23 candidates interviewing for 1 high impact position. Multiple decision makers.
Professionally, this probably sounds very familiar; A bunch of resumes for 1 “open” position, with multiple decision makers involved in the process.
Politically, this also is familiar. Here in the U.S., we started with 23 candidates vying for a "promotion" to the highest position in the land...that of POTUS (President of the United States). 9 candidates remain. I'm one of the 225 million "decision makers" (a.k.a., the voting age population).
In watching both the Republican and Democratic debates over the past ten days, I thought to myself, why am I deciding on which candidate should get this “promotion” with less rigor than I would to hire leaders in our business?
Making a mistake in both cases is costly. For POTUS, a mistake could quite literally cost in the trillions of dollars. It could cost people their lives! And, if we make an error, we’re likely stuck with this error for 4 years. In business, the “at-will” employment concept reduces the risk of a incorrect hire a bit, but the impact of an error is also far reaching, relatively speaking.
In business, we do everything we can to reduce the risk of a hiring error. One approach resulting in considerably better hiring decisions is the use of a candidate scorecard. A candidate scorecard specifies the key traits of a successful candidate, adds objectivity to the hire, and allows us to hire for a person’s strengths versus their lack of weaknesses. It allows multiple decision makers to evaluate a candidate on the things that really matter...the traits that improve the odds of a correct hire. We score the candidates on those traits, then make a decision.
For POTUS, historically many of the 225 million “decision makers” haven’t approached this vital decision that way. There are numerous studies and articles which claim that taller candidates have won the great majority of Presidential elections, and facial features are a key contributor to a candidate’s viability in the polls. The data suggests that we “decision makers” often make our choice of candidate for emotional reasons and/or based on irrelevant cues, then justify it by hunting for evidence that supports our impression.
For business, the candidate scorecard I’ve used for hiring leaders often contains the following factors:
- Leadership Style: Would this individual represent our company effectively? Are they a strong communicator? Do they fit the culture? Will people get behind him or her? Do they have dignified humility? Will this person be trustworthy?
- Their “Plan”: What’s this person’s philosophy? What are their core beliefs around how this position should be approached? Does that philosophy & beliefs align with ours? How do they plan to get this done? What would be the short-term and long-term priorities? (Often, we ask a person to show us a plan)
- Resilience: In any leadership position, there are good times and bad. Challenges arise. How will this person handle difficult situations? Do they have experience & examples they can point to?
- Motivation: Why does this person want this position? Do they have the drive, energy & passion for the role?
- Relevant Experience: Do they have a proven ability to achieve targets / goals? Do they bring the expertise and confidence that comes from experience? How much “learning-on-the-job” will be required?
- Intelligence: Does this person possess the overall intellectual & mental capacity for the role? Do they possess strong reasoning skills? Are they intelligent?
Read them again with this POTUS role in mind. Replace the word "company" with the word "country". Do they also apply?
Companies do this every day...often for positions that pale in comparison to the decision we’re all about to make. What matters to you? What do you think the traits are for a successful POTUS? If you're a U.S. citizen, you are a decision maker in this hiring process. Your vote matters. Let’s make a scorecard together…
Todd Caponi (@tcaponi)
No comments:
Post a Comment