People are what make an organization go or not go. Does the employmentprocess sometimes make you wonder if finding good personnel is a hit ormiss operation? Preplanning the interview may heZp raise your battingaverage.

LET'S HIRE THE RIGHT PEOPLE

BY CHARLES G. BRUCH

Member, IEEE Engineering Management Society

Our traditional way of selecting personnel for organizationalvacancies uses the interview as a key step in the process. Few em-

ployers would consider filling any vacancy without this "get acquainted"meeting. Most employers overrate their personal ability to evaluate thesuitability of prospective employees, however. My statement is based onthe casual approach often taken toward the interview process and theless than desired results sometimes achieved. An employment candidate,on the other hand, has little opportunity to know what he will face inthe encounter. He usually has little control over the time, place, orline of questioning. He must guess at the qualities the employer islooking for and may end up giving an impromptu showing of only that sideof himself. If the interview situation is really as just described, isit little wonder that sometimes it doesn't produce the desired results?One time consuming aspect of modern personnel administration is solvingemployer-employee problems which might have been avoided if the inter-view process had only worked well.

A good way to start laying the ground work for an effective inter-view is to realistically appraise the reason for the job vacancy.Employment obviously must go beyond the mere process of filling a slotto accomplish delegated tasks or to carry out assigned responsibility.With a mismatched person and job, tasks aren't promptly accomplished noris responsibility capably carried out. Therefore, one must be candidwith one's self in making the vacancy cause assessment. Preferably youshould get some outside assistance in understanding the real reasons

45

behind it. Surface reasons may run the gambit from filling a vacancycaused by the deteriorating health of an incumbent to filling one causedby the discharge of an unsatisfactory employee. Often, employees leavefor the stated reasons of promotion, more pay, or retirement. Thesereasons might appear logical but may be only the tip of the iceburg.Poor health could have followed a heart attack brought on by tension,frustration, and overwork. Promotion, salary increase, or retirementoffers a graceful cover for the employee who is just plain dissatisfied.Numerous other situations lead to vacancies. A discharge vacancy mayhave culminated from continuing deterioration in the way an employee andhis supervisor related to each other. A new position may be createdmerely to hire someone who will get things done that present employeesfail to do. In all of these situations, the important thing to rememberis that the new employee should be selected to satisfy or overcome (asthe case may be) those things that led to the vacancy he is hired tofill.

Communication may be the most talked about and least practicedskill in human relations today. It is the vehicle of informationexchange but can be subject to varying degrees of misunderstanding andapprehension on the part of both persons in the interview situation.The possibility of this breakdown must be considered in the planningprocess. Somehow, a way must be found to overcome apprehension so thateach person can reveal enough of his true self to the other to allow theselection process to work effectively. The employer should take thelead in this. After all he is the one with the vacancy, he should knowwhat qualities are necessary for filling it, and he has responsibilityfor the results. Planning ahead to have something to say and create a

relaxed environment is a must for a meaningful two-way exchange. Thepractice of talking-listening must be balanced and must involve mutualparticipation in thought train development. Obviously an employer whotalks too much (or too pointedly) and listens too little is trying to

sell when he should be trying to buy. On the other hand, one wholistens too much or too passively will probably find that the interviewis over before either party has learned what each needs to know for a

46

well thoughtout decision. Active participation in conversation with the

other person is a must to overcome apprehension and to avoid monolog.Remember active conversation involves helping the other person share his

actual thoughts and feelings.

Moving on, let's look at the interview. The prospective employeepresents himself at the appointed time and place. Both of you smile,shake hands, and the conversation starts. The candidate may be shuttledamong several persons and shown a good deal of your operation. Oc-

casionally he may be handled in a sub-rosa context, especially, if thevacancy has not yet occurred. Usually "out of towners" are drivenaround to get a glimpse of the community. Sooner or later seriousconversation has to start. The candidate is asked questions concerninghis resume, interests, attitudes, accomplishments, etc. Some inter-viewers probe with pointed or difficult questions with the intention of

seeing how the candidate responds to them. It is important, however,that they get around to and cover the following job vacancy backgroundin depth:

a. The role of the companyb. The role of the specific organization in the companyc. The role of the vacancy to be filled in the organizationd. The contribution of a desireable employee in the role.

