You can’t select a candidate just because he was an outstanding performer in his previous job. Neither can you reject one because of mediocre performance in his last role. Are companies thinking creatively?

Amol Kale (not his real name) is devastated. A star-performer in a well-known multinational, he joined an organisation in the sunrise industry to escape the monotony and stagnation in his earlier job. There was not much scope for him in terms of career growth opportunities in the multinational organisation where he worked for more than a decade. This prompted him to accept the offer to join this little-known firm that held lot of promise for the future. There was a lot of scope to perform, learn & unlearn and contribute to the growth of this organisation. It sounded pretty much exciting to be part of a growth story of an upcoming industry. However, Amol is currently on the look-out for another job - barely fourteen months after he joined the new organisation.
 
The reasons are crystal clear. What works for one organisation seldom works for another. The leadership style varies from organisation to organisation. Star performers in an organisation succeed because there is a synergy between their skills, aptitude and capabilities and the organisational culture and infrastructure. In the absence of such factors, it is an enormous challenge for star performers to replicate the earlier success story in new organisations that they join. For instance, budget availability in cash rich multi-national firms may not be an issue for new initiatives; however, the funds may not be so easily available in Indian companies unless there is a clear business need for the same.
 
There needs to be a change in hiring techniques employed by organisations. In a fluid business environment, where change is the only constant, organisations need to use creative thinking to hire the best talent. A resume can say a lot about a candidate's skills, experience and competence, but very little about the intangibles. It is easy to look at the profiles of candidates who have similar experience for a new job. However, there is a need to look beyond. It is also important to understand the reason(s) behind a candidate's desire to seek a job change. This is why a reference check or a background check is assuming lot of significance nowadays.
 
You can't select a candidate just because he was an outstanding performer in his previous job. Neither can you reject one because of mediocre performance in his last role. Performance is relative - it can never be absolute. Firms need to use psychometric tools as one of the techniques to gauge the suitability of a candidate. But the decision to hire a candidate must be made on the basis of cumulative factors.
 
One has to accept the fact that, on most occasions, personal interviews are subjective affairs. A candidate who speaks passionately about his role and shows pride in his work can be easily labeled as one with loads of attitude. Many candidates fall into the trap laid by interviewers regarding the compensation. In his book 'What Color is Your Parachute', Richard Bolles says that compensation should always be discussed at the fag end only when there is a clarity that the organisation is keen to recruit the candidate and that the candidate is willing to take the bait. In reality, most firms use the "CTC" (Cost to Company) numbers to reject candidates.  
 
Besides looking at qualifications, the scope for sharpening the learning curve of a candidate through on-the-job training needs to be explored too. Many candidates are asked to jump onto the fray right from day one. A warm-up time to settle down in the job, understand the organisational culture and team dynamics is vital. This explains the need and relevance of induction programs.
 
Hiring a right candidate is similar to the process of buying your own home. Hasty decisions can be counter-productive. If an organisation takes too long to decide, then they may lose a good candidate. An employee who is on the look-out for a job, almost always behaves like a patient in a hospital who has recovered from a major illness and is to be discharged soon. So, it is necessary to communicate the decision about a selection within a reasonable time-frame. Some organisations do not communicate any decision at all - which is even worse.
 
Amit Malhotra (not his real name) is embittered when a chemical firm in Mumbai (Galaxy Surfactants) shortlisted him for a job after conducting an interview and subjecting him to psychometric assessments. The HR head then asked him to send all his salary details of the last 16 years - month on month. Amit was seeking a change after 16 years in an MNC.
 
Amit who was pretty much organised did that. He typed out all the salary details in an excel spread sheet. But the appointment letter remained elusive. The HR head simply refused to take the call. This happened despite the fact that Amit had spent a whole day filling up application forms and appearing for the interview which seemed to have gone exceedingly well. Later on, Amit came to know that they were not willing to pay him the kind of salary that he was currently drawing. Rather than being spot-on about it, the firm used devious tactics to reject him. Such hiring practices do not augur well for an organisation's future. Many candidates do accept a lower remuneration if the long term job prospects are good. Why the hesitation? It is a myth that all candidates who seek a change are doing it only for money.
 
Most entrepreneurs have expressed their views that they have always felt the need to do a second guess while hiring a candidate for senior most roles. Sometimes, they may ask others in the organisation to re-evaluate a candidate. Though this is the right approach, one has to be circumspect about the strength of the re-evaluation panel. Too many members and their diverse opinions can only compound the confusion. Experts have advocated the use of gut-feel to decide on a suitable hire when everything else fails.