First, it starts with a realization that people have choice. Especially in education, but probably in all sectors, we have assumed that people want to come work for us. I think this is a bad step.
We're going to take two approaches here to look at this problem.
First, we are going to look at what makes a bad experience, and try to do the opposite.
Second, we are going to try to create an experience that will guide the right people to us!
The Worst Case Scenario Approach
What must you do to make working for you the worst possible situation?
- You can make the application process opaque, difficult-to-navigate, annoying, tedious, time-consuming, with very little communication
- In the interviewing process you can ask "gotcha" questions to make people feel like they're taking a high-stakes test (which they truly are, it's their livelihood, of course!)
- Once they're hired, make the onboarding process a repetition of what they've already done, tedious in nature, collect all the same information, sometimes twice, and make it really annoying to get started. Don't give them any training on what they should do and throw them into the pit right away, so they have to figure out how to make connections. You could go to the other extreme just as easily, and provide so much support that they feel smothered, so don't do that either.
- While employed, make sure they have to follow strict protocols that remind them constantly they are a piece of meat, a "human resource" that is to be exploited and used for the betterment of the organization. Make sure they know they are employed so long as they provide value and will be discarded the moment they are of less value than they are being paid.
These are just a few ideas, and certainly not an exhaustive list. There are more things you can do, but I tried to break it down into the four categories: recruiting, hiring, onboarding, daily work.
Let's examine some better ways to do each of these.
Recruiting
Jason Fried says "Don't hire until it hurts." What he means by that is don't hire someone until you are sure you need them, can sustain them, and know that it will be better for you to hire them than to not have them.
That being said, you are always recruiting. One of the strategies that I recommend to all school principals is to keep in touch with great teachers they may want to hire. Then, send them a quarterly update about what you've got going on in your school and why they might want to join you there. This can work well for other industries also.
When you see someone that you think would be a great person to work with, stay in touch, whether you are the job giver or the job seeker. Keep a network of people you would love to work with and stay in touch. whatever business you are in, you are in the people business. Even if you are all remote. Even if you are all in an open office plan. People are the life blood. Always be recruiting.
When it comes to applying, make it is easy for people to apply to work for you.
Yes, you need to collect information, but you don't have to make that an awful experience. With the ability to collect information today, this should be seamless process. I recently saw a company that imported your history from LinkedIn and displayed it in such a way that you could tell where overlaps happened, and could see education timeframes as well. In fact, I just started an application just to take a screenshot.
This was all imported from my LinkedIn profile, and it was very easy to change when I needed to change it. This was using a system built by Oracle.
This view is beneficial to the applicant and the reviewer, to get a high level overview of what that person's pathway has been and gives solid information where the resume, cover letter, and other answers to questions can fill in the gaps.
Interview Process
In several of my positions where I've been in charge of hiring, I've seen different approaches. Sometimes, I could ask any questions I want. Other times, I had to ask the same questions, regardless of applicability. There is an overwhelming sense to sciencize the interview and hiring process, as though we could design the perfect thing to get the best candidate.
Sorry to say to the "science of" folks, but it bears reminding, we are in the people business. People matter, and they are unique, even when they look, act, and appear similar. Regardless of how many ratings, "objective" scales, or anything else we do, hiring is and always will be a subjective decision. Anybody who tells you different is lying.
The most important thing is trying to figure out the answer to this question, "Will we all enjoy working with this person in the future?"
That is also a multifaceted question! Will we like working with them because:
they are congenial?
they get their work done on time?
they are easy-going or hard-nosed?
they are stubborn, insistent, or opinionated?
they are outspoken, mild-mannered, or something in between?
The list goes on and on, and it is and always will be subjective. Each person will have their own opinion and their own take about what makes that person a good fit or not.
Rather than avoiding the subjective question, and trying to make it a hyper-rational decision, we should recognize that we
Can't predict the future
are making our best guess, and
will likely change our opinions over time.
So, own that it is a gut decision, and that it is about cultural fit.
Now, if your "cultural fit" is excluding people in protected classes or for inappropriate reasons, you're doing it wrong, that's not cultural fit, that's bigotry. It's wrong and it's illegal. Don't do that.