Prepared graphics and/or flip charts will be helpful in holding at-tention and in maintaining active two-way communication. Some or allshould be on 8 1/2 by 11 paper for the candidate to make notes on and to

keep for future reference. The presentation should not be a lecture butshould draw out an equal amount of information from the candidate. Thiscan be done by on-going questions as to comparability with his past

experience, concept of organization, etc. If this paragraph soundslike pretty standard stuff, then ask yourself two questions. Is itreally happening in your organization? Did it really happen in theinterviews that you were last on as a candidate?

47

The interview process still needs to be carried deeper. W4ill thecandidate work directly for someone else? If so, do you and that super-visor both understand why you are also conducting the interview? Theremay be valid reasons. But, if the person for whom the candidate willwork is a subordinate of yours, is he also conducting a good interview?It might pay to look into this because an entirely different view ofyour vacancy filling aspirations might be forming in that interview. Itis only fair that both the employer's and the supervisor's expectationsbe fully communicated in exchange for an objective presentation ofhimself by the candidate. At the conclusion, it must be hoped that theemployer's offer of the job and the candidates acceptance of it will bebased on understanding and full confidence of success. Any lack ofunderstanding or the communication of a picture that seldom can happenwill come back to haunt all of you.

The functioning of a person in the job will heavily reflect the se-lection process. Recognition of this is important in the interview.Four models from the literature will be used here for planning guidance.The first is from Chung[l] and is relative to employee performance.Three additional models are used to support it. Of these, the models ofMaslow[2] and Herzberg[3] are well known while that of Riggs[4] may notbe as familiar. References are provided for the reader who would liketo explore any of these in further detail.

The performance of any employee is of concern to both the employerand the employee. It figures prominently in the prospect of employeejob satisfaction. Good performance by the employee is an importantfactor in good performance on your part. Chung gives us a means ofexploring the prognosis for good employee performance during the in-terview. He has combined the commonly cited performance contributorsinto the following model:

P = f(A x N x I x E)Where

P = PerformanceA = AbilityN = Need SatisfactionI = Incentive

E = Environment (perceived)

48

The formula says that performance, P, is a multiplicative functionof the four factors A, N, I, and E. This is to say that a numericalvalue for performance would be directly proportional to the numericalvalues assigned to ability, needs, incentive, and perceived environment.For a given individual, a higher value for one can compensate for a

lower value in another -- but only up to a point. All of the perfor-mance contributors should be explored during the interveiw. Use of themwill be elaborated in the following paragraphs.

The candidate's ability factor, A, is often assessed from a resumewhich may list education, experience, success, etc. Conversation usuallyprovides an elaboration of this if not totally new information. Theinterviewer relates this to his personal experience and to his experiencewith others. An opinion as to ability starts forming. Candidates oftenpass or fail in consideration based on how the assessment jells. Atthis point, one may be making an incorrect judgement based on the candi-date's past success or failure. Past success can often be found to bedependent on the specific situation. Thus, it may not guarantee futuresuccess any more than past failure guarantees future failure. Riggsexplains this by extending the well known Peter Principle to the modelshown in Figure 1.

