I just finished reading Mandy Johnson's Winning the War for Talent. I wish I had read this when I was a hiring manager. Even though I worked in the federal government and had very little control over most of the variables she talks about, her tips on screening for attitude are insightful.
She talks about evaluating an applicant's past history on three factors: attitude, skills and qualifications, and practical fit (p. 80).
I've spoken with a lot of executives for my podcast, and one of the things I try to ask about is how they go about selecting leaders. I've heard a mix of answers about how they select, but when I ask them what their hardest lesson learned was, it was almost always hiring the wrong person and/or waiting too long to get rid of a poor performer, often the person they shouldn't have hired.
Skills and qualifications refers to formal qualifications like licenses (if required). It also refers to things like the quality of school the person got their degree from (or if they have a degree). So pretty straight forward and relatively objective.
Practical fit sounds a bit squishier, and has to do with whether the person is a good fit for the organization. I just released an interview with John Fernandez, the President and CEO of Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, one of the world's leading specialty hospitals, and he talks about having a good fit for leaders in his C-suite. His comment is that at that level, it isn't about skills and qualifications (which are necessary, but to get to that level, everyone is skilled and well qualified). His focus was on a good fit for the team. Most of us are never going to work in the C-suite, so Johnson's focus is more about being a good fit for the organization's mission and culture. If you don't like to travel, you're probably not a good fit for a sales job with a big territory. If you don't like sitting behind a desk, you probably don't want to be an accountant.
These latter two are pretty simple. It's attitude that is much harder to judge and Johnson spends a lot more time talking about how to try to evaluate it objectively. All of the executives I have interviewed have talked about attitude in some way, shape, or form. Johnson talks about how most of us think we can articulate what attitude is, but often we don't really have objective criteria. I agree - operationalizing attitude is challenging, especially if you are trying to do it from a resume or CV.
She offers the following five measures of attitude:
measure operationalization
positive work ethic job stability
early workforce participation
perseverance job stability
completion history (broadly measured - e.g., completed levels of schooling, programs)
achievement pattern of demonstrated achievement
works well with job stability
people community involvement
commitment job stability
targeted cover letter
speed of application
targeted CV
Do you think she values job stability? One of her big themes is good recruitment doesn't just mean filling the job, but filling it with someone who will stay. So job stability is a good indicator of that. But it also is a good indicator for a host of other problems. Not particularly interesting in itself, but interesting to see how important it is. Some other items interested me. I once hired a woman based on her volunteer work. She was a Navy spouse so I knew she didn't necessarily always have the opportunity for meaningful work. But she took on the family support group leadership for an air craft carrier - a ship with 5,000 crew members. Her job was to help coordinate the families and help them work through problems when their husbands and wives were off on the ship somewhere and couldn't help. And she did that as a volunteer. She was a great employee when she was being paid. Early workforce participation is another interesting point. Learning the value of work early is probably a good trait, though I have to say I never thought to ask about that. Targeted CV and cover letter are obvious to me, but I guess not to everyone.
How would you operationalize attitude? I think it's an interesting exercise.
She talks about evaluating an applicant's past history on three factors: attitude, skills and qualifications, and practical fit (p. 80).
I've spoken with a lot of executives for my podcast, and one of the things I try to ask about is how they go about selecting leaders. I've heard a mix of answers about how they select, but when I ask them what their hardest lesson learned was, it was almost always hiring the wrong person and/or waiting too long to get rid of a poor performer, often the person they shouldn't have hired.
Skills and qualifications refers to formal qualifications like licenses (if required). It also refers to things like the quality of school the person got their degree from (or if they have a degree). So pretty straight forward and relatively objective.
Practical fit sounds a bit squishier, and has to do with whether the person is a good fit for the organization. I just released an interview with John Fernandez, the President and CEO of Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, one of the world's leading specialty hospitals, and he talks about having a good fit for leaders in his C-suite. His comment is that at that level, it isn't about skills and qualifications (which are necessary, but to get to that level, everyone is skilled and well qualified). His focus was on a good fit for the team. Most of us are never going to work in the C-suite, so Johnson's focus is more about being a good fit for the organization's mission and culture. If you don't like to travel, you're probably not a good fit for a sales job with a big territory. If you don't like sitting behind a desk, you probably don't want to be an accountant.
These latter two are pretty simple. It's attitude that is much harder to judge and Johnson spends a lot more time talking about how to try to evaluate it objectively. All of the executives I have interviewed have talked about attitude in some way, shape, or form. Johnson talks about how most of us think we can articulate what attitude is, but often we don't really have objective criteria. I agree - operationalizing attitude is challenging, especially if you are trying to do it from a resume or CV.
She offers the following five measures of attitude:
measure operationalization
positive work ethic job stability
early workforce participation
perseverance job stability
completion history (broadly measured - e.g., completed levels of schooling, programs)
achievement pattern of demonstrated achievement
works well with job stability
people community involvement
commitment job stability
targeted cover letter
speed of application
targeted CV
Do you think she values job stability? One of her big themes is good recruitment doesn't just mean filling the job, but filling it with someone who will stay. So job stability is a good indicator of that. But it also is a good indicator for a host of other problems. Not particularly interesting in itself, but interesting to see how important it is. Some other items interested me. I once hired a woman based on her volunteer work. She was a Navy spouse so I knew she didn't necessarily always have the opportunity for meaningful work. But she took on the family support group leadership for an air craft carrier - a ship with 5,000 crew members. Her job was to help coordinate the families and help them work through problems when their husbands and wives were off on the ship somewhere and couldn't help. And she did that as a volunteer. She was a great employee when she was being paid. Early workforce participation is another interesting point. Learning the value of work early is probably a good trait, though I have to say I never thought to ask about that. Targeted CV and cover letter are obvious to me, but I guess not to everyone.
How would you operationalize attitude? I think it's an interesting exercise.
No comments:
Post a Comment