Why is it SO Hard to Hire the Right People?
From the Project Management 2.0 Blog
by Dave Garrett
New technologies, concepts, and Web 2.0 tools are popping up everywhere. How can you use them to help your project team collaborate, communicate - or just give your project an extra boost? [Contact Dave]
Recent Posts
Are You Prepping For The PMP 24/7?
Are You Just Too Darn Busy?
Eliciting Requirements... Creatively!
What To Expect When Your Stakeholders Are Expecting
8 More Templates to Save You Time
Categories
Advice,
Certification,
Collaboration Tools,
Decision Making,
Estimating,
Interviews,
Learning,
Management Approaches,
New Templates,
Personal Productivity,
PM Software,
PPM Software,
Presentation Tools,
Reporting Tools,
Requirements Management,
Research,
Risk Management,
Scheduling Software,
Security,
shameless self promotion,
Techie Tools,
Time Killers,
Time Tracking Software,
Training,
Virtual Team Tools,
Web-based Tools,
workshops
Date
Situation: You feel like there's something wrong with the way you hire.
Two weeks ago, at the PMI research conference,
Dr. Joana Geraldi, Senior Research Fellow at Cranfield School of Management, International Centre for Programme Management gave a presentation entitled Finding the Right Person for the Job: Rethinking Work-Worker Fit in PPM. The presentation was based on a research paper she co-authored with Harvey Maylor, Sergio Pellegrinelli and Scot Colquhoun. We recently asked her a few questions about how we can put her findings into action. The answers to the questions below are her personal opinions, but closely tied to the research findings. Her perspectives, both here and in the research paper are pretty thought-provoking.
Q. During your presentation you discussed the problems with the way that "fit" is judged. (a worker's fit with a work profile, or work fit to a worker's profile) Could you briefly discuss how that fit is currently determined and the problems with that approach?
A. Current most common approaches to achieve fit between work and worker are:
-
Work-oriented (define the work and based on that, define what the worker would need to do, one of the main problems with this one is that it assumes that one can define all activities that are to be undertaken be the employee, what we know is not possible in project/programme context, moreover, the bridge between the specific tasks and competences is missing)
-
Worker-oriented (focus on the worker and then define what would be the job that would fit personal competences. This is interesting, and still much used and powerful, for example, the manager would explore what their employees can do well and make sure he/she explores their talents. The problem here is that it can produce descriptions of competence that are too general or abstract.
-
Worker-Work fit (contingency): here we look at the job characteristics and at people's competence. This is a more elaborated concept, and of much use, the problem is that it takes the job and person as static.
But in general, all the three approaches are set within a rationalist frame. In relation to project and program management, a number of implicit assumptions may be called into question:
-
Objectivity: it is possible to define and measure work, worker, fit and performance objectively;
-
Independence of work and worker: there are no mutual influences or dependencies between the work and the worker;
-
Causality and Fit: there is a best fit between work and worker and this will lead to higher performance;
-
Focus on static nature of the relationship work-worker: the fit is measured at a point in time.
Q. Hiring managers and PM practitioners seem to be unaware of these issues. Why do you think that is?
A. It is difficult to say, but my guess is that the current approaches are more accessible, widely known among HR practitioners. There are plenty of people trained to assess people through these well known competence-based models. This makes life easier. We may also be tempted by the rationality and objectivity that these models promise.
Q. You talked a bit about a more holistic approach to hiring that doesn't create such a strong separation between the work and the worker. Could you describe this approach? Do you have any tips for someone who would like to put this into practice?
A. First the theory: Building on Sandberg (2001) and Partington et al (2005) we look at worker and work as inseparable. An individual's competence cannot be reduced to objective lists of activities, but is constituted by the
subjective meaning that work takes on for workers in their lived experience of it. Our task is to understand what individual workers conceive of as work and, through the elicitation of examples, how they conceive of it.
More specifically, Partington proposes four conceptual levels:
-
Focus on the delivery of project/programme
-
Looks also at the impact of the project/programme in the organisation
-
Preoccupation with high level outcomes of the project/programme
-
Explores the development of organisational capabilities beyond the project/programme
That is interesting, but how do you put it into practice? As a first step, Sergio Pellegrinelli and colleagues typically run assessments with project and programme managers and identify which of the four conceptual levels above they fit into. This helps the assessors identify high potential people in their firm and also make sure they are nurtured appropriately.
The next question though is how to identify which projects or programs require candidates to be at the various conceptual. One way to map a project or program to a level is to judge it's complexity. One model to measure this complexity is MODeST (Maylor et al, 2008). This model looks at Mission, Organization, Stakeholders, and Team attributes to help judge complexity.