THE RIGGS MODELGAPS OF UTTERINCOMPETENCE

|_ * TRUE POINT OF OFPOIN PETE HIGER AXIXMUMPOINTOF MAXIMUM FALSE POINTUOFINCOMPETENCE,, MAXMUINCOMPETENCE ;

z FALSE POINTOF ..t MAXIMUM_'

INCOMPETENCE HIGHESTLOWEST~~~~~~~HGHS

° { LEVEL OF MAXIMUM INCOMPETENCE ' CURCUREz L INCOMPETENCE CURVE

WORK LEVEL ° WORK LEVEL

Fig. 1 Rigg's Interpretation of the Peter Principle (from reference 4)

49

Note that Rigg's conception of the Peter Principle pictures a

discrete upper limit on each person's ability. The Riggs Model in-troduces two additional considerations. The first is that incompetencerises on a curve related to work level. The second is that each personmay have a family of competence curves separated by areas of totalincompetence. For the latter, consider a college educated person coming

from a business oriented family background. He may have worked at

unskilled tasks during high school and college. In addition, thisperson may have developed some skill following auto repairing as ahobby. Undoubtedly he could become competent at a mechanical craft butmight show increasing incompetence if he should rise in shop supervision.This could be due to inability to relate well with personnel havingdifferent backgrounds and who intend to follow craft work as a lifetimecareer. Jumping past this incompetence area, he might start a new curvein a role fitting his formal education. Again, this person might be

able to rise in the supervison of that specialty. Possibly, successhere would be limited by interest lack and frustration related to

existing middle-management policy straight-jackets. His family life and

other background considerations may have better equipped him for an

occupation challenging vision, decisiveness, accountability, etc., but

one also allowing latitude of action. Perhaps he could start a new

curve in plant management and reach ultimate incompetence at a corporatelevel where his brilliance or energy endowment becomes overtaxed.

The Rigg's Model thus makes allowance for the success-failure or

failure-success syndrome that should be actively considered for eachcandidate interviewed. The interview may be the only opportunity anemployer has to draw out sufficient information for an assessment of howthe Rigg's Model of the prospective employee will fit the job require-ments. Undoubtedly many mismatches occur and many best prospects are

not hired because prior success, prior failure, or past experience was

used inflexibly as a criteria for employment suitability.

The need factor, N, can be examined starting first with Maslow'shierarchy of needs. Two people (probably strangers) meeting to discussemployment certainly show that needs exist. These go beyond the mere

fact of a vacancy and a person seeking a vacancy to fill. Maslow'smodel of the hierarchy of human needs is as follows:

50

Level Need

Highest 5 Self Actualization4 Esteem

3 Social (Love)2 Security Lowest

Lowest 1 Physiological

Maslow postulated that as a lower need is basically satisfied, the next

higher need emerges. A valid question at this point is, "Have you

looked at your needs lately?" How will filling this vacancy help you

satisfy them? Then the big question "Are you prepared to discuss your

needs and how a desirable employee filling the vacancy would fulfill

them?" It is just as important for you to understand the candidate'sneeds along with your needs, and how well they both can be fulfilled by

placing him in the job. The reason for this is, if hired, sooner or

later you both will become aware of each other's needs. Why have one or

both of you painfully surprised at that later date. Thus, it is impor-

tant to lay out some discussion and questions for use during the inter-

view which will produce answers to the following:

a. What are the needs of each of you at this time?

b. How well do these needs coordinate?c. What are the prospects for each of you to operate at Maslow's

level 4?d. Is Maslow's level 5 attainable for either of you?

These may prove difficult for discussion and may be easily fumbled if

there are skeletons in either closet. Answers to these questions can

usually be found without embarrassment if your homework is adequate.Success, without an appraisal of accurate answers, may be strictly hitor miss.

51

The role of the needs factor, N, on the part of both employer andthe employee has been outlined. Suffice it to say that good performanceand need satisfaction are tightly bound together for every person.Exploring this in a logical, friendly, and nondemanding way along withsome illustration of your own needs may help get this subject out on thetable for constructive discussion.

