Smoking gun
Have you heard of Chekhov’s Gun?
It’s the promise in a film to the audience that if something is shown, it will be used. Often in a way that resolves a story.
I’m rewatching Aliens, which always brings a smile when Ripley shows how to use a Power Loader, shifting boxes on the Sulaco.
If you haven’t seen it, and don’t mind unremitting tension that is only a little dated, stay for its innovative and progressive use in the finale.
Of course, the nature of the film industry is decision by committee, and many a great film was slashed to bits before even being filmed.
It’s quite common for something to be shown, intended to be used, and have no part in the final production.
And for the opposite to be true, for its introduction to be edited out, only for Chekhov’s Gun to randomly become a plot resolution.
In some cases it’s even intended, such as MacGuffins - those mysterious devices that are central to a plot but never explained, such as the briefcase in Pulp Fiction.
If you think about this principle and your recruitment process, it can be applied in two ways.
-
Does this element necessarily support the overall narrative?
-
What’s missing that should support the overall narrative (how and why should you introduce a Chekhov’s Gun to achieve the right resolution)?
The overall narrative is the desired outcomes from your recruitment, whether that’s filling a role, achieving a DEI strategy, or improving candidate experience.
It’s applicable at microscopic and macroscopic levels.
For example in an advert
-
Do words like innovative and progressive actually support your goal of creating interest from readers, or might they detract?
-
Instead, how might you show what these words mean in your business, to give a sense of what it’s like to work for you?
Or in an interview process
-
Do psychometrics actually support the goals you want from each vacancy? How about that additional interview stage?
-
What’s missing from your interview process that would enable someone you want to employ to decide to work for you? This might be as simple as allowing candidates time to ask questions.
Or when looking at application data
-
What do unsuccessful applicants say about your candidate experience?
-
What’s missing from your application data? How about the people who choose not to apply? How might you find them, and what might they say about their experience of your process?
This ultimately comes down to auditing each part of your recruitment to make sure it’s not an out-of-date habit and that it is intentional for the right reasons.
Maybe you don’t have the time.
And if you're filling roles suitably, maybe this kind of intervention doesn’t even matter.
But if there ever comes a time when you struggle to fill vacancies, while you can’t control external factors, you can control your process.
Get the ship right and it will save you more time than you spent when you return to recruitment as usual.
So actually, you might think about doing this now no matter how busy you are.
Thanks for reading.
Greg
p.s. While it’s understandable you might abuse the notion of Chekhov’s Gun in your recruitment, I sincerely hope you never introduce a MacGuffin for no reason.
p.p.s. if you want me to check if your recruitment gun is empty or why it’s smoking, we can talk
