I was recently invited to guest-lecture in an undergraduate Personnel Psychology class. I was quick to accept as this particular professor started me down the I/O path that I’m still enjoying today. I started thinking about what I could tell undergraduate students that would be valuable to them both in and out of the classroom, and I landed on the topic of employee selection. Hiring has become so much more complex since I sat in a BSU classroom, and it really hasn’t been that long.

In many companies employee selection is marked by a few common practices:

1. It begins with an Applicant Tracking System (ATS).
Large multinational corporations use Applicant Tracking Systems to efficiently gather information about large numbers of candidates, evaluate minimum qualifications, and screen out candidates who do not meet basic job requirements. This technology often dictates the kind of information that candidates provide as well as the order and format in which the information is submitted. This can lead to a lengthy application process, which may leave candidates feeling frustrated and poorly-represented by the information solicited. These feelings are likely exacerbated if the individual fails to meet the minimum qualifications and is immediately eliminated from the selection process.

2. It’s not what you know, it’s who you are.
A recent Hyper Island study found that 78% of 500 leaders and employees surveyed rated “personality” as the most desirable employee characteristic, followed by “cultural alignment” at 53%, and “skill set” at only 39%. It is no longer enough to have the right education or previous experience. Candidates must also be able to demonstrate critical individual attributes, such as drive, teamwork, and innovation.

3. You may not be applying for just one job.
When applying for a given position, candidates’ qualifications may be evaluated in terms of the job for which they are applying as well as more broadly. Organizations may apply candidate information to multiple job profiles to determine not only if the individual should be hired, but also where he/she should be placed. In addition, given the challenges associated with finding and retaining high-quality talent, employers are increasingly considering candidates’ long-term potential. Proctor & Gamble’s Careers site offers the tag line “We hire the person, not the position”. They state that they hire not just for a given position, but with the expectation that each candidate should have the potential to grow in the company.

4. Just like a good pair of jeans, it’s all about fit.
Organizations are largely defined by their unique values and culture. To ensure continued success it is critical that they hire employees who fit with that culture and can embody those values. Candidates who demonstrate a high level of aptitude for the job, and perhaps even show leadership potential, may not be hired due to a lack of fit. Employers know that employees who are not a good match for the organizational culture may perform well in the short-term but be difficult to retain.

What common selection practices have you seen in the past? What trends do you see building in talent acquisition?

The December 2013 edition of Talent Management magazine includes an article focused on mid-level managers – the characteristics that facilitate success in these critical, complex positions and how to best assess those characteristics.  The article led me to thinking about middle children. (What can I say? On the Hogan Personality Inventory both my Inquisitive and Learning Approach scores are high, so my thought patterns and processes can be disjointed!)

I think middle children and middle managers may have a lot in common. Hear me out on this. Despite popular perception of “middle child syndrome”, some research suggests middle-born children possess a number of unique strengths. The same strengths may make for successful middle managers:

Middle children build relationships
I’m willing to bet that anyone in middle management will tell you that their success is due in large part to the ability to effectively work with those above them, their management teammates, and their direct reports. Middle managers have to build and maintain productive relationships with employees at all levels of the organization, often across divisions, functions, and geographies, in order to fulfill their responsibilities.

Middle children compromise
Middle management positions are unique in that these individuals are largely responsible for taking strategy from the top, selling it to the bottom, and ensuring it is successfully implements. Effective middle managers may be those who implement strategies in manner which ensures that, while no one can have everything, everyone will get something. 

Middle children innovate
The job descriptions for middle managers across companies may vary widely, but oftentimes these are the people in the organization who are responsible for “making it work” and that requires thinking outside of the box.  An effective middle manager may need to generate, adapt, and implement ideas to ensure the success of the team and the enterprise.

Middle children keep their cool
I doubt anyone would deny the stress inherent in the majority of middle management positions. Middle managers may be called upon to act as both an individual contributor and a leader in the organization. As a result it is critical that they remain calm, focused, and productive despite the pressures of workload, deadlines, and office politics.

