I was reading an article today, Hire Slow, Fire Fast is Bad Advice, and it got me thinking … what are some of my learnings on hiring, people and growth.
People are not their resumes
As will likely become a theme in this article, work and careers have transcended being just a transactional affair between employer and employee, or should at least. Over the decades of interviewing people, I have found that resumes count for very little, mainly because they are a subjective account of a person’s working history smattered with learnings (certifications etc) and statements of intent and attitude.
Mostly what I get out of a resume, and if it accompanies a cover letter, is a tiny sense of the person, their language and how they communicate. It also gives me an idea of the kinds of places, industries, sizes etc., they have worked in.
If included, I may put too much weight on the cover letter given its free-form nature. Communication is a large part of working these days, and I see that as a fundamental attribute. It gives me again a sense of how they communicate and articulate themselves.
But beware, there can be a lot of bias here. I have had situations where a person has had English as a second language and on written communications alone would have discounted them. I have had excellent experiences when I balanced this bias and ensured it is only part of my candidate assessment.
Unless you have 100s of candidates, I phone screen anyone that looks like they have the general skills needed for the role I am hiring for. This has been a very successful strategy over the years.
Stop looking for the unicorn
Many organisations hurt their hiring pool by creating a role that no one can match up to all of the criteria. We have all seen the job ads that state they need 10+ years of experience, in 10 different tech stacks, in 10 different verticals, etc. You could argue that you are just articulating the “perfect candidate”, but you turn a lot of people away, especially women who are generally very hard on themselves and feel they need to tick every box even before applying.
So you may then ask, “How do I know when I have the best candidate” honestly, you don’t, BUT in his book Algorithms to live by, Brian Christian talks about a method called Optimal Stopping, when to stop looking. According to Brian, you have a 37% chance of picking the “best” candidate in any candidate pool, and the more you interview, the closer you get to 37%, i.e. it doesn’t get any better. He also says if you interview 61% of the candidates, and someone in the first 39% fits your need, hire them. The theory is that there are two types of people when it comes to choice, those that try and maximise their decision to get “the best”, and the other who finds something that meets their need and has the potential to grow.
You can read more deeply into this in The Paradox of Choice regarding what the author calls maximisers and satisficers. “Maximisers are people who want the very best. Satisficers are people who want good enough”. The moral of the story is that maximisers are rarely happy because they are always looking for something better.
In practice, this is much harder; of course, it is not just maths. Remember that we are dealing with people, not robots, who have just a set of skills. Things like attitude, “energy”, motivations etc., all play a significant part. Some of the best hires (or promotions) I have made have been on a person’s potential.
I often use a statement (not sure where it came from): “I can teach anyone technical skills, but I can’t give them a good attitude”.
So if you have a good feeling about someone early on, hire them and give them a crack.
Tour of duty, a two way street
It is said, “a person doesn’t leave a company. They leave a manager/leader”. Historically, employment has been a one-way street. The employer held all of the cards, and the employee’s privilege was to have a job at a company. I have had personal experience with leadership whose opinion was, “they should feel lucky to have a job”, which is an old-fashioned mindset and doesn’t apply to the modern world.
In his book, The Alliance, Reid Hoffman (co-founder of Linkedin) embarks on a journey to explore what the new age “contract” looks like between employee and employer. Like Dan Pink’s (author of Drive) philosophy, Reid’s purpose is at the core of success.
Reid calls these aligned purposes “Tours of duty” simply put, it is identifying where the individual can be positioned and aligned to add the most value to the business but also aligning with that individual’s growth and development aspirations.
Repositioning someone to a place where they are more passionate and can see the potential of growth and learning is a powerful motivator. It often leads to a much greater combined outcome for both employer and employee. I have had personal experience and seen the wonder this action can have.
Be people centric
When talking about my role, I often say, “at the centre of all success is people”. As the image indirectly suggests at the start of this article, it is crucial to balance focus on the outcome the business is after while supporting its people and growth. Once you have created a safe environment for people to fail, succeed and grow, creating an intentional purpose for those individuals is crucial for current and future business success.
Recent Comments