6 min read- like, share, comment!

First published in Polish by Agnieszka Leśny

The author presents a job candidate's journey, describes the criteria for making decisions and cites the opinion of participants in the process.

Why did we use the Competence Game?

As a small NGO, we needed to swiftly recruit the right person for a key position in the organisation: a team coordinator for young people working with the foundation. Due to operating in a crisis caused by the ongoing pandemic and in the absence of professional resources to carry out the process, we knew we had to make the most accurate selection decision.

Additionally, we were aware that we were operating in a challenging market of Warsaw, where corporate salaries and benefits pressure is hard to bear for a small organisation. We simply had to stand out in the plethora of job ads. In addition, we operated in a kind of a 'bubble'. We know that rumours about a poorly conducted recruitment process or a lack of care for people would quickly spread, and we would have to face a negative opinion on an already very challenging market. Anyway, the opinion on recruitment translates directly into the candidates' impressions of the brand. According to the results of the  Candidate Experience in Poland survey held in 2019^[1], as many as 63% of employers believe that candidates' impressions of the recruitment process influenced their perception of the products and services offered by the company that recruited them.

Another challenge resulted from the possibility of making numerous cognitive errors. This is why we wanted to use a game that objectively measures the competencies, regardless of age, gender, and experience in a similar position.

We decided to use the Archipelago game, which measures 12 competences from three areas: customer orientation, system thinking and defining and achieving goals. These groups of competences matched our employee profile^[2]. In doing so, we received support from the Competence Game team in handling the licensing and Certified Partners, who advised us on how to structure recruitment using the game, how to interpret the results and how to communicate them to job applicants. We were afraid of using a strictly business tool in the non-standard environment of an NGO - and we were proved wrong!

One of the candidates later wrote to us:

"I think the recruitment was superbly prepared and conducted. It was fantastic that you let us know straight away what the elements of recruitment would be. I felt you were sincere about what you were doing. You knew exactly who you were looking for and you communicated it in an open manner. 

I found the use of the game to be a very interesting idea, which added magic to the whole process, which I found very straightforward. It was an element of adventure for me - making the process more interesting and satisfactory, an no matter the outcome of the recruitment, I have gained self-knowledge and insight about my competences." (Joanna)

Recruitment step by step

We started traditionally with an internal audit. We defined precisely who we were looking for and the tasks they would perform. Most studies on candidate experience show that the clarity of a job ad is an absolute must in the view of applicants. Hence, in addition to the job description with examples of tasks and the place in the organisational structure, we added information about the salary, working conditions, and information about our office. The advert also included details of subsequent stages of recruitment with dates, a photo and contact details of the person responsible for the whole process.

Interestingly, according to the survey cited above, 75% of applicants for specialist positions expect the proposed salary to be specified in the advertisement, while it appears that such information was given in 29% of offers addressed to them. Why is it so? Why do employers hide such basic information as financial conditions?

A candidate journey involved:

- filling in an application form (no redundant questions asked, no CVs) asking for primary data, availability info, and a request to find answers to the three challenges our organisation was facing. On this basis, we selected people for the next stage, which included.

- a 30-40 minute online meeting during which we got to know the candidates better and answered their questions.

- an invitation to the Archipelago Competence Game with an introductory video. After the game, participants received a detailed report of the game results, which was automatically generated.

Preparing for making the recruitment decision

Using the knowledge and experience of Anna Wolfigiel-Zielińska, a Competence Game expert (we recommend webinar her  and her podcast  on recruitment!), we have defined which of the 12 competencies measured by the Archipelago game we would take into account. The temptation to include everything that may not be relevant to the advertised position is a common trap that can obscure the picture of a candidate in areas that are important to you. Why is it so? By wanting to 'simply' select the person with the highest scores, you may end up recruiting someone overqualified. The risk that such a person quickly becomes frustrated and that the job will be a disappointment for them is high. The financial and time-related costs of misrecruitment are extremely high, so we have selected 5 of the 12 competencies tested and pointed to three of them, which we considered the most important and "decisive".

Next, we analysed the selected competencies and determined which level of key competencies was appropriate for the position, defining it as a minimum, optimum, and maximum one. Interestingly, these were not the highest scores at all. We identified some important competencies to be at a medium level or even slightly below average.

Finally, what was left for us to do was to check the results of our candidates and compare them with our optimum candidate profile. In the case of candidates with a very similar profile, we went back to the answers given in the application form and notes taken during the interviews.

