Hiring Decisions

In this tough marketplace there are countless factors which contribute to one candidate being hired over another.    There is one area in particular I would like to examine further is the "cookie-cutter model," where some people/firms will only hire a candidate who has done the exact same role before with a pre-determined amount of experience and specific background.  Meanwhile other people/firms worry less about a person's exact background and focus more on the individual and often in particular their potential.

1.  Cookie-Cutter
There are pluses and minuses to this approach.  First, someone who has a great track record in a specific role would appear to be a smart hire.  The odds are good this is the end result, however, people always need to consider - will the person be able to be successful in this new role.  Much as in sales, you are only as good as your next sale.  A candidate might have been a great Salesperson - constantly exceeding quotas and always brining in new revenue.  However, does that person have the leadership skills to be a sales manager?  This is of course a complicated example, which can be examined in depth another time.  The cookie-cutter approach also applies strongly to education.  I have seen very talented candidates be passed over based on not meeting a specific academic pedigree.  Another important factor which is not considered is the team approach.  Often times the strongest teams are where the members have complimenting skills.  A numbers person balances out the creative individual, or the operations person is balanced with the strategy person.  If everyone has the same background there is no diversity, and that will probably not produce optimal results.

2.  The Individual
There are countless examples of people who might not have had perfect experience but were selected nonetheless.  One recent example is Barack Obama.  He was selected more on potential than on prior experience as he is pretty short on it (see the Obama, CEO post).  Time will tell how this works out, but it illustrates the case relatively well.  Google is well known for hiring people based on their intelligence and potential.  In many cases they are not as concerned with someone's exact background as what they can do in the future, although they do place a lot of emphasis on academic achievement and do prefer top-caliber schools.  The benefit of focusing on the individual is that you are looking towards the future in many senses.  First, you are hiring for the specific position you want to fill which as mentioned above might really require a different skill set (management vs. analysis for example).  Secondly, you are hiring an individual for the company just as much as for the team & department.  Great companies hire great people - and allow them to develop.  This does not always happen in a small segment.  Think of how GE develops leaders by moving them around to many different businesses.  Plus, as mentioned above, a smart person will learn things quickly, and if he/she has a different background could bring something valuable to the table.  For example, Mike Bloomberg as a very successful businessman brought his many strong skills to NYC government, even though he never held an elected office before.

Would you rather hire a C person with great relevant experience or an A person without as much relevant experience but who will be the better hire longer term.  There is no right answer of course, it always depends on the situation.  However, hiring mangers and firms often times fail to completely consider the whole picture.  Furthermore, few appropriately track and analyze their hiring decision.  I know of a manager how had multiple people leave when working for her (above the average churn level), an aborted 1 week hire and passed up people who went on to be very successful.  Maybe these were all coincidences or maybe there is something amiss with that hiring manager that should be examined further.  Companies are quick to list every single function of the job, but they should also include more information about their hiring strategy and approach.  Transparency, would better define how that manager/team operates as well.