A common question I am asked is, should we update our job application form? My answer is typically, it depends on what you use it for?
When to keep your application form but review it
If your organization still accepts walk-in applicants and/or you collect application forms from people when they are still applicants, it is probably worth your while to take a fresh look at your document.
Since you may likely collect many applications for each position you fill, it is prudent to avoid collecting personal data that you won't need until you're ready to make the applicant an offer. So here are some items that we don't recommend including on your application form:
- Social Security number
- Drivers License or CDL number (even if the job is for a driver)
- Date of Birth
- Dates that the candidate attended or graduated from schools
- Questions about citizenship
- Questions about health conditions
If we decide to make an offer to an individual, we can collect Social Security, drivers license or CDL numbers at the offer stage so we can run the appropriate background screens. But there's no benefit to having file folders full of drivers license and Social Security numbers on individuals that we have no intention of hiring.
Here are some questions that may be legal, but you may want to consult with legal counsel before including them on your application form:
- Have you ever filed a workers comp claim? This may help protect you from serial workers comp abusers, but may also be perceived to be discriminatory against people with disabilities. Ask your attorney if this question makes sense for your organization.
- Have you ever been or convicted of a crime? This question is already illegal in some states and municipalities, and is falling out of favor with the EEOC. If you use it, make sure that you are screening employees on crimes that apply to your situation and not on convictions that aren't really relevant. For example, people convicted of child abuse obviously can't work at a day care center and you won't hire a controller who's been convicted of a financial crime, but neither conviction may matter (in the eyes of the EEOC or DOL) when the candidate is applying for a job erecting scaffolding at a commercial construction site or answering non-financial customer service calls.
When to ditch your employment application form
If you're like a lot of organizations that almost exclusively use a submitted resume to screen and interview applicants, but stick a formal application form in your new hire packet because you always have, you can probably replace the application form with some other data collection and disclaimers tools and eliminate one piece of aggravation for your new hire on their first day. Disclaimers and acknowledgements that typically appear on an application form should be duplicated somewhere else, however. These include:
- A release giving the company permission to run the appropriate background screens. We generally recommend including this in the offer letter. State the offer is conditional upon certain specific results, then include the language that gives you permission to verify the candidate meets those conditions. Also, attach a form to the offer letter in which the candidate provides you with whatever information you need to run the screens appropriate for their position (social security number, drivers license number, date of birth and even race), if required for the background screens. As long as you gather this information at the offer stage and not the application phase, you're fine (and even if those two phases occur within minutes of each other).
- Certification that the information that the applicant included in the resume is accurate. We can also include language to that effect in the offer letter - their acceptance of the offer is also certification that what they've told us is accurate.
- Notice that the company is an equal opportunity employer. Be sure to include this in the wording of any ads placed on job boards.
In summary, if you need an application form, make sure it's a good one and if you don't really need one anymore, make sure you haven't forgotten to include the stuff that used to be on your application somewhere in your recruiting, selection and on-boarding process.
Monday, April 16, 2018
What Great Managers Do Differently
I ask the question, tell me about the best boss you ever had, frequently. I ask it in job interviews to see how a candidate's prospective new boss might measure up, and I ask it when I'm leading workshops with front line supervisors and managers. While my results are not scientific, they are intuitive - the best bosses both care about the employee as a person and care about their performance as an employee. And the best bosses have the right conversations with them at the right time.
Some managers want employees to be happy to the point they are willing to sacrifice performance for employee happiness. This was called Country Club Management in Blake and Mouton's managerial grid model that I learned early in my career. Kim Scott calls it Ruinous Empathy in her 2017 book, Radical Candor: Be a Kickass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity.
These managers enjoy having conversations with their employees, but it is generally about kids, vacation, the game last night or the latest blockbuster movie. High performers crave feedback about their performance but they're not going to get it from this manager. But those employees who always seem to have drama going on outside of work are going to find an empathetic ear from this boss.
Other managers don't give a hoot about the people who work under them, as long as daily, weekly and monthly goals are met. They might have a perfunctory casual conversation every once in a while, but there's a good chance they're going to look at their watch in the middle of it. Blake and Mouton called this Authoritarian Management. Scott refers to it as being Obnoxiously Aggressive in her model.
