I shared my “food for thought” over on LinkedIn – the conversation and contributions it generated I felt where worth capturing and re-sharing given the generosity of the contributors.
In the question, the use of “what” is purposefully opaque and as I had hoped, encouraged a response. See what you think.
LinkedIn Post
Successful hiring is difficult. It is hard to measure (how do you compare your successful candidate impact to the potential impact of those candidate you didn’t hire). I’m not wholly confident that common recruitment processes are even reliable. It is not uncommon to see education job adverts with 20, 30 or more requirements – I do know you can’t compare 30 plus requirements between candidates.
That said, what do you target when hiring?
What might be your top four requirements? I’ll kick off?
Organisational fit. (Amended: to be more clear – that is hiring difference with alignment. Not more of the same)
Prior and demonstrated experience.
Capacity for growth.
How they interact with others.
Then there’s “intelligence, initiative, energy and integrity,” from Warren Buffet.
“We look for intelligence, we look for initiative or energy, and we look for integrity. And if they don’t have the latter, the first two will kill you, because if you’re going to get someone without integrity, you want them lazy and dumb.”
Care to add your top four?
#HR #Peopleprofessional
Amy Keenan
Head of English Department @ Academies Enterprise Trust | PGCE, NPQLTD
From the perspective of someone who will be working with the new hire and training / supporting / managing them and who has had experience of poor choices made in the hiring process I would prioritise reliability and acceptance of help & training.
The biggest drain on the time and morale of existing, quality staff is unreliable colleagues and / or those who will not accept they need support and training.
I’m not that bothered by experience as that comes with time and someone who’s willing to learn will gather great experience from a myriad of places in the organisation.
Personally, I’m not that bothered by organisational fit. In my career I’ve learnt a lot from those that “don’t fit”. Admittedly, I wouldn’t want to work in a school that was full of people that stepped outside expectations from time to time but we need a couple of them. They keep management on their toes and stop them getting complacent. They try new things (if it’s not just a rebadging of an old bad idea) and can be fiercely loyal to people and institutions that respect and support them. And they’re usually a good laugh which is invaluable on those tough days!
Doug Belshaw
Learning. Technology. Community.
The problem with organisational fit is that you get people who look like the people who are already there. That can be good for continuity but terrible for diversity and innovation.
Which led me to correct the original post:
I see your point Doug and thanks for adding. You are correct.
Of course, the fit could also be “fitting with.” In my thoughts, organisational fit – was hiring “difference” with “that made the organisation more balanced.” More breadth with alignment, rather than more of the same. Lacking of definition on my part and have amended to original post.
Sean Warren
Education Professional Learning
Awareness
Leadership Presence
Resilient Decision Making
Clarity of Direction.
As you can see, that is much to be gained from listening to others.