Category Archives: hiring

Where’s the Best Place to Interview?

Glassdoor’s released its annual Candidates’ Choice Awards for the 100 Best Places to Interview, and topping the list are three companies that are hardly household names: #1 is Dignity Health, followed by Horizon Media at No. 2 and Cadence Design Systems coming in at third place. Rounding out the top five were Salesforce and J. Crew.

What makes for a good place to interview? Glassdoor relies on input from job candidates and employees, who rate and review their interview experience with a company, and ranks organizations based on the percentage of positive reviews they get. Dignity Health, a San Francisco-based healthcare system with 400 care centers (including hospitals) in 22 states, received a 93 percent “positive interview experience” score, while second-place winner Horizon Media got 91 percent and Cadence Design Systems got 86 percent.

Dignity Health interviewees frequently cited a “relaxed and friendly environment” during panel interviews, with one candidate who interviewed for a nursing position describing the entire experience as “wonderful and educational.” The typical interview lasted for about 30 minutes, according to the reviews. Candidates who interviewed at Horizon Media, a New York-based media-services agency, frequently cited transparency as a positive experience there, with HR generally doing a good job of keeping them in the loop regarding their status. Those who interviewed at Cadence Design Systems, a San Jose, Calif.-based IT firm that’s also on Fortune’s list of the 100 Best Companies to Work For, the tone of the reviews was a bit more critical, with many describing a complicated process consisting of multiple technical interviews (many of the positions were for software engineer, which may explain that) and in a few cases hiring managers who were late to the interview or recruiters who failed to follow up at all. In general, however, they described the process as smooth and efficient.

Glassdoor’s Best Places to Interview includes a few well-known names as well, including Walt Disney Co. (at No. 25 on the list), United Airlines (28), Nike (34) and Starbucks (39). The length of the hiring process and interview difficulty also play a part in determining winners, says Glassdoor.

Face it, it’s tough to attract and hold on to talented employees these days, and a positive candidate experience matters more than ever. Just ask the organizers of the Candidate Experience Awards, who will hold their own awards ceremony for North American winners this October in Nashville. (And you’ll be able to hear directly from some of those winners at this year’s Recruiting Trends & Talent Tech Conference).

The Telltale Text

Erika Nardini says she learns a lot about job candidates by how quickly they respond to text messages. And if you want to work for her, you better not leave her hanging when she sends you one.

Last week, I started seeing article after article focusing on Nardini—CEO of Barstool Sports—and a unique exercise she uses to get a sense of how devoted an applicant would be if hired by the New York-based sports and men’s lifestyle blog.

Earlier this month, Nardini told the New York Times about the random text messages she sends to prospective hires at odd times—9 p.m. on a weeknight or 11 a.m. Sunday morning, for example—just to see how long it takes them to get back to her.

The idea, of course, is that those who respond promptly would be more apt to show around-the-clock commitment once on the job, according to Nardini, who told the Times that she typically likes to see a reply within three hours.

(A quick sidebar … Considering the time that passed between me first reading about this unconventional hiring test and sitting down to write about it, it’s dawning on me that I should probably never apply at Barstool Sports. I’m guessing that I would screen out of the hiring process in pretty short order.)

Now, you can question whether Nardini—who admits to thinking about her job “all the time”—gives a rip about her employees ever achieving anything resembling work/life balance. But the former AOL chief marketing officer with a self-described “punishing” leadership style claims she’s just looking for others who share a similar preoccupation with their work.

“It’s not that I’m going to bug you all weekend if you work for me, but I want you to be responsive,” Nardini says in the Times interview. “Other people don’t have to be working all the time. But I want people who are always thinking.”

I’d be interested to hear how applicants who have been on the receiving end of a text from Nardini feel about being assessed in this way. I’m sure many are more than willing to go above and beyond to land a job. And you could argue that one quick text from a would-be boss isn’t that much of an imposition anyway. Still, could some qualified and talented candidates be scared off by the possibility of sacrificing even a little bit of their precious personal time should they get the position?

In fact, countless surveys have in recent years found that many employees would like to think less about work when they’re away from the office, but feel increasingly obligated—pressured, even—to stay connected in some way.

All that said, how many potentially valuable performers wind up leaving a job in the early-going because they feel they weren’t given a true picture of what life would be like at the company?

Ultimately, employers have to find ways to provide interviewees with an honest, accurate preview of the organization’s employee experience before they come on board. And, however you feel about the approach she’s taking, you have to at least give Nardini points for doing just that.

