Hire the right people, don't fill roles!
Three scenarios to assess a candidate’s best fit
Over nearly 30 years of hiring people, at different levels within an organization, there is one question I’ve consistently asked anyone applying to be in a management or leadership position.
It’s a question that stems from a basic ideology that we should all be doing what works for us, and within our strengths. You know, like when some teachers don’t understand that Timmy is just not good at math and will never be. But I digress.
Recently, I received a call from an international student, referred by an old friend of mine who teaches business at a nearby college. She asked me a number of questions, but the one that struck me most was regarding what she should do for her first job, her internship.
I explained the starting point would be to find out what matches and motivates her, and suggested that she draw up something I called the “four quadrants of you”. That will come in another article.
Her call leads me to sharing the three-part question that I ask people in order to determine where they fit within the organization, whether or not I’m looking to fill a role, or the proverbial box.
Too many organizations create a specific box and try to shove people inside of it, resulting in high turnover and unmotivated employees. I’ve always believed the best organizations are ones that hire people and then build roles around them. However, this is not always possible and sometimes corporations are forced to fill a position without having the time for such an altruistic attitude towards people's development. It’s sad, but it’s true!
When hiring, I inform all the candidates that I’m going to explain three scenarios.
Here are the three scenarios:
1) We have a division or department or a company that is running perfectly. There is no need for change or disruption. The only thing we are looking for is someone to keep their eye on the business and the people, and make sure nothing changes. In other words, their number one priority is to ensure we maintain the status quo.
2) There’s a division, or a business, that is generating revenue and performing ......not so badly. Everyone knows it can do much better, but we have not had the resources, or dare we be honest enough to say, skill sets, to change it. Perhaps it’s a smaller division within an organisation that has fallen lower on our priority list. Or perhaps it’s a business where the owner or leader simply doesn’t have the motivation, and at times finances, to figure out how to get it running better. The person hired for the role has one clear mandate: Keep the business moving, but make it better while constantly improving what already exists. We’re not looking to turn it into something else, we simply want what it is to be better. This can also be true of an example where it’s an opening of a new outlet and some existing systems are in place. The vision exists, but we need someone to deliver on accommodation of the vision and the few systems we have, while stepping in and improving these systems.
3) Here’s a blank sheet of paper. GO!
Once I’ve presented the three scenarios, the question I ask of each candidate is - Which of these three scenarios is most appealing to you, and which do you think you are best suited for?
If I’m looking for someone to take scenario one, I don’t need a creative genius. I also don’t need a disrupter or someone who is low conformity. I need a doer, and a play by the rules kind of person.
In scenario two, I need someone with experience who is a mild disrupter but understands the importance of coloring within the lines.
The blank sheet is always the interesting one because it not only identifies a candidate with blue sky thinking and who has great vision, but the organisation hiring such employees must be that way too. To hire an individual whose first reaction is to take the blank sheet, is to take some risks. It’s to recognize that not everyone will see eye-to-eye on a regular basis. Bosses will be frustrated at the rogue mentality and the employee will feel stifled.
No matter which scenario someone falls into, it’s imperative that organizations do the absolute best they can to build roles around people, rather than shove people into roles. When the former happens, an organization has many empowered and happy people and it operates at a higher efficiency. It does, because it has put the right people in the right place and recognizes that happy people are performers.