This evening, I was at dinner with colleagues - which I had forgotten about until I got into the office. That meant, I had to come home again, as my wife needed the car in the evening. Normally, I check my schedule at least the night before so that I know what is planned, but because this appeared "late" in the evening, and I missed it.
Off target.
We were talking about filling a position and the conversation arose about what kind of person should be chosen. Most seem to think that the right person is the one who is most suited to the skills required for the position, but I have a slightly different opinion. Of course there are some caveats around this, but if looking from a succession planning perspective, the right person for the job, isn't necessarily the right person for the company.
This is important to recognize, because if hiring for a job without keeping succession and career path in mind, it is likely that the person is going to move on anyway. This means hiring again, and again, and again for the same position, but also for positions upstream. The people who are looking to take some responsibility and get a title, just so that they can move on to another company, aren't necessarily the most suited.
Of course, some roes are useful to fill externally, rather than promoting from within, because promoting from within comes with its own set of challenges, due to all the baggage that history brings with it. But, it is also valuable to have employees who are committed enough to the company, that they are looking to grow and expand themselves at the company, if given the opportunity. This means that a lot of valuable resource can be built through that mechanism, like a business foundation, and a culture.
The companies that have a high turnover in employees, tend to struggle culturally and often face more challenge in tough times, because they don't have employee commitment and resolve. There is less of the "pull together" mentality, and more the "jump ship" attitude. If a company is looking for longevity and increasing stability, then they have to do it through the employees, because they are the ones that make it happen, and then maintain it.
Meritocracy?
When it comes to filling positions based on merit, there are many things to consider, rather than just the technical skill level required for a position. For instance, there are people who are highly skilled, but they don't have a personality or attitude that encourages people to work with them. For some positions, this is fine, but for a lot of corporate leadership positions, being effective means being able to operate in a dynamic environment of other humans.
The days of being a prick to get ahead are gone in most companies, and they are unlikely to return. The people who walk over others to get to where they want to go, end up painting themselves into a corner, and are eventually forced to leave. Of course, if hiring on technical merit, it is much more likely to get these kinds of people in to jobs, the kinds of people who aren't going to stay long enough to grow roots, it is just another stepping stone.
I recently came across a story of a salesperson who was hired, and then a major customer said that "we will not work with them -keep them, and we are no longer your customer". That sounds harsh, but the person was actually an ex-employee of the company, but hadn't used them as a reference of any kind. What seemed like a benefit, was actually a drawback, because the large customer saw this person as a toxic entity, and if they had been consulted prior, would have clearly stated that. In the end, the new sales person was let go, because once the digging started, it became clear that while they seemed like a great candidate on paper, the reality of the person was very different.
It really comes down to trust, and while there is some trust possible in the technical abilities, with jobs that require a lot of collaboration, it tends to also require personal trust. I am someone who likes people who I can trust are good at their jobs, but I also like to have the sense that I can trust them to make the right decision in difficult circumstances. Trust in their ethics, or their sense of morality, or something like that.
Standard career climbers tend to act in their best interest only, so can't be trusted if there is a decision that needs to be made, that will cost them something. It is more about short-term gains, not about long-term results. Yet, people like the "go-getters", without actually looking at the personality they bring to the table, or whether they are in it for the "right" reasons.
One of the people at the table was saying how there is a lull in motivation between 5 and 7 years into a job. One of the people said that this would them be a good time to get rid of them and spend resources on people who are more motivated. However, after this period, the people tend to rise quite quickly in motivation, and are able to put what they know to impactful usage.
People are people, and expecting them to maintain constant motivation year after year, means that when they don't deliver, we quickly become disposable. But, nurture that person over that hump, and they might be the among the most valuable employees for the next decade. Again, there are many caveats involved, but some people seem to forget that track record* is the best indicator of the future. It doesn't come with guarantees, but it does give clues.
But, we live in a world where people believe that new and shiny is the only way to go, no matter what the record of following that path shows. People throw darts, hoping they hit something, but they don't even know what the target looks like, or which direction to throw.
Missed it, by that much.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
