The economic slump of 2008 changed many existing management theories, beliefs, concepts, and practices. My classification of past and present times could just as well be termed "pre-2008" and "post-2008". Let's review how recruitment scenarios changed before and after 2008.
"Before 2008, I used to get a large number of interview invitations from different hardware development companies for various positions available. But nothing really caught my interest," recalls P. Harihar, a senior engineer at UK-based global IT hardware organization ARM. "But it was in 2010, when my present employer ARM UK offered me something that I was really looking for, and I shifted my base from Bangalore, India, to Cambridge, UK." Harihar's story, shared with me after he had been interviewed for his new role first by phone, then twice in person, is far from unique. The change from blanket interviews to a specific, targeted process of matching Harihar's skills and needs and those of his company in the wake of the recession was conspicuous. And it made all the difference.
Let's assume that "Company A" has targeted a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 35 percent for the next three years. In order to achieve this, an additional 200 professionals must be hired per quarter. The interview to hire ratio is 8:1, which means that 1600 candidates must be interviewed in a quarter to achieve the hiring target of 200 employees. Imagine that the number of working days in a quarter are 66, this would call for approximately 26 face-to-face interviews a day.
For some sectors such as IT/ITES, real estate, telecoms, banking, financial services, and insurance, the number of interviews organized per day increased five fold during the peak of their hiring before 2008, and companies seldom if ever held preliminary telephone interviews.
There were several reasons behind such gigantic hiring targets:
The economic boom had provided a great opportunity for profit-oriented organizations to boost their businesses tremendously
These organizations' prime focus was on enhancing business by adding a large number of customers to the existing portfolio, which in turn meant deploying larger staff
Companies had the resources to plough into large hiring budgets
Management was often more focused on quantity over quality
As hiring was not an issue, firing was not a problem either, and high employee turnover was of little concern
Since the job market offered ample opportunities, candidates were open to experimentation
The job applicant's main attention was on a better compensation package, at least in the majority of cases
The results of all of this defined the hiring environment:
No preliminary screening process existed, except resume vetting
Interviews were more a case of trial and error rather than a well-defined process with a result-oriented approach, except for top leadership positions
Essentially, in profit-oriented industries, corporate recruiters' primary concern was to arrange interview candidates to fill their targets, even if that meant compromising on the quality of the candidate, and agency recruiters complied with their clients' demands
Most candidates never gave weight to role clarity; even if some did, they were convinced by the recruiters or the agents to attend the face-to-face interview
There was a very low stick ratio; with job hopping being a common trend, the company that offered more money got the candidate, even if that meant resigning from the previous job in just six months
That was a common picture of recruitment for the majority of industries globally. However, many from both sides of the process began to understand that recruitment and job change respectively were the kind of decisions that must be taken more consciously. Those were the people who highlighted the need for telephone interviews.
Initially, telephone interviews were seen simply as an initial screening process. This had its own drawbacks:
Recruiters did it primarily to carry out the initial screening of the candidate, which included verifying the facts given on the resume and evaluating their basic communication skills. This still left everything but the most basic evaluation to the face-to-face interview.
Candidates primarily used it as a tool for assessing the kind of money offered in the role. Though some also used it to glean whether the role really suited them, or if recruiters were merely lining up candidates in order to meet their targets, the information exchanged remained cursory.
Undoubtedly, these screening interviews cut down on time and effort for the recruiter while improving the quality of candidates coming in, but only marginally. It turned out to be productive for the candidates as well, as now they had to attend fewer interviews in a job market full of prospects. Still, no one realized the true potential a telephone interview could offer.
Then, in 2008, the bubble burst and the recession changed everything.
The year 2008 began with global economic meltdown, critically affecting even the strongest of nations and organizations. Forget competition, companies were merely trying to keep themselves afloat in such turbulent waters. Even the most stable and employee-driven organizations were forced to issue pink slips to their most loyal employees. Worse were the humiliating ways in which such layoffs were carried out within the organizations that completely crushed the loyalty and feelings of security amongst those who stayed. During the hiring freeze (which lasted almost until 2010), organizations had ample time to redefine their processes. It was a time for introspection and learning. Every strategic move must now navigate the new waters of cost cutting, effectiveness, and productivity, leading to the scrutiny of each and every business process to achieve these goals. It also gave time to candidates to develop a holistic approach towards the process of a job search.
Some major changes emerged in organizational strategies and goals:
The biggest challenge for companies became business retention
Value business was given priority over numbers, which created the need for smaller teams of highly-effective performers
Employers had faced the losses of bad hires, as well as the hammering of their face value in the employment market due to layoffs; hence, many became extremely vigilant of the recruitment process
Cost efficiency became the prime target of every process, which created the need for stringent hiring methods
Talent management and talent retention became the core focus of human resource strategies
Perhaps the biggest mutation was the way in which job opportunities were perceived by the applicants. Candidates were no longer interested in jobs that offered only monetary compensation. They demanded more—more job relatability, more training initiatives, more all-inclusive career growth, and thus more perceived security. They wanted to critically appraise the company's vision, market sensibilities, human-resource policies and strategies, growth opportunities, long term strategies towards learning and development, and past and present performance.
Three major developments took place that needed immediate attention and a single quick solution:
The job market progressed from local to global as employers were now ready to hire the best talent available without any geographical constraint, while candidates were also more open to international relocation. At the same time, minimizing the hiring cost and the risk of a bad hire was vital.
Interviews could no longer be a one-sided selection process. Hiring now had to be blended with sales to make it a mutual process to entice the best candidates.
Candidates as well as companies wanted to ensure that the relationship would be based on long-term mutual trust and benefit.
The best solution to all of these issues: the telephone interview.
