Do each of your new hires raise the organizational average
"Our people are our most important asset." Does that sound familiar? It should. Most organizations claim so. How about this one? "We only hire the 'brightest and the best'." Could you imagine an organization boasting that they hire the almost brightest and the second best? Of course not.
Being Choosy
What these organizations are trying to say is, "We are particular about whom we hire." A few industries have a reputation for being very choosy about whom they hire. Take investment banking and Goldman Sachs, for example. Goldman is known to recruit from a small number of premier reputation business schools. The interview process can easily include more than 20 interviews, case studies and presentations. Goldman is very choosy. Similarly, Microsoft, Apple and Google have tens of thousands of applicants each year for their limited open positions.
Raising the Average
Not all organizations have the recruiting reputations of these firms or the extensive hiring processes. As an alternative, I would like to put forth a simple test. Does each new hire raise the organizational quality average? Here is what I mean. Consider field sales or even the mailroom. If the next hire for each of these groups raises the average quality of the group, the overall organizational average would be raised. Put another way, hire people better than you. Raising the bar for each hire sends a signal to all that there is an expectation of personal growth and excellence at all levels.
The Parking Lot Exercise
Let's say you are a manager with ten direct reports. Imagine that you could let your entire team go, and they move to a parking lot. Imagine that, just as magically, you had recruiting efforts under way for the ten open positions, for which you have received numerous applications, including from the ten colleagues in the parking lot. Which of the ten would you hire back from the parking lot? What should you do with the remaining colleagues still standing in the parking lot in this thought experiment?
Might you have a candid conversation with each of the individuals in the parking lot? Tell them that you conducted this thought experiment and they were left standing in the parking lot. Tell them why you came to that conclusion and what they need to be doing here forth so that you would not come to the same conclusion the next time.
Is this brutal or compassionate? If indeed, certain members of your team would remain in the parking lot, is it not in everybody's interest that they know that?
While I am not suggesting that you assign all your direct reports to the parking lot, it is an interesting exercise. What I am suggesting is that the next time a your team is discussing who among a set of candidates to hire, ask this question: "Which candidates will raise the organizational average?"
Pushing the Edge of Your Thinking
- What percentage of your last ten hires raised your organization's average?
- How many on your team would you "leave in the parking lot," and how many would you hire back?
- Do they know your thinking? If not, do you owe that communication to them?
- Would you be hired by today's organizational standards?
- Might you be in someone's parking lot?