EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Jon Younger

Jon Younger

Posted: January 15, 2010 09:02 AM

In Hiring, Don't Let Perfect Drive Out Good (and Innovative)

What's Your Reaction:

As the jobless recovery recedes, and more and more jobs need to be filled, what is your organization's risk tolerance?

In a Jan. 10 interview with The New York Times, Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh said that at his company, "We really recognize and celebrate each person's individuality, and we want their true personalities to shine in the workplace environment."

Bravo, Tony.

Too often in the past few years, companies have been less and less willing to take risks in hiring profiles. Many executives believe all successful candidates will have scored above a certain threshold on their SATs, attended one small set of top notch schools, earned degrees in one or two select majors, and worked in one of a few pedigreed companies in one relevant industry for at least a certain number of years.

Talk about a loss of imagination.

As a result of failing to take risks in hiring profiles, too many companies - abetted by compliant HR business partners and recruiting staff - have stopped even looking at interesting or innovative candidates, let alone hiring them.

The problem is that hiring profiles that attempt to replicate what was successful in the past don't necessarily provide the skills and qualities needed for the future.

Have you looked at your hiring specs recently? Have you reviewed how many attractive candidates were ignored because their resumes didn't check all the boxes? Is your organization missing candidates whose resumes don't meet all qualifications, but offer other qualities and experiences that potentially bring something special, different or interesting to the mix?

Earlier this week I led a workshop for the leadership team of a large global technology based service organization. The focus of our discussion was identification of the company's "talent brand" - the skills and qualities necessary to consistently satisfy customer needs and attract great new talent to the organization.

As part of our deliberations, I asked, "How many of you wouldn't have been hired by the company today given the hiring specs?" Over half the team raised their hand, including the CEO.

I had a similar experience last year with the leadership team of a large integrated energy company. As with the technology company, the CEO, who is well-respected internally and by the energy community, was one of many executives who acknowledged he probably wouldn't be hired today with the qualifications he presented as a young professional.

Both cases suggest there is something excessively risk averse in hiring practices when a company's best and brightest wouldn't be considered. So, here's another approach.

  1. Don't focus on schools, courses of study, grades or years of experience at pedigreed organizations. They are a bad proxy for the real issue - does this individual has what you need and want. Instead of relying on easy measures, look for the robust indicators of competence and future contribution.
  2. Identify the real qualities required. Many organizational have competency models, but few convert these into clear and specific behavioral indicators. If you are looking for evidence of innovation, say so and be open to a broader range of examples, thus enfranchising a broader application pool.
  3. Break more eggs. Invite a wider range. For example, Wall Street is finding that a good place to look for future stock traders is online poker players. Some management observers are suggesting that programs in anthropology and industrial design are as robust a talent pool for business as the traditional MBA degree. JP Morgan has a program to attract PhD's in math, physics and astronomy. In short, decide that identifying that unexpected star is worth the additional effort.
  4. Build support for casting a larger net. Remind hiring managers and recruiters that some of the best employees and high potentials didn't fit the mold. Ask them to dig deeper to identify the skills, experiences and qualities that they are really looking for.
  5. Finally, think through the talent brand of the company, division or unit. What is the consistent experience you want customers (and/or stakeholders) to have whenever they deal with you, and what does that require in the qualities and skills of employees?

My next post will talk more about talent brands and branding. Meanwhile, is your organization courageous - and open - or cowardly in its hiring practices? Write and let us know your experience.

Jon Younger is a Partner of The RBL Group, a firm providing consulting and executive education in strategic HR and leadership. Jon leads the Strategic HR practice area and is also a Director of the RBL Institute. He is co-author, with Dave Ulrich and three other principals at The RBL Group, of "HR Competencies" (SHRM, 2007), "HR Transformation" (McGraw-Hill, July 2009) and many articles, and last year logged client work in 35 countries.

 
 
  • Comments
  • 5
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
jeffrey678
You don't happen to make it. You make it happen.
01:42 AM on 01/17/2010
Record your interviews and post them On-line. Some are very amusing .
11:47 PM on 01/15/2010
I'm so sick and tired of the phrases "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" and "Don't let the perfect drive out the good", especially since they're being used to justify that bungled mess of a health care bill, which is neither perfect nor good. If I never hear them again, it will be way too soon.
01:13 PM on 01/15/2010
Excellent article, Jon. I also saw that great Q&A with Tony Hsieh in the NYT, and commented about how it shows the power of "weird" or "offbeat" in workplace cultures - http://bit­.ly/75NF82 One of the things we've seen at the nonprofit where I work, which hosts an annual small business competitio­n (http://tsw­.winningwo­rkplaces.o­rg) is that, almost without fail, the winners of this award involve as many people from as many different areas of the company as possible in the hiring process. At these organizati­ons it's not uncommon for even a low-level hire to have 7 or 8 interviews­. These firms are cognizant of the fact that a wrong decision of whom to bring on board hurts not just the company, but the individual­. Part of their thinking here is that, in many cases, they think in terms of bringing on board not just the right person for an individual role, but for the company as a whole -- which supports the "beyond on-paper" view you discussed.
09:21 AM on 01/15/2010
You make good points, which can be applied to a variety of fields. I can say from my own hiring experience in academia that a top student from a non-presti­gious school is frequently better than a mediocre student from a top school. The first may have done the best with the only opportunit­ies available in his early life and may well get better and better as the years pass, while the second may well trace the opposite course.
More generally, do not let "credentia­ls" prevent you from seeing the person actually before you. Reputation is one thing, reality quite often another.
09:17 AM on 01/15/2010
You hit the nail on the head, the best has become the enemy of the good. If you do not bring your best game and be prepared to take that to the next level don;t even think about working for a major US corporatio­n. Can;t speak for other countries but knowing people they are all pretty much the same. Why is this so? Wht does everything always have to be growing. Where did this truly ridiculous notion come from?