Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Our Problem
So, we're attracted to hunters because of their capacity to engage in their search. They know what they want and are determined to get it. This is engagement. Before we determine how to select for this trait, let's examine why its so hard to find it now.
First of all, self-analysis is hard work. Not everyone does it willingly. It's easier to take a job (or stay in one) than ponder what you really want. Self examination may force you to admit dissatisfaction. Nobody likes to do this, so we avoid it as long as we can. It's easier to "look on the bright side" than dig into one's own quiet life of desperation. This is human nature. Unfortunately, we avoid this task until we need a job. By then we're in no state of mind to do it adequately and we need money. Instead, we just get a job. Again, this is human nature and we can't change it. We might be able, however, to structure some good know-thyself tools into our processes. So far, we have structured them out.
The current rage in recruiting is to focus on skill first, then design behavioral interviews focusing on the E-factor. Assessments might also help. The problem is once they've applied for a job, you have to expect them to tell you it's what they've always wanted to do. That's what you want to hear (but shouldn't always believe). Such an expression prior to the application would be more reliable. Further, if a candidate's job search were predicated foremost on what they want, they would target jobs based on those interests and aspirations. This sounds simple, but is actually the reverse of what exists today. When we conduct a search, we are defining our needs as clearly as possible and starting the hunt. We've structure around our needs adequately but our candidate counterparts are dealing in a something of a vacuum. The job market, and our recruiting processes have largely structured out candidate desires.
We could complain that it's the candidate's responsibility to define their needs and act accordingly. And it is. But that won't solve our problem. If we want to staff effectively, we need to address it.
First of all, self-analysis is hard work. Not everyone does it willingly. It's easier to take a job (or stay in one) than ponder what you really want. Self examination may force you to admit dissatisfaction. Nobody likes to do this, so we avoid it as long as we can. It's easier to "look on the bright side" than dig into one's own quiet life of desperation. This is human nature. Unfortunately, we avoid this task until we need a job. By then we're in no state of mind to do it adequately and we need money. Instead, we just get a job. Again, this is human nature and we can't change it. We might be able, however, to structure some good know-thyself tools into our processes. So far, we have structured them out.
The current rage in recruiting is to focus on skill first, then design behavioral interviews focusing on the E-factor. Assessments might also help. The problem is once they've applied for a job, you have to expect them to tell you it's what they've always wanted to do. That's what you want to hear (but shouldn't always believe). Such an expression prior to the application would be more reliable. Further, if a candidate's job search were predicated foremost on what they want, they would target jobs based on those interests and aspirations. This sounds simple, but is actually the reverse of what exists today. When we conduct a search, we are defining our needs as clearly as possible and starting the hunt. We've structure around our needs adequately but our candidate counterparts are dealing in a something of a vacuum. The job market, and our recruiting processes have largely structured out candidate desires.
We could complain that it's the candidate's responsibility to define their needs and act accordingly. And it is. But that won't solve our problem. If we want to staff effectively, we need to address it.
