The hiring process can be tortuous.
Lengthy and cumbersome, the journey from completing an application to Day One of employment is often fraught with peril for both the applicant and the recruiting/HR team. There are hundreds of steps with various decision points along the way; there’s an overabundance of judgment, from the first time a recruiter’s eyeballs (or a robot’s algorithm) glance at the applicant’s resume all the way up until the final reference has been received and pre-placement drug results delivered.
Most HR professionals are pretty mindful of this. There’s lots of work being done to streamline the application and hiring process and an incredible amount of improvement being done in organizations large and small as they clean up onboarding. We’re doing a much better job, collectively, of ensuring there’s consistency and cohesion between the branding work being done by our TA teams and the onboarding conducted by the folks in human resources.
Yet we still have a bit of work to do once those happy-faced company newbies land in their cubicles, offices and/or work stations. Why? Because with startling regularity, new hires are placed in a precarious situation akin to being stranded at the top of a Ferris wheel — dangling with uncertainty before the basket starts to move again.
Sure, there are lots of nifty and innovative ways organizations are welcoming new hires and working to ensure their employment experience journey kicks off in high gear. They’re tracking and measuring and focused on ensuring alignment, meaning, value and purpose. This can be good stuff; I love when companies invest their time and resources into enabling and supporting a culture that values performance and satisfaction.
On the flip side, however, over many years I’ve observed the opposite phenomenon — a practice that is still very much alive. It’s a combination of set-up-to-fail syndrome and confirmation bias. Putting both of these together leads to managers (and organizations) unintentionally undermining the success of newly hired employees.
I like to call it “I’ll Wait Until You Prove Me Wrong” syndrome.
- “The last three hires I made into this position couldn’t perform the job up to our standards; I’m sure Joe will be the same way” (confirmation bias).
- “Remember Sally who worked in Accounting? We gave her a bonus after six months and then she quit; we better not do that again” (confirmation bias).
- “I didn’t really get the greatest recommendation from Bob’s last manager; I better keep my eye on him” (set-up-to-fail syndrome).
This syndrome manifests itself in numerous ways, including one of the most time-honored traditions of most any onboarding process: the overview of company policies. Jan from HR, with great fanfare, hands over the employee policy manual to Susie New Hire and goes through a highlight reel of “what not to do.”
Then, realizing that things are sounding just a bit too dire and legal, Jan launches into a review of the employee benefits available — after 90 days, after six months, after one year. This Is not just about Jan or the hiring manager; it’s the entire organization saying “We’ll Wait Until You Prove Us Wrong.”
Let me count on just one hand a few of the “typical” HR policies that may signal you’re expecting the worst (not the best) from your employees/new hires:
- “Probationary” (OMG … don’t call it that!) periods.
- Progressive discipline for every small infraction. (Reams and reams of paper.)
- Making employees wait to access PTO or sick leave. (What? No one gets sick in their first six months of employment?)
- Discipline for attendance (with heightened penalties during the “probationary period” — OMG … don’t call it that!).
- “Proof” for bereavement leave. (We do NOT trust you in your time of mourning!).
“But … but … but,” I hear you saying, “those types of policies ensure consistency and some may be for financial reasons. We need to be good stewards of the company’s assets!”
I’m not saying some aspects of those policies might not be appropriate for your industry, company or location; they may very well have been implemented for some well-thought-out reasons.
Then again … perhaps it’s time to ask yourself if they are serving a purpose. Was that bereavement policy developed 15 years ago after one employee suddenly had six grandmothers pass away within a two-month period? Why not give employees access to paid sick leave in their first 180 days of employment? Would you rather Betty come to work with the flu or give her a few days off to recover at home even if she’s only worked for you for four months?
Are your practices and your policies designed to assume the WORST from people … or the BEST?
author: Robin Schooling