Steve's Blog (for Jobseekers & those hiring)

Much of the job search advice I have provided leads back to a discussion about credibility.  I found it worthwhile to  blog on what a candidate’s credibility means and how it impacts a job seeker’s search.

What is Credibility, anyway?

Let’s start with an overview.  According to Dictionary.com, Credibility is defined as:

cred·i·bil·i·ty  (krěd’ə-bĭl’ĭ-tē)
n.
1) The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief: “America’s credibility must not be squandered, especially by its leaders” (Henry A. Kissinger).

2) A capacity for belief: a story that strained our credibility.

American Psychological Association (APA):

So what does this mean?  Belief and the accompanying word, faith, are very powerful terms.  Based on the beliefs of some, political and religious movements have been born, wars have started, and through belief, some have found the strength to overcome adversity and physical and mental challenges to achieve great things.

Still, how does this relate to a job search?  For that, we look at risk and risk-aversion.  Risk is inherent in almost every aspect of our lives.  As fragile human beings, there is always the possibility that we could be injured or harmed by others (stray bullet from a drive-by shooting, random car accident, or faulty wiring in an elevator could spell doom for any one of us).  Yet, we continue on doing what we do.  We all have a greater purpose that drives us to face the possible risk for the greater reward.  However, if there are ways to avert risk, or minimize its effects, as conscious, rationale, thinking beings, we do what we can to minimize or lessen the impact of that risk and give ourselves the best outcome possible.  For those seeking a job or hiring a candidate, we work hard to avoid risk. Establishing credibility is one way to avert it.

Why is Credibility Important?

Again, establishing credibility is a means of “hedging our bets against” (or protecting ourselves from) risk.

For example, when considering where to go for dinner or what movie to watch, we typically make informed decisions about where we eat or what we see.  For some, we rely on critic’s reviews of either, or we’ll review write-ups or summaries, or in many cases, we will defer to the opinions of close friends or family.  Depending on how accurate the reviews, perceptions or opinions of colleagues, critics, or friends are, speaks to their credibility.  In other words, we look at this information as a means of assessing validity of the information provided, and by default, of those providing that information.  If those providing the information closely resemble our own assessments, then this would suggest that their credibility is sound and valid.  If not, then the reverse occurs.

The same process applies to buying a vehicle.  Most of us will conduct research, read critic’s reviews, talk to friends, family and colleagues before buying a car, truck, motorcycle, etc. (new or used).  If the vehicle, once purchased, gives us problems, or does not perform the way we expect, that will most likely influence how credible or believable the sources of information are (or were).  Again, if we determine that the vehicle performs exactly as expected, then that validates the input obtained (research and the opinions of those spoken to).

In some ways, any information that speaks or describes something about you (your resume, a reference, LinkedIn profile, portfolio, review, responses to interview questions, test results, etc.) is a means of conveying your credibility as a candidate.

Why do I Need It?

What does credibility do for me anyway?  When considering candidates for hire, hiring managers and hiring companies need to bridge the gap between what is known and unknown about each prospective new hire.  In some cases, hiring managers and/or recruiters will only focus on those that this process becomes quite simple for.  In other words, if it takes a great deal of resources (money) and time (labor hours) to establish someone’s suitability as a candidate, the hiring manager may want to narrow their focus on candidates within the process where this step for vetting costs them the least.  Therefore, many hiring companies shortlist candidates already vetted and examined (by recruiters/headhunters/other managers or colleagues) prior to the formal selection process.  Even then, there is most likely additional scrutiny to determine which amongst this shortened list of candidates is as close a match as possible.

To me, assessing a candidate’s credibility is similar to speculating stock prices.  For stocks, their relative value is wholly based on perception of their projected value.  If everyone that buys and sells stock believes that Intel’s or Google’s stock price is valuable and its value is likely to go up in the future, then it is considered more valuable and it’s value will go up.  The same can be said in reverse.  If the market perception is that a stock is weak and will fail, it will fail.  Stock speculation activity is based on the review of forward-looking information from analysts who look at past performance as a gauge of future success.

For merger & acquisition activity, the process is similar.  When assessing a prospective merger or new investment into a different business segment, analysts look at what the company’s track record is with similar activity, they consider who is leading the effort, and what that individual’s (or managing team’s) track record is, including what decisions have been made and the results.