What strengths do you see in middle managers? As globalization increases and organizations move further into the 21^st century, what attributes do you think will lead to middle managers’ continued success? I hate to be alone with my own musings, so please post your thoughts!

At Hogan we often speak of how leaders use their personalities to “get ahead” and “get along” at work. Both functions are equally important – effective leaders must be able to achieve goals, but must also be able to work with and through others to do so. It simply isn’t enough to be a hard-charging idealist, you must also be willing and able to compromise with, negotiate with, and influence others to be successful. Unfortunately, with the current state of the U.S. government, it feels as though the entire “get along” side of the equation has been lost.  

I believe that the balance between getting ahead and getting along is especially important, and particularly challenging, in government leadership, which is designed to include (at least) two opposing forces that possess virtually equal power at any given time. I would argue that the success of our political system depends in large part on our leaders’ ability to:

• Engage in healthy, productive conflict while avoiding dysfunctional disagreements
• Promote their values and objectives while also collaborating and compromising with those who are actively promoting very different ideals
• Adhere to a platform and plan while also being able to recognize unproductive approaches and change course when needed
• Pursue the goals of their specific constituencies while also working for the good of the nation as a whole
• Work in a passionate and devoted manner while remaining objective and not letting decisions be clouded by bruised feelings or interpersonal vendettas

My call to the U.S. Congress – whether Democrat, Republican, Tea Party, or Independent: stop trying to get ahead and start trying to get along! Leaders who do not possess the complementary capabilities of being able to advocate and achieve their goals while also bringing others into the fold and assuring mutual success not only fail as individuals, but more importantly fail their followers. 

Please comment on this blog and share your thoughts on the topic. For instance:

• What unique challenges might government leaders face compared to private sector leaders?
• What techniques could government leaders use to balance the “get ahead” and “get along” components of the leadership equation?
• Are there lessons learned in the corporate world that may apply to government leadership and mitigate the dysfunction we are seeing now?
• Does the academic literature – regarding team functioning, conflict management, leadership practices or personality in general – offer specific insight that might be beneficial to our current government leaders? 

Working with managers and leaders across organizations and industries, I often wonder if they enjoy their jobs and truly want to lead others. Too often organizations promote talented individuals based on their capability to perform the job in question without considering their desire to perform the job. One critical piece of high potential models that I fear may be overlooked is the individual’s appetite for advanced responsibility. Forget for a moment about whether or not the person will do the job and consider if the person will like the job. A strong individual contributor may enjoy collaborating with others, but have no interest in supervising others. A high potential employee known for generating innovative ideas may prefer to work in one narrow area of expertise rather than applying those creativity skills to overall organizational strategy. 

Good help is hard to find, and it is certainly understandable that organizations who attract and hire high potential employees want to make the most of that talent. However, by placing employees in jobs for which they are a poor fit, you might inadvertently put an expiration date on their tenure. Over the years I’ve heard many stories of employees who chose to leave their jobs not because they couldn’t do the job, but because they couldn’t stand the job.

So, what are organizations to do? How can they benefit from employees’ talent if they can’t advance those employees to leadership? The most concise and most honest answer is, “I don’t know”. However, I do have a few ideas:

1. Consider how high potential is defined. The characteristics that constitute success in one job may not contribute to effective performance in another job. You may need to adopt multiple high potential models to represent different divisions, levels, or jobs in your organization.
2. Ask honest questions about what employees want to do and be ready to hear that upper management might not be their ultimate goal.
3. When developing high potential employees, define and offer multiple career paths if possible. Let them know that you want them to be engaged in your organization and allow them to make a positive impact by aligning their aspirations with your strategy.
4. If you find that your designated high potentials do not aspire to traditional leader roles, start looking at other employees. Your solid performers might flourish in managerial positions where your exceptional performers would flounder. 
5. After promoting employees, keep an eye on them to ensure they are appropriately challenged and satisfied in their roles. Be prepared to make adjustments, as is feasible, so that you aren’t forcing individuals to stay in positions or perform work that is not a good fit for their natural work styles or core values.

What are your thoughts? Please comment on this blog to share your ideas and experiences in leveraging and retaining talented employees who don’t aspire to traditional leadership roles.