Improving the Candidate Experience

A new CareerBuilder study outlines the complex perceptions, attitudes and behaviors of both candidates and hiring managers to better help employers identify and address where they fall short in their current candidate process.

CareerBuilder’s 2017 Candidate Experience study included 4,512 workers ages 18 and over, and 1,500 hiring decision makers. (You can view full results and the executive summary here.) The study’s results show what peers and competitors have identified as shortcomings in their process, illustrate the role for technology to help improve the process and provide tips to make things easier for employers and prospective employees.

According to CareerBuilder, here are some aspects employers are struggling with:

  1. Not having a quick apply process for every device: The application process itself can contribute to a negative experience for modern candidates as “applications taking too long” (28 percent), “having to customize documents for every job” (34 percent) and “uploading a resume into a system but still having to manually fill out fields” (29 percent) are reiterated as frustrating aspects of the process by a considerable amount of candidates.
  2. Not preparing hiring managers: On average, only 2 out of 5 hiring managers are prepped by recruiters or talent acquisition specialists. Of those who do, only 2 out of 5 prep hiring managers specifically on the topic of candidate experience. This means only 16 percent of hiring managers overall are prepped by specialists to help manage the candidate’s experience.
  3. Not having an effective career site: An employer’s career site is important for getting key information, according to 89 percent of job seekers. But a quarter of employers (24 percent) say their company career site doesn’t accurately portray what it’s like to work for their organization, and only 45 percent of candidates say they can typically tell what it would be like to work for a company based on their career site.
  4. Not tailoring communications methods to specific segments: The ever-emerging multigenerational workforce demands a shift in the way we communicate. Millennials significantly prefer email communications (57 percent) over phone calls (31 percent), whereas boomers significantly prefer phone calls (58 percent) over emails (37 percent). Gen Xers have equal preferences towards email and phone calls (47 percent for both). Further, millennials are 2-3 times more likely to prefer alternative communication methods (text messaging, social media messaging and video calling) compared to Gen X and baby boomer generations.
  5. Not recognizing when the employee experience really begins: The lines between the candidate and employee experience are blending – at least in the eyes of candidates, as 3 in 4 say their candidate and onboarding experience with a company is the first part of their broader employee experience with that company.
  6. Not building relationships with candidates for future opportunities: The most valuable resource an employer has is their talent pool. While it is important to attract the top candidates, it is equally as important to frequently and effectively communicate with your talent pool, but more than a third of employers (35 percent) say they don’t put time into doing this.
  7. Not having an efficient background check process: Employers that want to keep top talent from talking to other companies while they want to receive employment screening results should improve their screening process. Sixty percent of candidates continue communicating and interviewing with other companies while waiting on background results.
  8. Not having the right ATS or an ATS at all: Organizations currently utilizing an ATS (applicant tracking system) reported placing more emphasis on the candidate, employee and hiring manager experiences. For example, those who currently use an ATS are 25 percent more likely to have a standardized process to help deliver a consistent candidate experience.
  9. Not informing the candidate where they stand: More than half of job seekers say employers don’t do a good job of setting expectations in terms of communication at the beginning of a potential hiring interaction. Eighty-one percent of job seekers said continuously communicating status updates to candidates would greatly improve the overall experience.
  10. Not staying connected with candidates once they have accepted the position: Once the hiring process is in the post-acceptance and onboarding stage, the expectation is for the process to be seamless and frustration-free for new hires – yet a noticeable number of candidates say this stage has not been ideal. Two in 5 candidates (40 percent) say they’ve experienced a lack of communication in the past between when they accepted the job and their first day of work. This is not surprising, since less than half of employers (47 percent) have a formal process in place for communicating and interacting candidates between the time the day they accepted the job and the day they start work.
  11. Not paying attention to how their employer presence/brand is portrayed on social media: Employers are trying to reach an audience, and they can’t afford to let their brand’s social media pages fall by the wayside. Yet, 60 percent of employers don’t monitor their employer presence/brand on social media. Of those who do, 68 percent take steps to encourage positive reviews while 16 percent just react to negative information.
  12. Not treating candidates with the same respect as employees: While the majority of employers (51 percent) say the line is blurring between the company experience and employee experience, less than half of job seekers (49 percent) say employers treat candidates with the same level of respect and accountability as current employees. This is an issue since the vast majority of job seekers (nearly 4 in 5) say the overall candidate experience is an indicator of how a company values its people.