These managers give copious amounts of feedback - the majority of which is negative. Sometimes they deliver it in real time (when they are really angry) and other times they save it up and deliver it via dump truck during a performance review or, what we used to call (irreverently) a "come-to-Jesus" meeting, designed to turn performance around. These managers tend to good performance for granted, but react quickly to mistakes.
But what employees want is the best of both - they want a boss who cares about them as a person, but also challenges them professionally. This boss has empathy when life gets in the way of work, but challenges those who frequently cite outside issues as an excuse for poor performance. They want a boss who talks to them about their performance and their career development at regular intervals, focusing on both what is going well and what is not. Scott calls this Radical Candor. I call it simply talking to people. I frequently coach struggling managers to talk to your people!
The challenge for small and mid-sized business owners and managers is that there are so many demands on their time. Unfortunately, those key employees on whom they depend for their division or company's success can unknowingly become their lowest priority. They can go weeks or months not really talking.
An approach that worked for me was blocking my calendar for short, regularly scheduled meetings with each of my direct reports. When I had an office job, we called them tea times and met weekly. When I had a field job, we called it tailgate time and met monthly. In both cases, we spent just a few minutes discussing everything from kids, sports and movies to project updates, performance feedback, and training needs and opportunities. By having a standing meeting, I could address mistakes and performance failure in context. Without those regular meetings, an unexpectedly scheduled meeting with me would signify that they were in trouble. But because we met regularly, negative feedback was taken as feedback and not necessarily a reprimand - a subtle but important distinction.
Call it what you want, but the best managers communicate with their employees regularly and demonstrate they care about them on multiple levels.
Some managers want employees to be happy to the point they are willing to sacrifice performance for employee happiness. This was called Country Club Management in Blake and Mouton's managerial grid model that I learned early in my career. Kim Scott calls it Ruinous Empathy in her 2017 book, Radical Candor: Be a Kickass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity.
These managers enjoy having conversations with their employees, but it is generally about kids, vacation, the game last night or the latest blockbuster movie. High performers crave feedback about their performance but they're not going to get it from this manager. But those employees who always seem to have drama going on outside of work are going to find an empathetic ear from this boss.
Other managers don't give a hoot about the people who work under them, as long as daily, weekly and monthly goals are met. They might have a perfunctory casual conversation every once in a while, but there's a good chance they're going to look at their watch in the middle of it. Blake and Mouton called this Authoritarian Management. Scott refers to it as being Obnoxiously Aggressive in her model.
These managers give copious amounts of feedback - the majority of which is negative. Sometimes they deliver it in real time (when they are really angry) and other times they save it up and deliver it via dump truck during a performance review or, what we used to call (irreverently) a "come-to-Jesus" meeting, designed to turn performance around. These managers tend to good performance for granted, but react quickly to mistakes.
But what employees want is the best of both - they want a boss who cares about them as a person, but also challenges them professionally. This boss has empathy when life gets in the way of work, but challenges those who frequently cite outside issues as an excuse for poor performance. They want a boss who talks to them about their performance and their career development at regular intervals, focusing on both what is going well and what is not. Scott calls this Radical Candor. I call it simply talking to people. I frequently coach struggling managers to talk to your people!
The challenge for small and mid-sized business owners and managers is that there are so many demands on their time. Unfortunately, those key employees on whom they depend for their division or company's success can unknowingly become their lowest priority. They can go weeks or months not really talking.
An approach that worked for me was blocking my calendar for short, regularly scheduled meetings with each of my direct reports. When I had an office job, we called them tea times and met weekly. When I had a field job, we called it tailgate time and met monthly. In both cases, we spent just a few minutes discussing everything from kids, sports and movies to project updates, performance feedback, and training needs and opportunities. By having a standing meeting, I could address mistakes and performance failure in context. Without those regular meetings, an unexpectedly scheduled meeting with me would signify that they were in trouble. But because we met regularly, negative feedback was taken as feedback and not necessarily a reprimand - a subtle but important distinction.
Call it what you want, but the best managers communicate with their employees regularly and demonstrate they care about them on multiple levels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)