|
The most
difficult hiring decision is when you have an applicant that
looks good in every particular except for one, but that one is
significant.
Let’s say you are hiring for a management position that
requires strong people skills. After weeding through
stacks of resumes and interviewing a dozen applicants, “Al
Smith” emerges as the leader of the pack.
Three managers,
including his prospective boss, interview Al for a second
time, and they are all enthusiastic about him. His references are
glowing, his experience are a good fit for the position, and
his Performance Profile looks good, except… there is one big
fat fly in the ointment. Al’s rating on the
Performance Profile’s Sociability characteristic is extremely
low – a “2!” This
suggests that, in spite of how well he conducted himself in
the interviews, he is uncomfortable dealing with people. In fact, when the he
is not trying to look good in order to get the job, he will
limit his interactions with others as much as possible. Hmm … not a good match
for a position that requires frequent interaction with people,
right?
The dilemma is
that Al looks good on all counts except one – a critical one
for the position in question. You are under pressure
to full the position, so the easiest solution is to just go
ahead and hire the guy on the strength of his obvious
assets. As
tempting as this is, however, it may not necessarily the best
way to go.
A Painful Example
I know a person
who faced this dilemma some time ago. The opening was for a
consultant position in a growing consulting firm. The applicant, Len
(not his real name), was a multi-degreed professional with
several years of experience in the field, solid references,
and a nice clean Performance Profile Report -- except for a
LOW energy level according to the Performance Profile.
This low
“Energy Level” rating was a red flag because the applicant’s
boss was an extremely energetic guy – if the Performance
Profile’s rating went higher than a “10,” that’s where the
boss would be!
Len interviewed
well. He came
across as confident, but not so much as to be off-putting, and
was warm and friendly without being smarmy. This was exactly the
presentation style that would represent the consulting firm
well to clients and prospects.
After due
consideration and discussion with peers and with an outside
selection expert, the boss made the decision to hire Len. He felt that, because
he knew about the difference between himself and Len in terms
of energy level, he would be able to “make adjustments” to his
expectations for him and, as a result, the difference between
them would not be a problem.
This approach
worked throughout Len’s new-to-the-job honeymoon period. Then, about six weeks
down the pike, things began to unravel. Projects that ought to
take two hours to complete (because that was how long it took
the high energy boss to complete them) were taking Len five to
six hours to complete. The first time it
happened, the boss asked Len if there were problems of some
sort that slowed the process down. Len looked somewhat
puzzled by the question and said, “No, that was just how long
it took.”
And so it went
with subsequent projects. Len’s work was
acceptable, and he had some good ideas, but his slow-motion
work pace was driving the boss crazy. Frequent discussions
of the “How can we help you be more timely?” type produced
only more frustration for both parties.
This went on
for longer than it should have, and then an uncommonly costly
error (a report to a client that missed the client’s deadline
resulting in the loss of that client) provided the opportunity
to allow Len to seek his fortunes elsewhere, perhaps working
for a slower-paced boss if there is any justice in the
world.
It was one of
the worst hiring mistakes I’ve ever made!
3 Strategies For Dealing With
Al, the Almost-Perfect Applicant
Let’s go back
to our original example: how do you proceed
with Al, the almost-perfect applicant? Here are three
strategies that can help you avoid the kind of mistaken hiring
decision that I made with Len.
#1:
Re-evaluate the importance of people skills for the job in
question.
Just how
critical is Al’s shyness for the job in question? It is too easy to
simply assume that people skills are critically important for
the position because that is the way the position has always
been thought of.
Would Al’s had characteristics, such as being a very nice guy
(check the characteristic of “Friendliness” for a rating of
“6” or stronger) compensate for his avoiding interactions with
people? Could a
genuinely nice guy’s ability to build relationships compensate
for not being the greatest schmoozer in the world?
#2: Does
Al have a unique and hard to find skill, area of expertise, or
knowledge of a critically important area that would offset his
shyness?
If the main
responsibility of the position involves opening up a new
division in China and Al speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese, then
his proficiency in Chinese may well offset his shyness. Or, if one of Al’s
primary duties will be dealing with the military and he is a
retired military officer, his military background could make
his shyness a personal strength rather than a
liability.
#3: Can
you “buffer” the applicant with an assistant who has the
“missing piece”?
Are the circumstances
such that an assistant with strong people skills could run
interference for the applicant? Or could the
department be restructured so that someone else has the
responsibility for direct contact with its
members?
Last Thoughts
The ability to resist
hiring the applicant with a Byronic Flaw, that one flaw in an
otherwise glowingly positive picture of the applicant, is
truly one of the rarest abilities among hiring managers, and
one of the most difficult to learn. It requires that you
do two things:
1. Maintain a steely grip
on what you see as the most important attributes that the
position requires.
2. Think creatively about
all of the applicant’s assets and whether the circumstances of
the position could be arranged to limit the effect of the
applicant’s liability, and focus more on his or her
assets.
In addition, don’t
let the pressures to quickly fill the position push you into a
hasty hire decision that you will later regret.
While
evaluating the almost-perfect applicant is difficult, with
care and a firm commitment to finding the applicant who brings
to the job those attributes most critical for the job in
question, a good hiring decision can be made.
Remember, People are not your most
important asset!
The RIGHT People are!
To hire the best, test!
To reveal management potential, test!
To diagnose
problem behavior, test!
Best regards,
Kurt G. Helm, Ph.D.
Phone Toll Free
800-886-4356
Email: khelm@helmtest.com
Website: http://www.helmtest.com/
PRIVACY
and SPAM POLICY: We never rent, trade, or sell our email
list to anyone for any reason whatsoever. You'll never
get an unsolicited email from a stranger as a result of
joining this list.
© 2007, Kurt G. Helm, Ph.D. All rights
reserved. You are
allowed to use material from this newsletter in whole or in
part provided that you include attribution in the following
form: “By Kurt G.
Helm, Ph.D., of Helm and Associates, Inc. Please visit our
website at http://www.helmtest.com/ for
more information about how to avoid hiring mistakes by using
pre-employment testing as part of the applicant evaluation
procedure.”
| 