“A positive candidate experience is a competitive advantage in a job market where candidates have flexibility in their job selection,” said Rosemary Haefner, chief human resources officer at CareerBuilder. “To remain competitive and create a candidate experience that attracts, secures and retains today’s top talent, you need to determine how your current hiring methods measure up to what candidates are looking for.”

 

Hurting for Talent in HR?

In the never-ending quest to boost HR’s profile in the C-suite, CHROs must first surround themselves with top-notch talent in their own departments, according to new research from Korn Ferry.

The problem, the same survey finds, is that serious talent gaps exist within the HR suite.

The Los Angeles-based advisory firm recently polled 189 chief human resource officers, finding that “as the HR function becomes more strategic and high-profile, HR professionals need to step up their game when it comes to business insights and achieving results,” according to a Korn Ferry statement.

More specifically, CHROs were asked to name the skills they find are most lacking as they search for human resources talent.

A mere 4 percent reported having no difficulty finding the necessary skills to round out their HR teams. Otherwise, respondents said:

  • Business acumen (41 percent)
  • Ability to turn strategy into action (28 percent)
  • Intellectual horsepower (10 percent)
  • Analytical skills (7 percent)
  • Diversified experience (6 percent)
  • Relational skills (3 percent)
  • Technical skills (1 percent)

Of course, the role of the HR function, and the CHRO, is much more complex than it was even five short years ago, says Joseph McCabe, vice chairman of Korn Ferry’s Global Human Resources Center of Expertise.

“Disruptors such as digitization and globalization are creating an environment of constant organizational change,” says McCabe. “HR leaders must understand the business challenges that occur as a result of these disruptions, including the impact on the business strategy, and be able to quickly adapt and act.”

The Korn Ferry poll allowed respondents the chance to do a bit of self-examination as well, asking CHROs what competencies were most important to helping them handle the ever-changing environment in which they operate.

By far, the most common response was “tolerance for ambiguity,” cited by 52 percent of the CHROs surveyed. Twenty percent pointed to the confidence to make bold, yet informed decisions as most critical, followed by the ability to sustain analytical thinking and motivate others (11 percent) and the ability to listen to and accommodate others’ methods (6 percent).

The study finds that a failure to cultivate both “hard” and “soft” skills could be costly for a CHRO; a reality that respondents seem to recognize. Indeed, when asked to name the top reason that a CHRO would get fired from an organization, the largest percentage (37) said “personality issues/inability to work well with or lead others,” with 34 percent reporting that an “inability to direct connect HR efforts to tangible business outcomes” would be the most likely cause for being let go.

“Today’s CHROs are judged both on what they do and how they get things done,” says McCabe. “While it’s critical that HR must act quickly to adapt to changing business strategy, it’s also important to align their team and other key leaders to foster engagement and a shared vision.”

A Costly Skills Gap

How much does it cost the average company when open job positions remain unfilled for 12 weeks or longer? Almost $1 million a year, according to a pair of CareerBuilder surveys released today. The surveys, which were conducted for CareerBuilder by Harris Poll late last year and from Feb. 16 to March 9 of this year, found that the average cost HR managers say they incur for having extended job vacancies is more than $800,000 annually. Nearly 60 percent of the employers surveyed report that they have job openings that stay vacant for 12 weeks or longer.

We’re not just talking those hard-to-fill computer science jobs, either. “The gap between the number of jobs posted each month and the number of people hired is growing larger as employers struggle to find candidates to fill positions at all levels within their organizations,” says CareerBuilder CEO Matt Ferguson. “There’s a significant supply and demand imbalance in the marketplace, and it’s becoming nearly a million-dollar problem for companies.”

Indeed, a supply imbalance appears to exist for a variety of occupations, including truck drivers, marketing managers, web developers, industrial engineers, sales managers, HR managers and information security analysts, CareerBuilder finds.

Two in three employers (67 percent) say they’re concerned about the skills gap, and more than half (55 percent) say these extended job vacancies are hurting their organizations. Forty-five percent say they lead to productivity loss, while 40 percent say they cause higher employee turnover, 39 percent cite lower morale, 37 percent mention lower quality work and 29 percent say the vacancies leave them unable to grow their business.

