When 5,000 resumes don’t get you what they used to: How to avoid “motivated hiring” in a demotivated labor market

How to avoid motivated hiring when workers are quiting in record numbers. This Burger King sign says it all.

As businesses reopen nearly as fast as they shut down due to the pandemic, the demand for workers has skyrocketed thereby creating risk for what I term "Motivated hiring." A reasonable assumption would be that most workers displaced by the pandemic will return to their previous employer and job. That’s not what’s happening. In fact, the reverse is.

Workers are quitting.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, four and a half million people quit their jobs in November 2021 in what has been called, "The Great Resignation." This stubborn labor market isn’t just unmotivated, it’s actively demotivated. Estimates are that one in seven individuals comprising current unemployment numbers is not seeking (traditional) employment at all. Those 4.5M signing off in November? They didn’t just quit jobs, they quit work.

That’s A problem.

When people are voluntarily out of the workforce, traditional models of supply and demand falter. The things that used to work to find and employ talent don’t work as well. Five thousand resumes don’t get you what they used to (apologies for the sarcasm). So, what do organizations do when standard practices aren’t working?

They “double-down.”

Bigger signing bonuses, higher salaries, free beer (I am not making this up), organizations are doing “whatever it takes” to hire the talent they need to keep the business going. But in times of “whatever it takes,” sometimes “whatever" will do.

That’s THE problem.

And don’t think this is someone else’s problem. Not all 4.5M that quit left jobs in hospitality and healthcare, although the effects of the pandemic have been especially devastating to these sectors. Many more are simply NOT going back to the job they quit, or that quit them.

This isn't called, “The Great Resignation” for a couple of front line industry sectors. The quits span industry sectors, and all levels.

The Brutal Truth.

When people flat out quit without another job or plan, they quit to escape bad. Fixing bad is much harder for organizations than maintaining, or even adding, good.

When fixing wages, benefits, hours, etc. doesn’t work, hiring managers and organizations “fix” themselves. Without knowing it.

That's THE REALLY BIG problem.

Cognitive dissonance, or motivated reasoning, occurs when irrational thinking, or behavior is justified by adding more illogical thinking or behavior. Here’s an example of what that sounds like: “Sure, plastic is bad for the environment, but burning gas is worse and I drive a Prius -- besides, I planted a tree the other day.” Neither your Prius nor that tree you planted has anything to do with the plastic – it only makes it SEEM less bad. And you drive away in your toy.

“Motivated hiring” is the term I use for the organization- or individual-level hiring equivalent of cognitive dissonance. It’s not the same as panic hiring or working harder to hire. It’s the opposite.

Adding resources to your recruiting and hiring efforts is logical, if not necessarily productive in today’s labor market. It’s what happens when you can’t, or don’t want to fix things anymore that motivated hiring enters the situation. Without knowing it, individuals and organizations start to justify loose hiring practices. They start making excuses for hiring candidates that aren’t “fully” qualified. Hiring what you want to believe instead of what it is and being okay with that -- that’s motivated hiring.

At the individual level it may sound like, “… I can coach them.” At the organization level, it might be changing job titles to feel like hiring for something different, and differently.

It’s mind games, fooling ourselves, and it happens to the best of us when we’re not at our best.

It's a business decision.

Without flight attendants, planes don’t fly. Without teachers, schools don’t teach. Sure, that's business.

Interim hires, substitutes, contract hires – right?

These are the decisions that keep business going when there’s no better option. And it feels okay. Actually, it may even be a good “business decision.” Sometimes “business decisions” are a convenient way of passing blame.  “I know better, but you know, it's a 'business decision'.”

Read More

Why are you hiring “can do” when “will do” is what you’ll get?

Superhero or Superzero? True performance is less obvious to predict than you think.

Research confirms what most already know: When it comes to job performance, there’s a real difference between “can do” and “will do.” But how much does "can do vs will do" really influence the way you are hiring? Which person do you think shows up for your interview? Is it possible that we have a significant problem of hiring for “can do” when what we’ll eventually get is “will do?”

In scientific literature this is referred to as “Maximum” vs “Typical” performance. One of the most clever studies published illustrating the difference between Maximum and Typical performance came about partly by accident. The researchers, led by Paul Sackett, were interested in designing a valid way to assess and hire cashiers in a retail grocery store. For simplicity’s sake, I take the liberty of referencing the actual study from a story-teller’s perspective instead of a researcher’s. (Researchers, please cut me a little slack)

A given number of cashiers (say, 10) were instructed to do their best in terms of speed and accuracy when “checking out” the exact same lot of groceries. They knew they were being assessed; heck, their “supervisor” stood over them with a stopwatch! After all 10 of the cashiers had completed checking out the same items, these ‘subjects’ were thanked, business went about as usual and the study was concluded.

Or so they thought.

Later, unbeknownst to these cashiers, they were measured again for their speed and accuracy under identical conditions to the original assessment, except this time they did not know they were being assessed.

Once completed, the results from the first measurement (Maximum Performance) were compared with the results of the second measurement (Typical Performance). What would you guess the correlation to be between the two?

Almost zero!

The study found that the correlation, or relationship, between what people can do vs what they will do was a mere .14! Interestingly, this is about the same as the correlation between the typical selection interview and job performance. Coincidence?

Stop for a moment and consider the implications of this simple, but profound study. Essentially, there is very little in common between what a person “can do” versus what they typically “will do.”

So I ask again: Which person do you think shows up for your interview? And next, what are the implications for your carefully screened team?

Uh, Houston, ….

Experts in the science of psychology at work are well aware of this challenge. As for myself, I tell my clients that I assess for what people “will do” in addition to what they “can do.” Obviously, this requires special expertise since almost all job applicants want to make the best impression they can. It’s not easy to see through the “Sunday Best” they can maintain for a full day of interviewing or assessment.

However: It is possible for a trained and experienced expert in psychological assessment at work to distinguish the difference between can do and will do. But this is still something that many have a hard time doing – even experts.

So, for your next hire, ask yourself: “Am I really measuring this person for what they can do, or what they will do?” You might just find that an expert in psychological assessment can help.

Psychology at work: It really makes a difference.

Psychways is owned and produced by Talentlift, LLC.