Hiring is something I speak to fellow managers and directors about repeatedly. It is way too easy in this age to moan that nobody is qualified, education is bad, that all the good people are already taken. And so, the employment industry gets fixated on the “passive candidate.” Hiring one can take forever, especially when many (active and passive) want to gain new skills, improve their marketability in new fields.

It’s interesting that in our world of ever shortening product cycles, we demand that managers and workers must produce results immediately. If we’re not fast, our competitors grab more market share. Why then is hiring treated differently? Isn’t hiring fast a competitive advantage too, to hire capable people before your rivals? Why don’t more managers develop that skill?

In talking to today’s managers, I’ve noticed a common sentiment. It isn’t clearly stated in many cases, in fact it’s rare the manager who sees himself as a bottleneck in the hiring process. It takes some prying for a manager to finally lay out why hiring is taking so long. Many are obsessed with “proven track records”, “results” and the like. They look for “experience” when what they really need to look for is “potential.” This is especially true in a world where yesterday’s rules and markets constantly change.

The reality is not every manager studies what entails job competence. (While a little more challenging in a knowledge economy, it’s not impossible.) The faulty reasoning is if you like succeeded somewhere else, then you’ll likely succeed here too. (Never mind that we’re trying to do something that’s never been done before, and we too are creating it as we go along.)

When you look at how a lot of hiring is done today, the focus is on “what have you done.” That’s wrong. To hire someone, especially fast, you must ask “what can you do.”

When I’ve cornered some managers why so much emphasis on “what have you done,” some frank reality comes out. They want someone who’s already done it, who’s worked for the “right” companies, who’s put out famous products, who has the credentials. That way, if the new hire doesn’t work out, they can go back to their boss and say “at least they looked and sounded good on paper and interviews.”

Unfortunately, employers don’t track which hires were rejected who actually turned out good/great elsewhere. If we did, you’d see hiring accelerate. Meanwhile, you can adopt the “what you can do” approach.

When I hire somebody, I can’t spend time going over what they did for somebody else. I want them to contribute to my firm and my bottom line in the present. Reading resumes and conducting faulty behavioral interviews doesn’t reveal what you can do for me under today’s and tomorrow’s conditions. Giving you opportunities to express via “oral and written communications” of how you will do the job does.

Seeing what people can do today in a world where information about anything is readily available kills the “want a job, get experience/want experience, get a job” conundrum — FAST!

But the numbers ($770,000) said “look deeper.” So we did.

I’ve fired a number of folks in my time and not one of them was surprised. Unhappy, maybe, but not surprised.

What is so hard about sitting down with an employee and saying, “This, specifically, is what I expect from you and this is how I’ll know whether you’ve done it or not.”?

Dan

I am surprised that there is not “get to the root cause” school of thought. And even more surprised that so many leadership writers don’t write about the root causes and the fixes.

If a manufacturing company finds defective output they repair it or trash it. And when they find it more than once they don’t buy a bigger dumpster. They find the root causes and they eliminate it.

Firing is a signal there may be serious quality control issues in the hiring and/or the leading. Unless you ask why (and get to the root) you are sweeping the real problem under the rug.

In many instances, when it comes to correction subordinates behavior or performance it’s a simple matter. “It’s not what you say, but how you say it.” Napolean Hill was onto something for sure.

Comments about setting the right expectations for new employees are right on track. My comments on the firing side are really only for the individuals that you have “missed” on in the hiring process…

To some the points included, every manager needs to set objectives for all new employees, then do a “check-in” from a performance standpoint every couple of weeks initially, then probably once a month when they are in the groove. With this type of coaching, many of the terms could be avoided, but coaching skills among managers from a performance management standpoint are weak – it’s another form of confrontation, which most humans try to avoid…..

The dialogue is good, the topic is complex….

@Kris…great point about probationary periods. That’s saved me a couple of times, for sure.

@Greg….not sure I agree about employers wondering about company loyalty. At least not any employer large enough to have a dedicated HR person. People jump around in jobs these days. 30 years at the same org is a rarity. Good points about the human side of firing–it’s never easy, and it’s definitely not fun. With appropriate policies and communication, though, it shouldn’t be a surprise either.