Finally, when people are applying for a job, they're looking for a job. There is often a level of desperation, where they just need to pay the bills. Make your hiring decisions quickly, and notify people so they can move on. Rarely are people applying for only one job.
Due to the nature of life and hiring, people have to look for multiple opportunities, not just one. Have some grace and empathy for their situation, and help them know where they stand.
Many times, I've applied for jobs, and not heard anything back. I've reached personally, not gotten a response. Other times, I've been in near constant contact.
One thing I always told teachers when I decided I wanted to hire them, "We're entering a bureaucratic process. it moves slowly. I want you here, so while this process plays out, let's stay in touch and keep chatting so we know where it is going."
Onboard for Personal and Work Life
When I was a principal in Kodiak, Alaska, it was tough to get people to move to a remote island community.
To combat this, we asked lots of questions about actually moving across the country to a literal island.
And we started early asking those questions. This forced us to ask questions that might have seemed inappropriate in a typical job interview, but were essential to see if the person could actually make it to move there and live there. It wasn't inappropriate to ask about how difficult it would be live thousands of miles away from extended family, it was essential. And, in that situation, it was a question of practicality. It was a question of necessity.
Then, once someone was hired, we had to support them in work and personal life. So, we would check out homes they were interested in, give insights to local churches, community groups, and services. All outside the realm of what a hiring manager would typically do, because it was essential.
It taught me how important it is to see that when someone takes a new job, it's a big life decision, one that could affect them for a long time.
We onboarded people to life and work on the island. We would be wise to take the same approach.
When you hire someone, you don't just hire them for the time they work for you. Because they still have a life outside your work hours, and that life is inseparably connected to their work life. So help them with all those other things.
In the United States, most people get health insurance through their work, so this is a natural area where they need some onboarding.
But let's get even simpler, setting up everything that needs to be set up when you start working somewhere should be a simple and easy process. Provisioning computers is a nearly-automatic process with MDM solutions. Other onboarding tasks should take a similar approach.
Most important though, is the process should be personalized to the individual.
What does that mean?
Give them what they need when they need it.
Deadlines have to be met, people have needs.
The first day of work is not the best time to decide the investment strategy for their 401K. That can wait, and it can change.
How to get access to what they need, how to work, what the culture is. Those are all more pressing and should be focused on early.
Some people may want or need to be directed in everything, be prepared for that, since that takes the most work.
Some people (myself included) want to be turned loose on projects. Be prepared for that as well. Have something ready for them. If it's not possible to start with getting their hands dirty, make sure the training is ready for them to get started.
I once had to sit in an office for a week waiting for access to the things I needed to do my work. It wasn't even worth it for me to show up, because things weren't ready for me. If that's the case, delay the start date, delay the start time. Or find something meaningful for them to do.
People have lives outside of work, and work stress inevitably adds to their life stress. Let's not make that work stress unnecessarily bigger.
Daily Work
The key in making the daily work worthwhile is to be clear about what constitutes success in the role.
Each role will be different and each role should also support the overall vision of the organization. If it doesn't, it probably isn't necessary.
A customer support representative who isn't concerned with the bottom line, but only with serving customers might be misaligned.
I called Alaska Airlines one time to get some help with changing a flight. The customer support rep was happy to help, cost the company a little money by waiving some fees for me, but treated me with such respect that they gained a lifelong customer. I've had bad interactions since, but the good customer service many more times has shown me what they value.
On the other hand, I had a one-week lapse on a voucher from another airline for a canceled flight and they wouldn't let me redeem it. It frustrated me so greatly that I don't ever want to fly with them again.
Employees need to know what is really important. They need to be given space and latitude to make decisions that will help with that.
If you've been recruiting people with the vision for a long time, when they come on board, they will quickly see what is most valuable and will be ready to act in accordance.
Wherever possible, things that take away agency, flexibility, and growth opportunities should eliminated.
At the same time, people still have a job to do. Sometimes that job sucks. But they have to know going into it what their job is.
I had a custodian that worked for me in my school. He was a great guy and he knew it was his job to clean up messes. He didn't complain and whine when kids made messes. He cleaned them up. Better yet, he felt like he could teach kids how to make better decisions that didn't result in messes in the first place. He knew that we were about education, so he educated kids. He knew we were about kindness and respect for others, so he educated in a kind, respectful way.