Job candidates' opinions

More than half of the candidates gave us feedback on our request, even though the process ended with a negative outcome for them. This shows their great commitment and interest in the whole procedure. I believe that this type of recruitment stands a fair chance to boost your employer branding:

"I found the game engaging. The rules were clearly explained and it was complex enough to feel a challenge. I got a lot of satisfaction and self-knowledge from it. And because it was a totally new experience, I will definitely remember the process for a long time." (Joanna)

Participants also pointed to the added value of the post-game report for them:

"The recruitment was a great adventure for me! Being able to take part in the game was very rewarding to me! The game was well prepared and I felt it was really challenging, but after it was over and even before I got the report I could see that I had learned something about myself and how I tend to act. 

The report itself is a very important tool for me, especially because I am a young person and until now I have had a limited chance to identify my competences, but here I could really see in detail how I find myself in a given area of activity. I also think that the report accurately reflects my personality traits and has helped me to name my strong qualities, but also to notice the weaker points. I believe this is an important tool and it is only a matter of time before it gains ground, as both employers and prospective employees will benefit from it." (Julia)

Of course, the game did not appeal to everyone. We also received critical feedback, for example:

"(...) For me taking part in the game was very frustrating. The experience was anything but enjoyable and the final result was not interesting for me either. The tool and its mechanisms were dull and uninspired. Due to the fact that I saw many design flaws of this game, the  end results were not reliable for me. 

I watched all the pre-play footage and braced myself for  moments of frustration, but the perceived lack of logic in this game took my frustration to a whole new level." (Justyna)

Interestingly, a neutral opinion on the use of the tool came from a candidate who enjoyed the game itself:

"The rules of the game were well explained, the training mode was a good introduction to the game. In terms of interface, functionality and graphic design of the game I have no reservations. (...) In terms of results and my competence profile, etc. - having seen the limitations of the game itself, I found it hard to find them credible." (Tomek)

Summary

Our fear that we bite off more than we can chew by applying a business approach and a non-standard tool to recruitment in an NGO turned out to be unfounded. Candidates appreciated the interesting form and the competence report as feedback after an important stage of the recruitment procedure. From an employer's perspective, I appreciated that the automated game system saved us a lot of time and helped us communicate efficiently. Reliable results were an important component of the hiring decision and protected us from personal bias and extrinsic preferences. In addition, this recruitment stage was rapid and had an important selection element - if someone didn't play the game, they didn't progress further.

Trust in the tool made up for our lack of professional HR skills - which is important in a small organisation or when an employer wants to be personally involved in the whole process. We also considered its cost-effectiveness; it has to be said that buying a license for the game is not cheap. The pricing of such tools makes it more business-oriented. However, suppose you count how much time it takes to analyse a CV, conduct a good SMART interview, and perform other recruitment tasks. In that case, you will find that the licence fee compared to the per hour fee of a professional recruiter becomes competitive. Not only does the game test the competencies more reliable than a human can, but it is also fully automated, and the dashboard, which aggregates reports, saves you a lot of time. Certainly, the larger number of job candidates, the more cost-effective remote recruitment tools become, and the "more valuable" the position and the higher the cost of a possible recruitment error - the better to invest in a reliable device and method.

Obviously, the game itself is not an end in itself. We have invested a lot of time in defining the candidate profile and understanding how a competence test can provide us with the data that is important to us. Preparing the 'reference' profile was an interesting but also time-consuming process. And I read a lot of studies on candidate experience, which helped me improve the narrative, transparency and communication - which was appreciated by the candidates taking part in our recruitment process.

Agnieszka Leśny - MSc in Education, MSc in Anthropology of Culture, PhD candidate in Education. According to Clifton StrengthsFinder. She is a trainer who bases her work on simulation games. She is a promoter of ideas and methods of experiential education in Poland. Based on her academic background, she is working as an expert in transferring scientific theory into management practice. She has experience in public administration, cultural institutions, businesses and non-governmental organizations. She is the founder of NGO Manufacture of Science and Adventure. She works as a freelancer in a volunteer program.

Further reading:

Crisis, conflict and trauma during training (part #1)

How to deal with trauma during a training? (part #2)

Educational apps for trainers

Mistakes in training? Yes, please

Checklists, a strong and simple development method oriented at implementation

The biggest workshop in the world

Bibliography:

1. Raport Candidate Experience w Polsce 2021, red. Martyna Wasilewska, erecruiter.pl, źródło: https://go.erecruiter.pl/raport-candidate-experience-2019-BW (dostęp z dnia 15.03.22).