Who To Hire, Part 1

Years ago when I was in graduate school, I took an industrial psychology course that emphasized that both legally and psychometrically, the best way to hire people for jobs was to figure out “can they do the job?” That meant figuring out “A”, the specific components of the job (the job description, the tasks, the expectations, the performance goals); then “B”, figuring out the skills, competencies and attributes necessary to match the needs of the job; and then, finally, “C”, testing for those skills and attributes, and ultimately selecting that applicant whose profile best fit “A” and “B”.

This process sounds logical—and it’s certainly legal—but I believe that nowadays it’s at best a lukewarm predictor of success . The basic skills which are defined as necessary “to do the job” are usually lowest-common denominator skills. They describe the mechanics of the job, the minimum expectations necessary to carry out the demands of the job. But success in work today is also due to imagination, initiative, persistence, caring, risk, courage, collaboration, trustworthiness, and personal responsibility. Obviously, the higher one is in the hierarchy, the more important these attributes become. But in today’s Knowledge Economy, they’re important regardless of rank or function. They need to be addressed and prioritized in the recruiting process, because they help answer the question “can he or she do the job successfully?”

I frequently cross one of the three major bridges around San Francisco. Some of the toll takers are indifferent, some verge on rudeness. Don’t tell me they “can do the job”. No, they aren’t doing the job, because the mechanical part of taking peoples’ money and giving change is only part of the job. They need to be pleasant and helpful too. That’s called customer service. That’s part of doing the job well. I wouldn’t hire anyone for that job unless I was convinced that he or she would make the customer’s experience a good one. And in fact, I wouldn’t hire someone for that job unless I thought they would take initiatives in helping improve operational efficiencies too. That’s called doing the job very well. (And if I was really smart I’d pay more for good people rather than expecting them to be good at the same pay that bad ones get). Extrapolating to management, I would rank the evidence of those factors I listed above—imagination, initiative, etc.—much higher than factors like where the applicant got his degree, or how many years’ experience she has, or can they do the fundamentals of the job description. We need to hire for overall talent, not just for basic skills and experiences. More next week.