Not everyone agrees the “skills shortage” is real; some economists (and our HREOnline Talent Management columnist and Wharton School professor Peter Cappelli) argue that the real culprit is a reluctance by many employers to pay for the sort of workplace training programs that were commonly offered in the past. Nevertheless, plenty of other surveys also show that employers in a range of industries are contending with hard-to-fill positions, including the manufacturing industry. In fact, given President Trump’s stated desire to “make America great again” by, in part, bringing manufacturing jobs back to this country from overseas by imposing tariffs on foreign-made goods, some manufacturers are trying innovative ways to “grow” their own talent by reaching out to high schools and community colleges to ensure they’ll have talent on hand and won’t be caught short.

Avoid Hiring the ‘Takers’

Are you a giver, a matcher or a taker? I came across a fascinating TED Talk the other day by Adam Grant, a management professor at Penn’s Wharton School and the author of two bestselling books, Originals and Give and Take. The latter book was about how helping others can fuel our own success, and was the focus of Grant’s talk, “Are You a Giver or a Taker?” which he delivered late last year at IBM.  There are three basic types of people in every workplace, he said: givers, takers and matchers.

Grant surveyed more than 30,000 people across industries and throughout the world, and found that most fall somewhere in the middle between givers and takers — he calls them “matchers.”

“If you’re a matcher, you try and keep an even balance of give and take: quid pro quo — ‘I’ll do something for you if you do something for me,'” he said. “And that seems like a safe way to live your life. But is it the most effective and productive way to live your life?”

The answer, said Grant, is ” a very definitive … maybe.”

Interestingly enough, although he found that givers display attributes that would seem to make them ideal employees, in the course of his research Grant found that they actually tended to be the worst performers in the various jobs that he studied. Givers tended to get the least work done, sell the least amount of products and, in medical schools, the students with the lowest grades tended to be the ones who most agreed with statements like “I love helping others.”

The givers are so giving, said Grant, that they tend to neglect their own work.

So, should you avoid hiring givers? Absolutely not, he said. In fact, givers tend to bring tremendous advantages to the organization as a whole, and HR and recruiting leaders should be screening out the takers instead.

“Givers make their organizations better,” said Grant. A huge body of evidence demonstrates that the more often people help others, share their knowledge and serve as mentors, the better organizations do on every success metric, from customer satisfaction to higher profits, he said. Givers spend a lot of time helping others but often end up suffering along the way, from a career perspective, said Grant. Interestingly enough, while many givers are bottom-dwellers in terms of job performance, they’re also disproportionately represented among top performers in terms of productivity, sales results and grades. Organizations should build cultures where givers actually get to succeed, he said.

Takers, by contrast, often rise rapidly within organizations — but they tend to fall rapidly, too, said Grant. Because takers tend to be “kiss-up, kick-down” types — currying favor with the higher-ups while dissing the people below them — they inevitably inspire revenge from the matchers, who make up the majority of most organizations, he said.

Matchers are positively influenced by the behavior of givers, however, and by building a culture in which asking for help from others is encouraged, organizations will not only inspire matchers to emulate givers but also make it easier for the givers themselves to thrive, said Grant. Fostering such an environment will encourage the givers themselves to seek assistance rather than risk burnout by helping everyone else to the detriment of their own well-being, he said.

Meanwhile, avoid the damage that even one taker on a team can wreak by filtering them out during the hiring process, said Grant.

“My favorite way to catch these people in the interview process is to ask them the question, ‘Can you give me the name of four people whose careers you have fundamentally improved?'” he said. “The takers will give you four names, and they will all be more influential than them, because takers are great at kissing up and then kicking down. Givers are more likely to name people who are below them in a hierarchy, who don’t have as much power, who can do them no good. And let’s face it, you all know you can learn a lot about character by watching how someone treats their restaurant server or their Uber driver.”

Labor Market Continues to Tighten

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest official employment report shows that businesses added 227,000 workers last month and the unemployment rate rose slightly to 4.8 percent, while the January national employment report from ADP’s Research Institute shows that private-sector employers adding 246, 000 jobs in January. The BLS report beat estimates by economists surveyed prior to its release by Reuters, who’d predicted the report would show a gain of 175,000 jobs.

The BLS and ADP employment reports are based on different methodologies, as CNBC’s Mark Fahey has noted: ADP counts all employees who are listed as active on an employer’s payroll, while the BLS surveys companies to tally employees who are actually paid. The reports differ by 40,000 about half the time, he wrote.

“The U.S. labor market is hitting on all cylinders and we saw small and mid-sized businesses perform exceptionally well,” said ADP Vice President Ahu Yildirmarz, the co-head of the payroll-processing giant’s Research Institute.

