The Lost Art of Recruiting – “Checking Boxes” vs. Finding the Right Fit

Across roles and industries, millions of highly qualified people with non-traditional backgrounds hear a common refrain – “you’re not the right fit” – regardless of what they may have accomplished in their careers. As a result, many of the most talented, creative and innovative individuals are unfairly disqualified from consideration for jobs where their expertise could add tremendous benefit to the organization. But what does “the right fit” actually mean?

           At some point in the recent past, many business leaders somehow concluded that they are only interested in hiring “cookie cutter” candidates who have followed a linear, traditional career path. In other words, unless someone has done an exact job in an exact industry in a particular way, they are inherently incapable of performing the duties the job requires. Of course, this overly simplistic view is not only patently false, but can also cause stagnation or even outright failure within a department or an organization as a whole.

           The rationale that dozens of corporate leaders have given when I’ve asked them is risk mitigation. According to their logic, hiring someone who has followed a career trajectory different from their own poses a greater risk to the company than someone who has toed the straight and narrow path. When I ask what evidence they have to support this belief, they invariably cannot offer any. It is apparent that the majority of these individuals are simply seeking confirmation bias. When I’ve pointed out that teachers are held to a far higher standard than corporate learning professionals, every hiring manager I’ve spoken with has recognized that this is indeed true. When I’ve mentioned that 90% of learning initiatives fail because proper educational protocol has not been followed, they recognize this truth as well. Is it any wonder that so many corporate leaders view learning and development as a cost to the company when they’ve never seen it implemented correctly?

           It is apparent that being overly cautious can actually lead to worse outcomes. We only need to look at the 2001 World Series as an example. Rather than allowing Mike Stanton to pitch the eighth inning as he usually did, Yankees’ manager Joe Torre was terrified that only his star closer Mariano Rivera could finish the game to defeat the Arizona Diamondbacks, and used him for a two-inning save. As a result, Rivera used up all his best pitches in the eighth inning and blew the lead in the ninth. Rather than playing to win, Torre played not to lose, and it ended up causing the Yankees to lose the World Series.

           It is indeed curious that many companies claim to value outside-the-box thinking, but when faced with people like me (and many others) who have earned our living doing exactly that, their leaders freeze like deer in headlights. The irony is that it is precisely because of my atypical background and perspective that I am able to achieve superior results for my clients. I invite all highly qualified people whose experience doesn’t fit neatly into a box to stand up and make our voices heard. I invite corporate leaders to accept the reality that when substantive change is necessary, the answer is not to hire more of the same; that “different” does not equate to “less than.” Those of us who have achieved success by charting our own course should not be viewed with suspicion, but rather, with admiration. Accordingly, we should be afforded the same opportunities as everyone else to pursue our goals and dreams. The results will be nothing short of extraordinary.