I was 18, I made a mistake and this is what I learned from it, here are the things that I did. Give the person an opportunity and that's where I think we have these ban the box laws because employers weren't giving people the opportunity. So to be better, educate, whoever's doing the hiring that people do deserve a second chance.

Amber Clayton: And speaking of the ban the box laws, I think we mentioned that in the first episode, but in case for those listeners who may not know, that ban the box laws actually are by state and what it is that it restricts an employer from asking about the arrest or convictions, the crimes on the job application or in the interview process. It might be that an employer has to make a conditional offer of employment before they actually run the background check. So check your state laws to see whether or not you have any ban the box laws in your particular state.

So out of curiosity, what do you consider to be your favorite part of the hiring process or hiring someone new and what do you consider to be the least favorite? I know for myself, the positive part of hiring someone is getting them into a role and having them be successful. I can remember having a very large job fair many years ago. And while I did not hire this person directly, there was a gentleman who was hired at our job fair, and he had been employed for over 20 years. The gentleman had down syndrome and I could not have been more proud of the work that we did there and that we were able to find this position. I was also very proud of my employees that I hired over the years and who are still employed there 20 years later. So that is the part that I love the most in a hiring someone new.

The part that I at least like about it, of course, is them not working out. You spend all that time and effort and energy into bringing someone on board and then the next thing you know, they're leaving the organization and you're questioning what did I do wrong? And that's goes back to what we're talking about today. So Rosa and Patty, what's your favorite part of hiring someone?

Rosa Hardesty: I love just giving someone the opportunity. And I know that when you're able to give someone the gift of a new job, that's the most rewarding part. And when I see how excited they are, it's something new and it's just the best thing is because of their need and they're on the search and that you get to be the one to deliver the news that, hey, it's you, we're offering you the job, do you want to join our team? And that was my favorite part. It's just really rewarding.

And then the other part of it is that is seeing them grow through the organization, through promotions. My husband's a GM with the hotel business and he'll transfer people and they'll be like, oh my gosh, I wanted to say thank you. Your wife is the one that hired me, and this is like 10 years ago, so that really just makes me just so happy. Seeing them grow, no matter where they are, but just being part of their journey in their career.

Amber Clayton: And what is your least paper part?

Rosa Hardesty: When you get it wrong, and they're totally not the person that you interviewed, and when you hear that they're causing just trouble in the department. Although it's a group effort to hire someone, it kind of becomes personal because they came through your application, not yours, it's the company's, but you started it and where did I not see the red flags? And when you're so involved in the organization, you know the employees that they're working with, and if they're causing drama it makes my heart hurt.

Amber Clayton: I understand. So Patty, what is your favorite part of hiring an employee and what is your least favorite part?

Patty Graves: So I guess the best part of hiring would be that sense of accomplishment in finding the right candidate for that position. And there's also a confidence level in going through that whole process and then finding that right candidate for that. So my least favorite part, I guess, would be the whole process. I mean how lengthy the process can be and it's just tedious sometimes going through that and then having to let candidates know that they weren't accepted.

Amber Clayton: That's tough, especially when they ask you the reason. And we even have members who ask us this question, do I have to provide a reason to someone who was not selected for a position? And Rosa, you were getting ready to say something?

Rosa Hardesty: I was going to say, how about when it's so close too? You had maybe three great candidates and you pick that one. You're excited to offer to the one, but then you're like, man, this really sucks. Do we have another position for them? And sometimes you don't. So that stinks too.

Amber Clayton: Yeah, it does. But I think those might be a little bit easier because you can say to them, you were one of our top candidates, but we decided to move forward with someone else that had more experience or something that affected-

Rosa Hardesty: Is it?

Amber Clayton: Well-

Rosa Hardesty: If you went into the Olympics and getting second place, you're like, man, I was that close.

Amber Clayton: That is true. That is true. But at least you can tell that person that you could keep them in mind and if you happen to roam across any other employers or positions that maybe not at that company, but you could certainly reach out to that person, but you are right. And you're talking to someone who's super competitive, so I would not want to be bronze or silver. I want to be gold.

But just going back real quick about the reason, because I know this is going to come up as a question and I want to make sure I was clear on this, that with regards to giving reasons why someone was not selected for a position, I know that can be really difficult to do. We know sometimes it does help. I've had that situation where I've actually talked to a candidate and I told her during the interview process she was chewing gum, she was not answering questions clearly, and she was rather young and so when I shared that information with her, she was very thankful because it helped her realize what she was doing in not getting the job and that she could move forward and do a better job with it.