That’s not to say everything’s rosy on the employment front: Yesterday, outplacement consultancy Challenger, Gray & Christmas released its monthly jobs-cut report, which shows U.S. companies made nearly 46,000 job cuts in January — up 37 percent from December, when layoffs totaled 33,627.  However, while last month’s tally was the highest since last April (64,141), it’s a year-over-year improvement from January 2016, when employers announced 75,114 job cuts. This January’s job reductions were concentrated  in retail, which accounted for 49 percent of the job cuts, while retail and energy accounted for the much of the cuts in January 2016. Macy’s led the pack last month, announcing plans to close 68 of its stores and reduce its workforce by 10,000 workers.

“Overall, it was a solid holiday shopping season, but several retailers, including Macy’s, were unable to capitalize on stronger consumer confidence and spending,” said John A. Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

ADP’s report, based on payroll data compiled from its 411,000 U.S. clients, shows that mid-sized businesses with between 50 and 499 employees added the most jobs in January (102,000). Large companies with 500 or more employees added 83,000 jobs, while small businesses (those with between 1 and 49 employees) added 62,000 positions.

“2017 got off to a strong start in the job market,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, which helps ADP produce the report. “Job growth is solid across most industries and company sizes. Even the energy sector is adding to payrolls again.”

The BLS report finds that January’s robust employment numbers did not lead to increases in workers’ pay, with a year over year increase of 2.5 percent, compared to 2.9 percent in December.  A smaller-scale study,  Glassdoor’s Local Pay Reports — which monitor salaries for approximately 60 job titles across multiple industries — finds that the annual median base pay in the United States grew by 3.2 percent year over year in January to $51,360.

The positive sentiment on jobs is reflected in Gallup’s latest Job Creation Index, which measures U.S. workers’ perceptions of their workplace’s job climate. The JCP’s January score of +34 is the highest in its nine-year history, Gallup reports. That score compares to JCIs of -5 in January and April of 2009, when the country was in the depths of the Great Recession. Gallup bases the JCI on a daily, randomized sample of employed U.S. adults’ perceptions of their workplace’s hiring-and-firing activity.

Language Matters in Job Listings

In the New York Times this week, Claire Cain Miller wonders why more unemployed men aren’t going after jobs in the industries that are growing the most, such as healthcare.

One key reason behind “one of the biggest economic riddles today,” she writes, is that “these so-called pink-collar jobs are mostly done by women, and that turns off some men.”

Seattle-based software provider Textio recently dug a bit deeper into this conundrum, examining the terminology used in listings for the 14 fastest-growing jobs between the years 2014 and 2024. Their analysis found the way the descriptions of these roles are worded has led to an overabundance of unemployed men and plenty of jobs going unfilled at least partly because they’re perceived as being “women’s work.”

I’ll stop here to point out that the software Textio provides is designed to, in the company’s own words, “optimize job listings for more qualified and diverse applicants.” And, I’m not exactly sure how Textio is defining terms used in job listings as being “masculine” or “feminine.”

All that said, they found some interesting evidence to support the idea that language matters in job listings.

In its analysis, Textio found that the descriptions for these quickly-growing positions “used feminine language, which has been statistically shown to attract women and deter men,” according to the Times.

Consider home health aides, the number of which is projected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to grow by 38 percent by the year 2024.

Currently, females hold 89 percent of these positions, according to the BLS. The job listings for home health aides—which Textio found to be the most “feminine”-sounding—commonly contain key words such as “sympathetic,” “care,” “fosters,” “empathy” and “families,” and are more appealing to female applicants, according to Textio’s analysis. Textio found the job descriptions and requirements for many other predominately female-held roles—nurse practitioner, genetic counselor and physician assistant, for instance—frequently include similar key words and phrases.

On the other hand are cartographers, who find themselves in “one of the few fast-growing jobs that is male-dominated,” according to the Times, noting that cartographer jobs are expected to increase by 29 percent in the next seven years. (Men currently represent 62 percent of the profession.) In evaluating the wording typically used to advertise these jobs, Textio found “masculine” terms like “manage,” “forces,” exceptional,” “proven” and “superior” were often thrown around.

But health aides need to be “exceptional” and “proven” too, writes Cain Miller, adding that the reverse is not automatically true.

“Cartographers don’t necessarily need to be ‘sympathetic’ or ‘focused on families’ to excel,” she says. “That might be one reason that women have historically entered male-dominated professions, like law or management, more than men have entered female-dominated ones, like teaching or nursing.”