The incentive factor, I, is also much talked about in interviews.This reflects the keen competition for good people and the desire of allcandidates for the "good life". Salary increases, health care benefits,pensions, etc., are much in vogue and undoubtedly seriously consideredby any candidate in a position to bid for more than one job. Is it anywonder that employees may later leave and go to another employer who canoffer a bigger benefit package? Perhaps you should take another look atHerzburg's Motivators and Hygene Factors. Herzburg noted a basicdifference between certain factors of the work situation strongly re-

lated to job satisfaction (motivators) and those strongly related to jobdissatisfaction (hygene factors). The unique thing about these twofactor sets is that each seemed to operate mostly in its own domain.That is the motivators served more to satisfy if available than todissatisfy if not available. The hygene factors served more to dissatisfyif not available than to satisfy if available. Numerous investigationssubsequent to Herzburg's original work have been made using a widevariety of managerial, supervisory, and employee groups. The factorsfound (although not all applicable to each group) include:

Motivators (satisfiers)1. Achievement2. Recognition3. Work Itself4. Responsibility5. Advancement6. Possibility of Growth

52

Hygene Factors (dissatisfiers)

1. Company Policy and Administration

2. Supervison - Technical3. Interpersonal Relationships - Supervision4. Interpersonal Relationships - Subordinates5. Working Conditions6. Status7. Personal Life8. Security9. Salary.

It might be well to reread Herzburg if you are trying to provide, as

incentives, those items he lists as dissatisfiers.

The perceived environment, E, is the last factor in Chung's model.People operate on the basis of how they view their situation and theeffect of the people around them. Obviously you can't fully communicateto a candiate what his environment will be for him in the job. This is

because of the influence his personal perception plays in developing his

view of the environment. However, you can discuss how you perceive itand how others seem to perceive it. He in turn can tell you how he hasperceived his past environments. This will provide both of you with one

more basis for conversation and further awareness as to what the future

may hold.

The foregoing has covered a wide range in discussing the role of

human relations and how it can be explored in the interview process.The point of this article is that this role is important and can be made

a part of the interview. It is intended to increase the chances of

improving your operation by getting the right people. This is to be done

by extending the interview depth beyond that usually achieved after an

hour or so of exhaustive talk on limited subjects. The exploration of

the following can add substance to the interview:

53

1. Reason for the vacancy2. Structuring the interview3. Performance model where P = f(A x N x I x E)4. Rigg's Model of incompetence and ability5. Needs of both employer and candidate6. Role of incentives7. Perceived environment prognosis.

Hopefully, the use of these will take employee selection furtherout of the intangible "intuition" context and provide some meaningfulbasis for good future performance on the part of the persons actuallyselected. Perhaps getting ready for the interview will even providesome needed introspection for yourself. Does all of this seem to re-

quire too much investment of time? Think then how much time you wouldwaste if you should hire the wrong person.

REFERENCES

[1] Kae H. Chung, Toward a General Theory of Mlotivation and Performance,California Managerent Review, Vol. 11, No.3, pp 81-E8, Spring 1969.Also reprinted in Engineering Management Review Vol. 3. No. 3,pp 59-66, September 1975.

[2] Abraham R. Maslow, A Theory of Human Motivation, PsychologicalReview, Vol. 50 pp 370-396, 1943. Abridged in Richard N. Steersand Lyman W. Porter, Motivation and Work Behavior, hew York,McGraw-Hill, 1975.

[3] Frederick Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man, Cleveland, 1966.

[4] Arthur J. Riggs, Parkinson's Law, the Peter Princ!ple, and theRiggs posthesi - Michigan usiness Rview, Vol. 13No. 2 pp 23-35. Mar. 1971. Also reprinted in Engineering ManagementReview, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp 60-62, Oecenber 1974.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mr. Bruch is a Senior Engineering Specialist at the Idaho NationalEngineering Laboratory. He performs investigative and consultativework for management as an employee of EG&G Idaho. Inc. Mr. Bruchserved as a Civil Engineer Corps Officer in the Navy managing Con-struction and Maintenance at Shore Installations. He received a

Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering from the University ofMichigan in 1963 and is a Registered Professional Engineer.

54