So I think as far as reasons it's really, as we talked about with at will employment, that if the employment is at will, there's no requirement for an employer or employee to give reasons, even though the person's not employed yet, it's really up to the employer, unless there's some kind of a state or local law that would require the employer to provide a reason for declining them. And of course I should mention, if it's based on the background check results, then we have that fair credit reporting act requirements to notify the applicant of any adverse action as a result of that.

So the last podcast for this particular session, we talked about workforce planning and how important it is to make sure that employers understand what their needs are and where they have gaps and where they need to fill them and what type of positions they need to bring in. And we talked about making sure that the job descriptions ,that there are job descriptions. I know it's not a requirement under federal law, however, employers may want to have job descriptions just to make those expectations clear for the employees, but also too, to ensure that you're meeting the needs of your business and trying to make sure that you have the right people at the right place, the right time, and making sure that they're doing exactly what you need to run your business and be successful.

We've talked about resumes and making sure that we're looking out for those red flags, as well as what employers can do to ensure that the candidate is the right person for the job. We've talked about background checks and reference checks and how important those things are in making sure that someone is a good cultural fit.

We've come to the end of our show, but before we wrap up, any other things that we would like to share with the audience with respect to making sure that they're hiring the right people for their positions?

Rosa Hardesty: I think investing in the time with your managers as to what really is the need. I think sometimes employers go so long with the same job description or the same. . . Things have changed, especially in the last couple of years. And so take the time to really reevaluate what are the staffing needs and survey your employees. Maybe the employees are like, hey, we are overstaffed in this area, but we're seeing that over here it's not. So I think sometimes we don't want to take the time to do that because we're so busy trying to meet the needs of what the company is producing or servicing their clients, but taking a step back and looking at it, is that truly what we need.

Amber Clayton: So Patty, any advice or anything that we may have missed?

Patty Graves: Oh, I think Rosa brought up a good point about the job description, so kind of doing your job analysis, making sure that everything is up to date that you're looking for those specific skills that you need within your organization, not just about the experience or what an employer thinks and making sure that you're understanding what your company actually needs.

Rosa Hardesty: Especially because we're in a time where, I see help wanted signs everywhere, get creative with your managers. Those that are showing up to work, if the job that you have has a special skill set or I always say the personality and the willingness to learn and help, those are things you can't train people for, but maybe you come up with, employers, if you come up with a program that can help get people those skills. I think of culinary or my hotel experience continues to come out, but different ways to build up your applicant pool. Because if you're seeing that the managers are like, oh, these people don't have experience or they don't have that but you know that person just has the will to learn and they're going to be a great employee, being creative with what's the training look like. Maybe you create a little program to teach them those skills to get more qualified candidates. So it can vary in different in industries, but be more creative.

Amber Clayton: Well, thank you again, Patty, Rosa, this has been great. Love the information I hope our listeners do too. I can imagine that they will benefit from some of the great tips that you've provided. And just as a reminder today, we are concluding our miniseries on the technical competency, HR expertise, talent acquisition. This podcast is approved to provide re-certification PDCs, but only if you listen to the full miniseries. After you've listened to each part, you are eligible to enter this activity ID: 23-244ZW. Again, that's 23-244ZW. And that's for re-certification PDCs for your SHRM certification portal.

If you haven't already, please subscribe so you'll never miss an episode and be sure to rate and review the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Feel free to reach out to me. You can find me on Twitter. I'm also on LinkedIn. And again, if you'd like to learn more about the Honest HR podcast, myself, other hosts, or to get additional information and resources on what was discussed in today's episode, head on over to SHRM.org/honestHR. And to learn more about other SHRM podcast, check out SHRM.org/podcast. Thanks again for joining us on Honest HR, until next time.

Speaker 1: This episode is sponsored by Greenhouse. The hiring landscape, it's changed dramatically with top talent seeking better opportunities and increased focus on DE&I, companies have to change how they hire. And for recruiters it's never been more important to have effective tools that make hiring easier and more inclusive. Greenhouse makes companies great at hiring by using a structured data-driven approach that reduces bias, improves collaboration, and delivers better hiring results. Discover how Greenhouse can help you hire for what's next at Greenhouse.io.