He still made sure kids knew what they should be doing and how they should act, but he did it in a way that respected him and them. It was powerful to watch.
I had a different custodian at a different school. Teachers never wanted to ask him to do anything because she grumbled and complained about everything, even when it was very clearly her job to do it. She didn't like to do the worst parts of her job and made sure everyone knew it. That's not the kind of attitude we want in our organizations.
Tasks and processes that show a lack of trust should be eliminated.
Tasks and processes that help ensure trust should be continued.
Let me highlight the difference.
When we assume that someone is out to steal from the company, whether that is time or money or supplies, we set them up in a situation that shows a lack of trust. For example, keeping the door to the common supplies locked so that only one person can give supplies that are readily needed is an example of a lack of trust.
On the other hand, making sure that people have easy access to all the common supplies they could need shows that we trust them to use the supplies and get them when they need them.
Having two people count cash is a way to ensure trust. When two people verify that the money was counted correctly, we have confidence that it was right.
There are, of course, ways that each of those situations, with the understanding of the right context, could be seen as building trust or showing a lack of trust, opposite from what I described.
That's why your context matters so much. Your situation is unique, and it is wise to think about your situation specifically as it relates to your employees and trust, or lack thereof.
Separation
Begin with the end in mind.
Workers today are likely going to have dozens of jobs by the time they retire, if they ever do retire in the traditional sense.
Recognize that you will part ways at some point. Talk about what that will look like.
When I got hired for my last school principal job, I told my superintendent, "We don't need to make it awkward when you're done with me. Just tell me. No harm, no foul."
When you start a new job, you should know that the separation is coming, too. It's silly to think that you would stay somewhere forever, so rather than be surprised when it comes, you should plan for the circumstances that show you it is time to leave.
Every job should have a trial period, where employee and employer can agree to part ways if things don't work out. Laws, union agreements, and common sense should play out in these situations as well.
A time of probation is going to be different for an entry-level fast food worker from a classroom teacher from a lawyer from a doctor buying into a new practice.
Employer and employee should be clear about what constitutes not continuing with each other after the probation period.
Here are a few for consideration:
Rather than waiting for things to be so toxic, write out a list of things that won't work for you to stick around.
If this is an "up or out" situation, be clear about what up looks like, how soon, and communicate that between parties.
If this is a ladder-type role that you are using to get your foot in the door, or to get higher up, be clear about that.
Set a timeline for a position. "I'm willing to be here and give it my all for 2 years, and then I'm going to start looking."
Consider if this is a "seasonal" job for your life, where it is at.
Let's examine the last one briefly. One situation that I dealt with involved a single woman who was going to work for us until she got married and had a child. That was her goal. The job with us would be for this season where she didn't have a family. It was her goal, her purpose and she made it very clear that when she got pregnant, she would resign at the end of that semester. She didn't want maternity leave, she didn't want to come back after having a child.
This thoughtful planning prepared everyone for her eventual departure. As she fell in love with a great guy, got married, we were able to celebrate those experiences with her, knowing they were also spelling the end of our professional relationship.
When the day came, she confidently shared that she was pregnant and based on when the baby was due, we knew her last day. For her, it worked out nicely that she could finish out the academic year and maintain health insurance into part of the summer when the baby was born. It was joyous all around, if a little bittersweet for us, since we knew we were losing a great teacher. Luckily, we had been recruiting someone previously.
There are other seasons, though, as well.
I'm here to gain X experience
I'm here to have health insurance until my child goes to college
I'm here to make a lot of money so I can retire earlier.
These reasons all exist, and if you're not going to be clear about the outcome with your employer, you should at least be clear about the outcome with yourself, so you know when the end is nigh.
By the same token, an employer should be clear about what the end looks like for an employee. In my schools, if you intentionally physically or sexually harm a child in your care, you're out. That's a very easy line for me to draw.
An employer should be able to say, "We need you for this specific project, for this specific duration, or for this specific role."
People like the idea of stability, but many people would be fine with some clarity about the end goal, and what it looks like when that is reached. If people knew that they would have a job for a couple years to accomplish a certain goal, that would not necessarily be a bad thing.
What is missing here?
