1.8 Trillion annual loss: management or hiring?
Jonathan Schultz
Done-for-you Search - equip leaders to de-risk hiring using data-driven techniques | Founder | Hiring Strategist | Technical Recruiter | Coach - Software Industry
American corporations continue to misunderstand the 'human' behind human resources to the tune of 1.8T per year.
It's a big number, so we quickly dismiss, it's too big to conceptualize. Let's try.? 1.8T = $8,600 per working age person in the USA, per year.? Did you get a $8,600 high productivity bonus this year?
Even with corporate productivity at an all-time low, we continue to manage and hire using dinosauric methods that all but ignore the 'human' in human nature.? We hire as if people are 'static' and unchanging like a box of cereal.
The result:? 1.8 Trillion dollars per year in lost productivity due to mis-hires, most of which are mis-diagnosed. Instead of categorizing as mis-hires, we've developed a whole new set of vocabulary.? We call these 'symptoms' of the undiagnosed root cause by names like, engagement issues, quiet quitting, excessive early turnover, and low retention.
But the truth is, the hire was a bad fit.? A hiring mistake.? A mis-hire.?
Why is it so common?? First, it's easy to convince ourselves that our hiring process isn't broken, because we get good or great hires some of the time, roughly half, we think.?
?
Truth is, planning and skill required to determine acceptable, good and great is daunting. Add management skill as a variable and most give up and embrace the status quo.
?
This leaves us back at square one, where a 50% success rate looks acceptable?? Yet, this is a joke, because, if, roughly half of the talent pool is competent and adaptable enough to perform well when motivation is high during the honeymoon phase of the job then results are no better than a coin flip. ?
?
But the rose-colored-glasses fade, and we realize we're not growing, the opportunity isn't what we thought, not a good fit - - and satisfaction begins to plummet.
?
So, how do we stop hiring as if our new team is a box of cereal?? Let's start by admitting one is dynamic, while the other is static. Sounds stupid, right?? But when you purchase your cereal and put it in the pantry you expect it to be the same when you pull it out.
When you pour a bowl of cereal, eyes half closed, do you expect a surprise, like crispy rice, with cinnamon strudel topping inside the unopened box labeled cornflakes. ?Does cereal just changed on its own inside the box?? Impossible.
?
But equally impossible, we act like people are static.? Just because I know Python, and at the last three companies I was a tech lead and used it daily doesn't mean that I've not changed.
?
Maybe I've started learning Mojo, and just used it nights and weekends for the past two months to help a friend write a MVP for his new boot-strap startup.? Or maybe my last 3 startups were marketing applications, and I'm ready for something different.?
?
Fact is, I'm not static.? I change.? To determine if I'm a good job-fit, you have to take into account that I'm a human.? I have a normal human need to learn, grow and progress, and this drives enthusiasm and motivation.?
If you're ever to get good results, the interview process needs to be able to 'assess' job-fit, not just the existence of skills.? Just because I did it for the past 18 months does NOT mean I want to come do the exact same thing again [laterals = low engagement].
领英推荐
?
The fact that I own a chainsaw, and know how to use it, doesn't mean I'm open to new lumberjack roles.?
?
There's a corollary that gives additional insight into this aspect of hiring.? If you want to hire the best people, you must recognize that along with high productivity comes some other attributes.? We learn fast, have a voracious curiosity, and we outgrow jobs at twice the average rate.? Which means if you're going to keep me, you've got to keep me busy.? But not with busy-work, with challenging work that allows/forces me to grow and learn.?
?
Once, as justification to ignore my request for the tools needed to do my job, a CFO I reported to said.? "Jonathan, I don't see the problem, we're paying you well, aren't we? ?Just go and do the best you can."? ??
?
Clearly, he couldn't get his head around human nature.? Invest hours and dollars into hiring the best.? Task them with doing their best.? Then handcuff them and complain that their best-handcuffed-efforts is insufficient.
?
Is this making any sense? Would you hire the best race car driver, at the highest salary and tell him we'd like you to optimize for fuel savings and tire wear because we want to emphasize that we're a green-eco-conscious company?
Are you ready to 'leverage' human nature and watch great results materialize instead of fighting against it?
?
To hire for fit, here's how to start.
-Stop scribbling lists of skills and calling them job descriptions. Describe deliverables.
-Design the hiring process for maximum transparency.
-Communicate the leader's style and team's culture early.
-Use a conversational interview format that's not disconnected from the job and easily gamed like behavioral techniques.
-Use a scorecard driven assessment method that mitigates bias, and easily brokers agreement based on data not opinion.
-If needed, get your managers and interview team some coaching help to get them started.
?
To conclude, when you invest the time to understand the human needs that drive both career decisions, and on-the-job motivation, your hiring mistakes will be fewer.
If you commit to mastering the art of hiring, you'll soon be leading teams that are productive and enjoyable to work with.? Leadership skill is also a variable. Plan to hire for it, and grow it through training and incentive.?
?
?
#visionaryleader #hiring #interviewing #softwareengineering #hireinreverse
?
PS– Follow for more on developing the skill to hire accurately, and lead teams where career growth, meaning, impact, satisfaction and meritocracy dominate your team culture. ?
Belonging & Culture Expert | Global Speaker | Inspiring Purposeful Leaders & Thriving Teams with the Catch, Convert, Create? Framework
8 个月This is an insightful post! It's fascinating to consider how some sectors have advanced technologically while others, like hiring practices, seem to lag behind despite the passage of time. Recognizing the gap between the efficiency of modern machinery and traditional hiring methods offers a unique perspective on innovation and adaptation in the workplace. Perhaps integrating more data-driven approaches and psychological insights could bridge this gap, enhancing the way we understand and predict candidate success.