The Word
NaeNae55
3,243 Posts
Today John Phillips' blog has a link to another blog article regarding hiring. John's article is titled "The Perfect Way to Hire" (posted 7/25/08.) I read the other blog and followed the link to a speech by Malcom Gladwell. I found it interesting and informative. You might want to check it out.
I don't know how long the speech actually took, but I am estimating 20-30 minutes. So make sure you have some uniterrupted time before you start it.
Good luck!
Nae
I don't know how long the speech actually took, but I am estimating 20-30 minutes. So make sure you have some uniterrupted time before you start it.
Good luck!
Nae
Comments
i'll have to check that out.
Well, duh. Anyone on this forum could tell you that (although without the flair and playful elitism that Gladwell has perfected). So what was his answer? What was his brilliant idea for clearing through the morass of so-so applicants and finding the diamonds (rough or otherwise).
He doesn't really have one. He ends his speech with three observations:
1) We desperately want to be able to evaluate subjective qualities like "what is a good worker" with objective measurements and these measurements are often woefully inadequate.
2) The complexity of the workplace make it extremely difficult to predict successful employees when we are using outdated, simplistic metrics.
3) The only way to really know if an employee is going to work out is to put them to work.
Ok, fine. But like most academians, he offers no real guidance or solutions. He just pokes fun at what he calls "mismatches" - criteria which have been designed to identify the best candidates but may in fact, do the opposite.
I think we are all aware of this concept. One could argue our very political system is designed to weed out brilliance and true leadership qualities and replace them with bland personalities and partisian mindsets. We're hip to this, Mr. Intellectual New Yorker.
But back in Peoria, you still have to hire employees to get the work done and you can't just say "Here, try it. Lets see how it works out." There are no "temporary employees" and we all know that "probationary periods" dont mean much. Once someone is your employee, you take on a boat load of responsibilities. It behooves us to weed out bad hires before they weasel onto our payroll and start abusing our benefits like rats after cheese.
I think there is a realistic way to determine whether an applicant is a suitable fit for the position (and your company). Its not magic nor is it rocket science. That said, there are no guarantees in life and I am always suprised by how far a good liar can get in life.
Lets use the acronym "CARP" for simplicity.
Culture - how well does this applicant fit into your culture. This is very subjective so you need someone in your organization (hopefully you) who understands the culture and is able to read people well. Some organizations should not hire superstars for example. They will be easily bored and get restless. Some organizations would do better to hire "dutiful and responsible average achievers".
Attitude - the hiring and reference checking process should take attitude into account. I'll take someone with an average skill set and fantastic attitude over a superstar with a tendency to be negative. When you have a workplace with people who have positive attitudes, its so much easier to accomplish your mission than when you are constantly dealing with cynicism, negativity, and sarcasm.
Reliability - All the smarts and skills in the world mean little if a person isnt reliable. Its not very sexy but its the foundation for everything else. Think back to the last employee you had who was truly unreliable. Did it matter how good they were? Determining reliability is done through careful reference checking, examination of an applicant's employment history, and thoughtful behavioral interviewing questions.
Performance - At the end of the day, does the applicant have a history of performing? Can they point to previous successes or is their work history a patchwork of short term jobs and excuses? Some people get the work done no matter what obstacles come up and others seem to only be able to produce excuses. Performers perform regardless of what environment they are in. I am always impressed when I see a younger applicant who has worked at Dairy Queen for more than two years. That shows me alot. Without any indicators of past performance (whether its an employment situation, volunteer, or scouts, etc) then hiring is just guessing.
So that's my little retort to Mr. Gladwell (someone who I really admire actually). I dont think my hiring process is unrealistic, overly time consuming, or costly. Of course, its not fool proof. If you hire alot of people, you are bound to make a few mistakes. Sometimes you take a chance with someone and they let you down. That doesn't necessarily mean your systems are flawed. It just means you are hiring human beings.
You are right that he didn't really have any solutions. On the other hand, having someone as well respected as he is coming forth might finally have a serious impact. He used good analogies that will make people think. I think most upper management just thinks HR people are not good enough at hiring without realizing what a crap shoot it really is.
I was not surprised by his only solution. I have worked for an employer who never ran an ad or took applications for employment. They called a temp agency, and after about 6 weeks if they found your work good and you compatible with their culture, they would ask you to stay. The temp agency knew this of course, but they never let on to the applicant, and neither did the other employees. It was a very cohesive organization, that grew very rapidly while making every employee feel like family.
Thank you for your insights Paul. You spend a lot of time teasing on this forum, but when you get serious you offer well thought out opinions. (Did I just say that?)
Nae
For one, you would expect the new hire would feel special (I was picked out of several hundred) but also realize they can be replaced. That would seem to be an optimum starting point.
But I wouldnt really know from experience. As a non-profit, we are fortunate to recieve 5-10 qualified applicants for a salaried position. Sometimes we may only have two qualified applicants. I have never felt comfortable communicating that to a new hire.
Back in the day (I dont know if they still do) Disneyland didnt hire, the "cast" for roles. The roles included housekeepers, cashiers, etc. They used careful terminology to create an atmosphere that they felt would be ideal for the amusement park. You weren't at work, you were "on stage". Employees were "cast members". Customers are called "guests" and so on. All of this takes place during an intensive 40 hour orientation called Disneyland University.
Perhaps Disney has taken the approach that its almost impossible to guarantee perfect hiring given the number of employees they must hire each year and so its easier and more effective to socialize them into Disney culture.
That all said, I grew up in Anaheim and many of my friends worked at Disneyland. One of my classmates was "Cinderella" in the electric light parade her senior year. For the most part, I found them very cynical of their Disney experience. You never wanted to stumble onto a group of Disney employees talking. It wasn't pretty.