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 ]
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
I was watching a show a while ago and they had created a program to determine which employees to keep and which to get rid of. There was one guy who scored really low and he was the clear choice, but it didn't take into account he made the others around him better. As you said, things like that can make a huge difference over the obvious stuff.
I worked for a small company that had a group of office staff, and they essentially forced one out and treated them badly. The person was the social glue that held the rest together and once gone, the demise of the company was inevitable.
Yikes, that's too bad!
I am 6 years and 8 months on Hive now.
I never held a job that long, but I have spent 7 years in University ( including 3 years struggling with my thesis ).
I guess it helps that Hive doesn't really feel like a job ( even though I don't have an actual 'job' outside of it ) but it's an important part of my income or even more investments as well as of my social life.
Cheers!
Don't you find it strange that we spend so long at school, worrying about grades, but less time building a career?
Yup. I have spent 21 years in school ( including Uni ) and a number of years on the other side ( as a teacher in higher education ) before I was totally fed up with it all.
These days I still educate myself a lot but mainly in what really interest me, unlearning and learning on a daily basis, unwiring the decades of brainwashing, not that it really ever worked on me but still.
Personally looking from within would be my aim unless there was a certain set of skills required. Sometimes it just needs to give the right person a break to highlight what they have to offer. The concerning part is if someone has been with the company for 5 years they should be good at something and have they even been given a chance to prove themselves.
I think it is less about them not being good, but losing the motivation. It could also be that during that 5-7 year mark, they are in a position that doesn't advance quickly, or is waiting for someone else to vacate above - that can affect motivation too. Not sure what the actual cause is, but it is probably different for different people. Maybe it is related to the "7 year itch" issue.
I can understand that because at one point a few of us were held back because we did the managers job and it made him look good. He did admit this to a few of us which is not a great motivator. I have always believed that everyone should prove themselves and give it their all even if it means 7 years. One has to develop during that time so work is not necessarily to blame for not progressing. Waiting for someone to retire must be the worst type of hold up though.
I think meritocracy should be applied in corporate management, even in country governance particularly ministers, bureaucrats and so on.
Ministers are interesting, because they actually have a team around them, so they don't work as individuals. The best ministers and managers, are the ones that can collect the best people around them, and get the most out of them. Again, it comes down to being able to work with others. We shouldn't be seeing politicians as individual personalities at all.
I mean that a prime minister should not appoint whoever he/she wants to the ministres, but the ones who are master of their fields.
My time here has been great and I believe more to come
I think Meritocracy is just reward for hard work, it’s not for non deserving person. You must have put in the work to get the reward.
Do you know what I was thinking reading this? Schopenhauer quote:
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
A lot of the things at work can be taught to new hires, or to newly promoted employees. This is why when looking for new team members it is better to look at the personality and worth ethic of the person. Some companies prefer to just take a staff from a department that they usually interact with.
Generally, a company will want someone who can meet up to their tasks and do the normal job that they have for the person but it does not end there. Such a person needs to be diligent and discipline but unfortunately, we may not find all of those things in just one person…
This is true. And often the seniors and the HR dept pays attention to this part. And they kick out the people based on that weakness alone. I know many of people who are losing jobs in Q2 due to some work going to automation.