Hiring managers typically assess the credibility of a new hire by reviewing his/her employment history (their working “track record”), the decisions they have made/actions taken and resulting outcomes produced in situations similar to projected working conditions for the prospective role.  If a clear history with actions and outcomes is not apparent, or if there is a lack of formal experience that relates to the position, the next criteria may be assessments of former roles where results/decisions indicating target behavior(s) become the means of measurement.  Next would be education or training, which, while not an exact substitute for experience, does speak to the exposure and knowledge level of prospective candidates.    Other factors that impact a new hire’s credibility include how they conduct themselves during interviews (over the phone and in person), what relevant details may be provided by a reference/referral (usually professional and either verbal or written), and/or even the results of work-related tests and/or simulations.  This need to establish credibility for candidates will differ in the level and scope of the role needed to be filled.  A candidate being considered for an experienced role may have different credibility requirements than someone being considered for a college internship.  For example, a prospective CFO or Controller for a company may need to establish his/her track record of success at former employers, including providing a detailed history of goals, objectives, and measurable results (budget targets and results, action plans, tactics and strategy, etc.).  In addition, this level of hire would need to provide strong work and character references validating these experiences.

Contrast this to the prospective college intern, whose work history may be very limited.  While work experience may not be the defining factor for this candidate’s credibility, some factors may include: validation of a recently completed (or coursework towards a pending) degree, some established work history, experience on specific projects and/or coursework (with references provided by faculty and/or fellow students, etc.), and possibly even personal references that speak to the candidate’s work ethic, interests, and temperament.

Although I have outlined a linear process above, it is at the discretion of the hiring manager to determine what mix of any of these factors may determine suitability for a prospective candidate.  However, whatever the criteria, it is vital to maintain consistent standards for assessing all candidates considered for the role(s).

How do I Show My Credibility?

I mentioned a few examples above of how candidates can demonstrate their credibility.  Here are more detailed descriptions of each:

Resumes

The resume or Curriculum Vitae or CV is used by many candidates to establish clear and concise work histories that detail experience, skills, and results. Resumes come in different types and styles from the chronological to functional to hybrid to biographical to some other formats.  To be honest, while I don’t believe that any one format is better than the other, I do recognize the strengths and weaknesses in each.

Chronological Resume

The reverse chronological resume, from my experience, is among the most popular preferred by many hiring managers and recruiters.   I believe that the appeal lies in its capability for allowing screeners to view a candidate’s experience, skills and contributions of previous roles in descending (and mostly linear) order.  This format implies that the more recent the experience, skills and knowledge are, the more relevant those attributes are to the job, the greater the impact on how believable a candidate is and therefore how credible they are.  If this premise proves true, then as we look back over a candidate’s work history, the most relevant (and therefore most valuable) experience and knowledge would seem to come from the most recent work completed. While this may not always be the case for every candidate, for most of us, this rings true.

By nature, I believe that humans tend to be logical and mostly linear in our thought processes.  While there may be some of us that fall out of this norm, the vast majority scrutinize history in an orderly fashion.  If a resume is in a jumbled order of positions that do not fall in this reverse order, then a recruiter (and for that matter, a hiring manager) will need to sift through various positions and glean from each those, the relevant details that comprise a candidate’s suitability.  They then have to weigh the value of each bit of information in order to assess its relative value and priority.

Functional Resume

The functional resume distinctly contrasts the chronological in terms of format and detail.  The focus here is to draw attention to core competencies and downplay details of the specific tenure of the candidate.  This sometimes has the negative effect of seemingly obscuring or hiding a clear employment history.  From my experience, recruiters and hiring managers tend to shy away from these types of resume.  Whether it is justified or not, the astigmatism associated with functional resumes tends to add to the risk of early rejection.

Biographical Resume

This is a unique format that emphasizes establishing experience, skills, and knowledge through the use of a narrative or prose format.  The layout of these types of resume provide detailed paragraphs that outline the breadth and detail of each position that the candidate has undertaken.  While this format does provide substantial detail that cannot be found in other formats (chronological or functional), it does run the risk of being very wordy, and difficult to navigate through.  I refer to the format as the “wiki” resume, since it is somewhat like reading a rather long Wikipedia page about the candidate.  I am not a fan of this format, just because its length may lead to disinterest on the part of the screener.

