Hiring Managers Beware

When An Employers Market Really Isn't

We've recently experienced one of the highest unemployment rates in decades. Times are tough, but some companies are still hiring at various levels. To many, it would seem to be a target-rich environment for locating new talent. But there are pitfalls. I classify four different groups of available talent, and urge those in decision-making capacities to raise their awareness of each group.

It's an easy assumption to say that some who have found themselves out of work were simply not up to grade in the first place. And it's fairly safe to say that they will have the most difficulty re-entering the work force.

On the opposite side of the coin, there are a fair amount of very good folks out there that were cut simply because they were a number to someone, and the selection process for cutbacks were based on such low-level criteria as tenure, as if it is an accurate measure of loyalty or effectiveness. In fact, this particular criteria rarely hits the mark for measuring either. The good news is that many companies will benefit from this group's availability in the marketplace.

In the middle remain two groups, the first of which can be classified as moderate talent coming from their former organizations, but may have the ability to become top talent should both they and their next organization properly assess each other. This is much like a quarterback in the NFL being a disaster on one team, while setting new records in another. Overall chemistry within the team, the specific coaches they work for, and the style of offense play major roles in record-setting performance. This group of talent will require an openness and clear insight from hiring managers to accurately identify future potential.

The other middle group represents, quite frankly, the most costly decision a hiring manager could possibly make. These are the imposters, or the people that portray themselves as the top talent that were released due to errant criteria. They may also seem to be part of the first middle group, and this is where the risk is raised substantially. Imposters have their own agenda, and they will play the game, much like a con person or spook operative, until they've drained everything they can from their asset. The problem in these situations is that the hiring manager continues to believe the deception and repeatedly throw good money after bad in order to retain the imposter. In the process, damages occur to the customer base, the internal organization's effectiveness, and may even put leadership up against the ropes.

To hiring managers across the world, I would strongly suggest the following:

1. Determine the success measurements required for the job and develop clear selection criteria around these
2. Raise the standard for hiring anyone into your organization
3. Create the most objective process you can, and implement an accountability process to ensure you hold true to your standards

Hiring imposters can bring an organization to its knees. You must guard yourself against them more vigilantly than ever in this tumultuous business environment.  Now you know.

 

Big Problems Require Big, Innovative Solutions

This past week I had an interesting conversation with a recruiter who was very frustrated with one of his hiring managers. Apparently, the hiring manager he works with insists on hiring "incompetent buffoons" [recruiter's words, not mine] in order to protect his own job. Obviously the hiring manager has an inferiority complex, but that's actually a minor issue in this story.

What a situation. Who couldn't help but inquire further?

The recruiter went on to tell me that the action was deliberate on the part of the manager, and that senior management was unaware of the action.

To troubleshoot the situation, I started asking about the measurements to ensure only high-quality candidates are hired. The answer was bad news. There's nothing in place, so it seemed pointless to think that senior management might have any type of advanced measurements established to monitor effectiveness of the hiring manager.

I tried to gain some ground and hopefully a level of trust with the recruiter, so I asked if he was willing to lay out a plan to ensure the highest standards are in place for future hiring. Most critically, I suggested that this type of plan should be discussed with and approved and monitored by the most senior levels of the company. That way, he might at least have some recourse to fire the client if they prove uncommitted to doing the right thing for the business. If nothing else, the recruiter has his own reputation on the line for committing to effective standards. That's something he can carry with him to the next client.

Here's where it got interesting. As it turns out, the hiring manager is related to someone in senior management, but that's not the only major complication - the recruiter is actually the HR Manager working internally for the company.

I think I stepped on his toes a bit because all of a sudden there was a tone of implied backbone (why then and with me, who knows?) telling me that his problem was not uncommon and that "big problems require big, innovative solutions."

I can't argue the point about the commonality of the problem or about solutions, but unfortunately, that's where the conversation ended.

Alright, I already know that I don't play politics well because I'm mission-oriented, and often to a fault. If what I'm doing doesn't support the strategic outcomes, I'm clearly "fixin' for a fight" and I promise you'll see it coming.

But I wondered after the fact if the purpose of the conversation wasn't as much to create a solution as it was for him to vent his frustration. Because by holding to principles and doing the right thing...even to the extent of firing the client...he would potentially put himself out of a job. Bear with me on this point, but when principles are compromised due to personal loss, they aren't really principles in the first place.

So readers, here are my questions to you:

1. Is the recruiting function too often being compromised by people who don't understand the long-term business implications of their actions?
   
2. If they actually understood the implications, would they stand and fight for doing the right thing?
3. Is the cost to the individual actually irrevelant so as to stand up and be recognized as an innovative recruiter who measure business performance?
4. And finally, is it worth it in this case to risk his job to do what's right for the client and the very nature of business and capitalism?

I maintain on all counts that it is, indeed.

Not only do big problems require big, innovative solutions, they also require big, unwavering principles.

Your thoughts?

Teambuilding Lessons from NFL Flops

Without a doubt, the NFL is one of the most high-stakes, high-visibility games on the planet. Occasionally, there are some pretty insightful lessons we can apply to the world of business. One recently stood out among the others as the race for playoffs concluded.

The 2008 Dallas Cowboys started out as one of the early Super Bowl predictions, but quickly fell apart as the season progressed. At the end of the regular season, they were labeled as one of the greatest disappointments in the entire league, even more than the 0-16 Detroit Lions. As one reporter from Yahoo said, "Dallas was a fantasy team coming to life this season. (Jerry) Jones kept adding stars without concern for chemistry. He expected them to coexist, cooperate, and conquer..."

Early on, I saw the Cowboys as a group of individually talented players, but not a talented team. With every game it seemed that the individuals stood out more than the team itself. Interestingly enough, none of them made my fantasy football team either, which is probably why I dominated my league. Listen, I know that larger-than-life personalities are common in the types of games with high-risk and high-rewards and those personalities can bring incredible value, but there was something different about these guys. They just didn't stand together.

One thing I routinely preach to my clients is to hire for strength. Jerry Jones might have achieved that at individual levels, but forgot two other critical factors:

1. Will their weakness be a detriment to the team? In other words, can we supply strength in another area to supplement the weakness of this individual?
   
   
2. Will they 'fit' with the team? This is more than merely cultural fit, because it also embraces what I'll refer to as 'like talent.' An example would be comparable Emotional Intelligence, athletic ability, or even IQ. Most often in the business world, I find that EQ is the differentiating factor.
   

Developing strong teams in business is not so different than this example from the NFL. Many teams that should perform better simply don't because of disconnects that likely began somewhere in the hiring process. Talented teams win games, no matter if it's the gridiron or the marketplace. Plain and simple.