As Cain Miller points out, some healthcare employers have tried to use more manly language in an effort to reverse this trend, “like talking about the ‘adrenaline rush’ of being an operating room nurse.” Rather than rewriting “feminine” job descriptions in hopes of appealing to male candidates, or vice versa, Textio suggests using more gender-neutral lingo.

The latter approach is more effective, according to Textio, which says replacing words such as “world-class” and “rock star” with terms like “premier” and “extraordinary” improved the candidate pool for a software developer position, for example. Textio also claims that more gender-neutral wording enables employers to fill jobs 14 days faster in comparison to posts with a gender bias, in addition to attracting a more diverse collection of applicants.

That makes sense. And, while the Textio analysis focuses primarily on the healthcare sector, it’s probably safe to say that taking this kind of tack could deepen the candidate pool in any number of industries—at a time when finding the necessary talent is becoming more and more difficult.

Job Candidates’ Strange Behavior

One job candidate told her interviewer that if he wanted to get to heaven, he’d hire her. Another asked where the nearest bar was located. Then there’s the candidate who  bragged about being in the local newspaper for allegedly stealing a treadmill from someone’s house. It’s that time of year again: CareerBuilder has released its annual list of the strangest interview mistakes hiring managers say they’ve witnessed while assessing job candidates, based on a survey conducted on its behalf late last year by Harris Poll among approximately 2,600 HR and hiring managers.

Some other examples of strange interview mistakes:

  • Candidate ate a pizza he brought with him (and didn’t offer to share).
  • The candidate asked to step away to call his wife to ask her if the starting salary was enough before he agreed to continue with the interview.
  • Candidate invited interviewer to dinner afterwards.
  • Candidate said her hair was perfect when asked why she should become part of the team.
  • Candidate ate crumbs off the table.
  • Candidate asked the interviewer why her “aura” didn’t like the candidate.

This year’s survey finds that half (51 percent) of employers say they know within the first five minutes of an interview whether a candidate is a good fit for an open position, virtually identical to the findings from last year’s survey (50 percent).

Of course, candidates are also scrutinizing their potential employers during the interview process, and some don’t like what they see. The Execu|Search Group’s 2017 Hiring Outlook, for example, finds that 34 percent of working professionals say their job interviewer could not convey the overall impact their role has on the company’s goals, and that 45 percent did not feel their interviewer made an effort to introduce them to the company culture.

And when it comes to strange experiences, think of the poor candidates who find themselves struggling to answer the bizarre “brainteaser” questions asked by some companies during job interviews, which was the subject of a  Glassdoor report last year. Among the more notable questions:

  • What would you do if you found a penguin in the freezer? (Trader Joes, position unspecified)
  • How would you sell hot cocoa in Florida? (J.W. Business Acquisitions, for a human resources recruiter position)
  • How many basketballs would fit in this room? (Delta Air Lines, for a revenue management co-op position), and:
  • Would you rather fight one horse-sized duck, or 100 duck-sized horses? (Whole Foods Market, for a meat cutter position)

 

NY Removes Barrier to Hiring Ex-Cons

Insurance companies in New York State will soon be barred from denying full coverage for crime-related losses to companies that hire ex-convicts — even if the crimes in question were committed by employees with criminal histories — thanks to a new rule signed by Gov. Mario Cuomo during the last week of December.

The new regulation — the first of its kind in the nation, reports Reuters — is designed to make it easier for companies to hire ex-convicts. Approximately 2.3 million New Yorkers have criminal records, according to the state.

Many insurance companies regard ex-cons as high risk and will deny or limit coverage to companies for sustained losses related to loss or theft committed by an employee with a criminal record, under the assumption that the employer should have known it was taking a risk by hiring the person. This discourages companies from hiring ex-cons, the governor said.

“This first-in-the-nation action will further break down artificial barriers that prevent previously incarcerated New Yorkers from obtaining work and turning their lives around,” Cuomo said in a statement.

The new regulation, which takes effect on July 1 2017, lets businesses obtain the coverage so long as they adhere to a state law that applies to hiring people who have criminal convictions — including considering whether a prior criminal offense is related to the duties an employee will perform, reports Reuters.

“So long as every business owner follows the letter of the law, we should encourage more companies to hire prospective employees rather than punish someone for a mistake in the past,” said Maria Vullo, superintendent of the state’s Dept. of Financial Services, in a statement.