Hybrid Resume

Some contemporary resumes have gone so far as to utilize elements of different formats.  One structure that follows this format is the hybrid of functional and reverse chronological.  While the hypothetical candidate compiling this style of resume, may include shortened versions of his/her chronological work history, the candidate will also include detailed inventories (lists) of particular skills, accomplishments, competencies or milestones that may not be attributed to any particular job.  I am still reserving judgement on the value of this resume format, as my exposure with this style has been limited.

Portfolio / Work Samples

Portfolios or collections of work samples are mostly associated with artists, photographers, designers, or any other specialists in visual or physical arts.   In a sense, a portfolio is similar to the simulation, in that a set portfolio provides concrete and measurable examples of a candidate’s work output.  One of the risks of the set portfolio is that it is static.  With the portfolio, candidates are judged based on what is presented, with little opportunity to adapt for preference. Static displays could adversely affect how someone perceives your work, with little or no opportunity to customize.  An alternative is to produce custom-made work based on some specific criteria or objective.  Sales professionals who are being considered for internal roles are constantly assigned these type of tasks, which provides a team of evaluators a sense of that candidate’s delivery/speaking style, knowledge, and competency.  Coupled with the interview, this can be a powerful testament to how credible or believable a candidate is.

Interview Results

In my view, interviews are not the ideal assessment of the competency of a working professional.  After all, how many times in your working life do you have to validate what you have done, day-in and day-out for the last 10 years of your career?  Why then, do they carry so much weight during the selection process?  Many opinions exist on why the interview has prevailed, but I believe that it is simply because we haven’t found a really great, cost-effective alternative that provides a comparative level of detail.

There are a variety of interview styles and formats, from one-on-one, to the tag-team (2 evaluators) or panel (multiple interviewers).  They can be short (some last as little as 15 minutes, to others lasting hours).  Usually interviews are comprised of a question and answer format relating to a candidate’s work history (profile, resume, portfolio, etc.) versus the job description, and how each pertains to the other.  They can be conducted in-person, or virtually by phone or videoconference.

One popular style of interviewing is the behavioral interview, whose intent is to determine for a candidate, specific actions done, behaviors exhibited, and decisions made or what the candidate will potentially do in hypothetical situations, provided specific criteria.   What’s key here is not just the candidate’s actions, exhibited behavior, and decisions made, but also what process is followed to get to his outcome.

Interviews do offer some advantages:

• They are immediate.  Either you make the cut or you don’t.
• If properly conducted, they are useful for gathering details on various levels.  Competent evaluators are trained to gather information on a variety of levels (not just assessments based on answers to specific questions, but also assessments of non-verbal cues, and other signals that the candidate may provide to reveal information about themselves).
• They also allow the hiring manager/recruiter to gather details in a controlled situation (hiring managers determine the schedule, timing and duration, what questions are asked, who is asking the questions, and what functional or subject matter area each evaluator will cover).

From my experience, many candidates perceive interviews as if they are victims of the process, wherein they must be on the defensive and fight to “prove” they are worthy of being hired.  This may be true, considering how weak the US-based economy is, there are higher numbers of job-seekers in the market than in recent years.  However, I see this defensiveness as somewhat misguided.  Candidates need to focus not just on whether they can fit into whatever position the company is trying to fill, but whether the company is a fit for them.  They need to scrutinize the potential hiring company and manager to determine if being hired here will provide them with success as well.

To do that, candidates need to arm themselves with as much knowledge about the potential hiring company, the manager and that person’s team, department, business unit, function, and industry (including competitors, environment, regulation, etc.) as possible.  The candidate also needs to be armed with a strong assessment of their own experience, capabilities, skills, knowledge, and the results of previous work and efforts.  They also need to take this further by determining for themselves how  they see themselves fitting in, and providing reasons for a manager to say “yes.”  Candidates need to prepare appropriate questions that are relevant to the role, function, company, and industry.  They need to demonstrate interest and engagement, and must ensure that they follow-up to determine next steps, if any.

Leading back to the theme of credibility, how do interview results impact that?  The interview is a living, breathing test for the candidate.  Evaluators may be testing the candidate’s competency, knowledge, composure, interest, engagement, their chemistry with the team, goals and how all of this aligns with the role.  Doing well at a the interview, by hitting all necessary points will go further to solidifying a candidate’s credibility, thereby motivating the team to want to further assess that person’s fit, or perhaps even extend an offer of employment.

