Alright, let's talk about the rollercoaster ride that is hiring and firing. Everyone believes they're a superhero at hiring.
We managers, strut around like hiring superheroes, but when it comes to firing, we transform into deer in headlights, capes nowhere to be seen. Admit it: our egos throw a hiring party but vanish when tough decisions knock. Meanwhile, the team, our culture, and hitting targets? They're left holding the bag.
Isn't this the bitter truth managers are reluctant to acknowledge?
We dread firing because it bruises our ego.
The agony of the mistake seems to be far too threatening for us.
What's disheartening is that the more senior the hire, the riskier it gets. The greater their influence or the harder it was to find them, the more damage they can do. These are the cases where managers tend to hesitate more when it comes to firing.
I once interviewed a terribly mediocre VP of sales solely because my company's CEO insisted I meet them fast, citing, "They're asking for a high salary." Not, "They're capable with an outstanding track record." Why? Our egos lead us to believe that if someone demands a hefty paycheck, they must be the most capable, therefore becomes the most desirable. This contradicts my approach of hiring based on potential, which helps find committed, exceptional employees.
Here's my not-so-secret recipe for optimizing hires, minimizing unfit ones :
I start by crafting job descriptions that are less like a fantasy novel and more like a reality TV show. No room for make-believe skills here—just the real deal that the job actually needs. Priorities competencies which are at the heart of the role, whether they are hard skills or core ones (i.e. behavioral, Adaptability, Communication).
Then, I create a structured assessment framework. I reverse engineer from competency to identify the necessary information for formulating the right questions. I use behavioral and hypothetical questions as I focus on competency and potential. I opt for a binary scoring system (0-1). None of that 1-3 or 1-5 scale jazz—gimme a clear yes or no to minimize the bias. I assign a binary ranking of 0 or 1 to every element, competency, and skill on my list. If executed correctly, this method distinctly shows whether the candidate possesses all the required competencies.
Now, interviews are where the magic—or the disaster—happens. I make sure everyone evaluating candidates is singing from the same hymn sheet. And hey, let's talk about potential, not gender biases. Men get hired for what they might become, while women are stuck proving what they've already nailed. Not cool, right? When the questions and ranking is structured it is far easier to spot those gaps in questions and answers.
In interviews, I play detective, poking holes in those vague "gut feelings" and demanding proof. If we're missing info, we're not shy about scheduling another chat. It's all about digging deep and finding the real deal.
But wait, there's more! Onboarding isn't just about a fancy welcome kit—it's about setting clear targets. Think of them as GPS directions for success. Miss those targets, and we're chatting about a performance improvement plan. Can't hit those markers? Well, that rollercoaster might be headed toward the exit gate.
Even if for me it'll result in a huge pain, loss of resources and a bruised ego.
Is this foolproof? Nope, not in a million years. I might've let a gem slip by or accidentally welcomed in a dud. But hey, it's all about dodging those smooth talkers without substance.
In the end, hiring slow and firing fast isn't about gleefully waving goodbye to team members. It's about realizing that a bad fit can turn the workplace into a bad rom-com. It's aiming for a team where skill and potential shine brighter than biases and mismatched hires. My ego? It's more like a sidekick to these heavyweight.
コメント