There is still a need to explore the relationship between complexity and conceptual levels, these could be explored by studies, such as:
-
A significant number of managers, working on the same project/ program, should be interviewed to allow some assessment of convergence, either across the group, or a within conceptual level. The nature of convergence and divergence would yield insights into the subjective nature of the work and its complexity.
-
A number of instances (projects/ programs) should be examined to explore the existence or otherwise of trends in assessing complexity based on conceptual level. In particular, it would be interesting to discover whether on some projects and programs all parties perceived approximately the same degree and type of complexity, while on others it varied according to conceptual level.
-
A number of projects/ programs should be tracked over time to explore if and how perceived complexity and conceptual level changes over the life of a project or program. It would be also interesting to understand the dynamics of the worker-work relationship and if and how project and program managers enact their work and transform the complexity of their project. What is the extent of possible agency? Does this relate to the existing or acquired (higher) conceptual level?
Posted on: July 30, 2010 04:31 PM |
Permalink
Comments (8)
Please login or join to subscribe to this item
Matthew Smith
Project Management Consultant| Risk and Project Management
Queanbeyan, Australia
Recruitment is always time consuming and is often very challenging. But it is the most important task a manager and leader can undertake because, as well all know, our people are our most important asset.
Most recruitment and selection processes consist of a resume review, an interview and possibly a reference check. This is not really a comprehensive assessment of a candidate based on the risk and the cost of hiring the wrong person. It is worth spending more time on recruitment and selection if we want to select the right person for the job.
Work-Worker Fit, Motivational Fit and Strength Based Recruitment very useful theories that can be applied when recruiting and selecting staff, including project managers. All of these theories have a common premis: an understanding of the job and person requirements; and a recruitment and selection process tailored to these requirements. It takes time to develop these things. But it is worth the time if you want to hire the right person.
Mitch Krayton
President| Krayton Seminars
Denver, Co, United States
Most job descriptions are historic representations of jobs as the used to be. They are rarely describing jobs as they need to be filled.
Little management time is devoted to rehearsing for the job interview, so it goes ad hoc and often wrong. If you are going to meet a viable candidate, you need to review the background matter in the file early and prepare cogent questions of the candidate prior to the meeting to make the interview interesting, revealing and motivating. You also have to know what answers you expect and need to enable a hiring recommendation.
This is especially an issue when assessing people, communication and leadership skills. You can always provide subject matter training. It is not a good idea to hire someone without great communication, genuine enthusiasm and a will to work.
Bottom line: Would I be willing to work with this person every day?
Ian Noble
Parents And Children Together
Reading, United Kingdom
I agree with both Mitch and Matthew. Recruiting successfully takes time and requires good preparation. You need to distinguish between what are the skills, competancies, attibutes that the person must have, and what are you prepared for them to learn once they have started.
I like to have a series of critieria that I want to explore in the interview, I have some prepared questions, but then I also use follow-up questions to probe further (which means you need to listen very carefully, and often re-state what you think they have told you).
If it is an important role then I do not just rely on interview, I like to do something else, which could be asking them to do a short presentation, and/or some sort of exercise.
I agree with Mitch in that cultural fit with you and your organisation is vital.
In addition I was given some advice when I started recruiting many years ago, which was not to rely 100% on objective analysis against the criteria you have used, but also to use "what is my gut telling me".
I do agree that preparation is key. We have a list of behavioral questions we use in my org and essentially it gets the candidate to think about previously how they have handled a give situation. We pull from this large list of questions selecting the key questions given the role. Yes, many candidates may come to the table with all the technical skills, but behaviorally how did they previously handle specific situations. I think this is helpful to understand more about the type of candidate that fits in our culture. And what your gut is telling you is just as important. Unfortunately, some people master the art of disguise and come off in an interview as a great fit and a great candidate but then once hired, you think to yourself, "What happened???!!! Who is THIS???!!!" In this case, the best technique is also to thoroughly talk with references and get some specifics on what stood out on the candidate. Even then, your references should always have something positive to say, so again, how do you judge. We also have board interviews where several people are in on the interview so we get several people's reaction to the interview instead of placing the burden on one person's perception.
I agree with you, the first thing you have to do is hire the right people." Have you ever heard that profound piece of advice? Of course you're going to hire the right people - if you know who the right people are. If that's the case, why isn't more time spent defining what the job requires of the right person as the first step in any talent selection?
If you Google the keyword phrase "hire the right people" you will get 76,000 responses. If you Google the keyword phrase "hire the best" you will get 872,000 responses. You will find the great majority of responses deal with ways to evaluate candidates. Lots of information on tools - checklists, questions, how to structure an interview, how to write a job description, recruiting practices, and so on. But very few of those 948,000 Google responses address the key question - How to define the best person for the job - the right person for the job - based on the job, not the applicant?