References / Referrals

references and referrals are unique when it comes to assessing credibility, since they are both based on a third-party person providing details for the candidate.

About References

For the hiring manager, there are inherent risks involved when obtaining information from a reference.  Among these risks are:

• Is the reference providing a truthful, accurate, and fair portrayal of the candidate?
• Is the reference honest and sincere about who they are in relation to the candidate?  Do they have their own agenda when it comes to providing information about this candidate?
• Depending on the role, scope, and timing of the relationship between the reference and the candidate, how good is the reference’s recollection of the candidate’s worth?
• How strongly should a hiring manager weight this towards the candidate’s credibility?  Does the so-so reference from a former supervisor out-weigh three stellar references from former co-workers, clients, and direct reports?
• What is the cost of either ignoring a reference, or not paying attention to it?  Is the reference provided by a current client? A high-ranking officer of the company?, Another external executive with influence over someone vital here?

For the candidate, references produce their own risks:

• What if my reference does not portray me in a good light?
• What if my reference forgets/misinterprets critical details or emphasizes the wrong information, details or skills?
• What if my reference is un-reachable due to travel or work meetings, etc.?
• What if my reference is ready, willing, and able, but their contact information is incorrect, or out-dated?

To counteract both sets of risks, it takes some advanced preparation.  For the hiring manager, having a clear, concise set of targeted questions that gathers critical details without burying the reference is key.  Some companies will focus on a more standardized set of questions, while others tailor the questionnaire to the role and candidate.  I recommend that hiring managers ensure that all candidates’ references are asked the same set of questions to minimize any inconsistency, and provide them with like data to compare.

For the candidate, it behooves them to properly vet their own references, ensuring that their contact information is current, that they are reminded of the candidate’s role, including its scope & responsibilities, actions and resulting outcomes.  It is vital to verify the reference’s availability to speak with potential employers (including best times to call,  and if they are traveling or in meetings, when they will again be reachable.

The oweness is on the hiring manager to determine what information from a reference is relevant (this affects what questions are asked, who is asked, and the depth/content).  It is up to the candidate to provide a list of references, so for them, it is critical to be selective and determine who amongst your references can portray you in the best light.  There is always the option of providing contact information for additional references if needed.

About Referrals

Referrals differ slightly from references in that they are usually provided internally by individuals within the company, or by those trusted outsiders who have some impact to how the company operates.  Referrals differ from references in that they are independently and externally generated as opposed to solicited by the hiring manager and/or recruiting team.  They carry many of the same risks and advantages as a reference, however, may not carry the same formalized structure.

When assessing credibility, references and referrals carry the added risk of guilt by association (in other words,  the credibility of a candidate is tied to that of the person providing the reference).  If you believe what the reference tells you, and the reference tells you the candidate’s details are believable, then it follows that the candidate must also be credible.  The reverse, then, may also be true: through diligent research, if it is found that the candidate has lied about something in their profile, and their credibility is called into question, this may adversely affect the perceived credibility of the person who submitted the referral.

Testing / Simulations / Writing Samples

Testing is a another means of assessing skill-level of a candidate, thereby validating their credibility.  With testing, work samples, or simulations, hiring managers can assess what the candidate is capable of.  Are they able to handle the required workload?  Do they have the required skill-level to be successful at the role?  How do they handle pressure?  Can they follow instructions?  Do they produce quality work?

Again, these tools carry benefits and disadvantages and/or risks.  The benefits include having the hiring manager be able to assess the candidates skills in a controlled environment, determining quickly whether the candidate is competent, capable, and qualified to do the needed work, and allowing the hiring manager to assess other traits of the candidate, including capability to handle stress, working style, capability to follow directions, etc.

The risks include the possibility that the candidate may cheat on the test (or in the case of the work sample, the candidate not submitting their own work), possible biases built into the exam (based on cultural differences, or the personal biases of those designing the questions).  Other challenges that hiring managers face include the fact that not all skills may be easily tested for, or the exam may not cover all behaviors needed to determine a candidate’s success.

This blog post and all content on this site is the sole property of Steve Navarro (TM) 2010.  No reproductions, excerpts, or re-distribution is allowed without explicit, written consent of the author.