Desperately understaffed? DON’T panic! But get moving!!

Panic in human beings produces a penchant to take preemptive action and unnecessary risks – often to the demise of the risk taker; and in our case to all those who surround the risk taker. Today, panicked hiring is becoming more common, and the results are often painful.

The purpose of this article is to explore the gap between panicked hiring & an interview process that is too slow (surprisingly this is also still a problem). Panicked hiring happens far too fast. Conversely, a process that tries to (virtually) eliminate risk by hiring the “perfect person” takes far too long. Both approaches are sure to produce less than ideal results, albeit for varied reasons. So, what is the sweet spot? How do we acquire the “right” amount of necessary information without going too far and taking too long?

The late, and highly esteemed, Colin Powell provided a good framework for us to use here. During a leadership primer he conducted many years ago, he stated that when making a critical decision you should seek 40-60% of the critical information/data and then make a gut decision from there. I agree with him.

Two vital questions to answer then are “what critical data should be acquired? and, what critical data should be delivered?” as there are two independent decision makers in an interview process – making it a little trickier.

Having identified the gap – no less than 40% of critical data and no more than 60%, it’s now time to explore the data.?If you acquire embellished, meaningless, or tainted data, you obviously stand more likely to fail. Likewise, if you deliver embellished, meaningless, or tainted data, you are equally likely to fail. It starts with good data.

To establish a data starting point, it is vital to understand this truth – you seek human beings NOT human “doings.”?Most interview processes I have observed tend to revolve primarily around what the candidate has done (human doing); this approach will too often lead to a failed hire. After all, humans want to be known and accepted for who they are and not simply for what they have done.

The goal of the process, then, should be to discover the “who” woven into the business stories/experiences of the candidate. The most profound and determinative data you can acquire is data about who the person is. Think attitudes, beliefs, behaviors – the very things that determine culture.

The most economical way to think about this is to explore the “hows” and “whys” related to “what” the candidate has done professionally. For example, how they achieved what they achieved or why they struggled where they struggled. How people do things and why people do what they do are entirely unique. Get into a multitude of “hows” & “whys” and the human being (their attitudes/beliefs/behaviors) starts to show up. If the attitudes/beliefs/behaviors are inconsistent in the stories, you are likely being manipulated.

When the human being shows up you have reached the point of diminishing returns. Some candidates (oftentimes introverts) are a little slower to reveal themselves and it may take a bit longer to get to the point where the human being shows up; that is ok. Your process should not be so rigid to ignore potentially good candidates.

Now it is your turn as an organization to deliver the right information to the candidate. Like organizations, the best candidates require this!

I have too frequently observed the following two tendencies which ironically, but not surprisingly, mirror candidate tendencies:

1. A delivery of information overly focused on “whats”; i.e., this is what our goals are, this is what our financials say, this is what our strategies are, this is what our values are, this is what we want this role to accomplish, this is what…you get the picture.

2. ?A tendency to share an embellished story vs. sharing the realities of your situation. If I had a nickel for every time I heard a candidate say; “They told me I was getting into X, and when I arrived I quickly realized it was Y.”?

The remedy to these tendencies first requires you to be authentic about your organization/department. If you have an employee brand aspiration, please state it as aspirational. The next step then requires that you share your “hows” & “whys” with the candidate. For example, “these are our values, and this is HOW we live them every day.” This is our financial picture, and this is how (or why) we got here. Continue to deliver a multitude of your “hows” & “whys” and the candidate will more clearly see what they will be getting into. This obviously reduces risk dramatically when the candidate choses you for who you actually are.

The economy of acquiring & delivering “hows” & “whys” will allow you to move sufficiently fast and sufficiently safe into the critical 40-60% data range – then, trust your instincts.

I hope you recognize the mutual experience between candidate & employer described in this article. Mutuality is an imperative for success – let’s even say “exquisite mutuality”!

Relationship demands mutuality

Mutually seeking hows & whys

Mutually discovering each other

Mutual transparency

A mutual exchange of stories