Most organizations focus on the technical benchmarks. education, experience, industry knowledge, certifications, level of accomplishment and contribution, recommendations - hard information of high value - fairly easily obtained. And so these technical benchmarks and the intuition of the interviewers become the basis for the selection decision.
-----------------------
job search
Matthew Smith
Project Management Consultant| Risk and Project Management
Queanbeyan, Australia
Sandra makes an excellent point. It is human nature to focus on the easiest parts of a complex problem. And recruitment and selection is, indeed, a complex problem.
A comprehensive recruitment and selection process would focus on a candidate's knowledge, skills and attributes. Most certifications and qualifications focus on a candidate's knowledge. Which is interesting considering it is the easiest aspect of a candidate to develop. Skills development would be next most difficult. Attributes, such as leadership and integrity, are the most difficult to develop, and therefore the aspects we should focus on mosy heavily when recruiting.
So how should we go about our recruitment and selection processes?
I use certifications and qualifications to demonstrate a candidate's knowledge. I use work based tasks and scenarios to explore a candidate's skills and I use an emotional intelligence test to assess a candidate's attributes. All of the above is underpinned by reference checks and behavioural based questioning during interview.
This approach works for me. What does everyone think about this?
Mitch Krayton
President| Krayton Seminars
Denver, Co, United States
This discussion is interesting as we are still looking to evaluate people and work by what they have done before. It still begs the question of what steps are being taken to determine what they will do next. In every financial prospectus is the disclaimer "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." In every job description the assumption is that ''past credentials are a requirement for future results''. How absurd when you really think about it.
We still hire using models developed at the start of the industrial revolution. Why does college education acquired 15 years ago even matter? Nothing a person learns in college is relevant that long. We must look at what the person has achieved with that knowledge. Resumes abound with scholarship, but far too little on making knowledge work.
This applies equally to the hiring environment as well, ie replacing a person similar to the person that held the position is no guarantee that those qualifications are the correct ones for the post or the company going forward. There are few reality checks in management to test for what the company needs to have done in that post today. In fact a fresh face may be an opportunity to go out of the box for more objective and critical thinking. That is how innovation occurs. A company that is not growing is not healthy. We are not seeing healthy business today.
The critical factor from my POV is that top leaders fail to be involved with staffing at all levels to insure that every one is eager to subscribe to the corporate vision (providing there IS a corporate mission that is passionately stated). Pride, enthusiasm and drive all start at the top. Morale rests with the top. Regrettably the top so often sees staffing as a regulated, costly nuisance instead of a vital opportunity for growth. In my view this is as true for a 100 person company as for a 150,000 person company.
I just returned from a cruise. The teamwork and precision to purpose was admirable. Imagine a ship where the captain did not become involved with all positions on board, did not motivate all hands, and did not set the course for the ship. Our ship''s captain was visible and admired by everyone. There was no room on board for anyone not making the ship go forward. Our cruise reflected that.
In business, the hiring manager should be actively involved with the entire hiring process, not just the last round of interviews. This is essential to the quality of prospects from the start. Hiring would be cheaper and faster this way. This is not how most companies hire.
Outsourcing would not have been conceivable if people were treated as vital corporate assets instead of commodities traded for price. Devaluing people by having inhuman computer software sort through key words is cheap but misguided. It merely eliminates a world of excellent people who have better speaking and social skills than they have skills for writing key words into resumes. It selects people who are good resume writers (or pay people to write them). On line computer submission is a futile, expensive and frustrating game that shows people how little you value them. Companies don''t acknowledge receipt, announce hiring results or give thanks for applying. Can you think of any other important business interaction where that would be appropriate? Once hired who even looks at a person''s resume? Why do this then?
If people really are the greatest asset to an enterprise that I am puzzled why the acquisition of talent is so poorly handled and the process has not come up for priority review and change. Some high tech companies have changed the process and are thriving even in this economy. They get it.
One look at how much industry we have lost will attest to the atrophy (and demise) we are experiencing in what were traditionally "Blue Chip" businesses. They have not gotten it. This must change and I believe it will as we morph from the industrial revolution into a new era of production (not consumption).
 | komal |
I agree with Mitch - about interviewing and having an individual glean all resumes for shortlisting. I have short-listed candidates and selected team members not necessarily having the right degree and certification. Yes, it is time consuming but it has paid rich dividends in terms of getting the best resource on board. The time and effort has paid off on all my projects.
Please Login/Register to leave a comment.
|
If man could be crossed with the cat, it would improve man but deteriorate the cat.
- Mark Twain
|
