Hire for attitude

By Pradeepa Kekulawala

Hiring of employee is a major task in every organisation. From the top management to the trainee and the clerical hand, organisations naturally look to select the best or the right person.

In these columns previously it has been discussed that the so called “right person” is one who is positively engaged and prepared with the right mindset and attitude to contribute towards the achievement of organisational objectives. Therefore finding such people and hiring them becomes serious business.

Organisations spend considerable time and vast amounts of monitory resources on cadre planning and other related recruitment and selection efforts including advertising and headhunting. Yet the “right person” eludes many an organisation. Moreover in many instances the perceived “right person” selected and hired by the organisation turns out to be completely opposite or not matching up to the expectations.

What is the reason for this?

More often than not organisations bank on career history on paper, academic and professional qualifications and referee recommendations to make the final decision, of course not forgetting interviewers getting caught to the “Oscar winning” acts and “whiz kid” images presented by smart candidates.

The writer has firsthand experiences and accounts of many “know all” CEOs falling prey to big talkers and “dandy” smooth operators at tremendous cost to them. Therefore time is ripe if not already late to change the entire paradigm of making the hiring decision of employees.

Why not the traditional methods?

It is natural for one to wonder whether I am espousing doing away entirely with, and claiming that no purpose is served by, looking at career history, referee recommendations and academic/professional attainments. It would be a foolish argument to bring forth. No, of course not!

The above mechanisms are required and mandatory. However, not exclusively, but combined with other very important tools and mechanism which would ensure that “what you see is what you get”!

It is pertinent to mention here some major limitations of the above-mentioned criteria. Career history is a good basis to ascertain the experience of having executed similar assignments in the past, which ideally should mean that the candidate has the aptitude to perform the job he is being interviewed for.

Big question mark

But there is a big question mark. That is, you are reading what the candidate has planned and written. Words sound big but the task may be something mediocre. For example “ensured the smooth flow of communication organisation wide” could be simply answering the phone and transferring to the required extension or served as the “scavenging engineer” can mean that he/she performed as the garbage collector and disposer. As a result, qualitative statements are difficult to fathom and verify unless you take extraordinary measures to do so which is not always practical.

Therefore if at all here you have to rely more on quantitative claims such as “reduced lead time by…” “increased the business volume by…” on which you can request specific evidence. A quantified track record with specific supporting evidence from different sources is the only reliable way which is easier said than done.

Referee recommendations are the other misleader. We must not forget that one would not cite a referee adversarial to him or her. Except for very fare and objective people who are rare, most would be biased.

In fact the writer knows of one top CEO who claims across the board if called for a reference “all who have worked and survived with me have to be and are good!” Ego plus plus, but let’s leave that for another occasion.

Here one must try to obtain recommendations from other sources within the organisation more than talking to the referee; of course being careful not to talk to a biased or ignorant individual.

Also I state here with authority that unless you give a direct telephone call and connect nine out of 10, referee recommendation forms/letters you send will end up in the dustbin or the LBW (let the bl---y thing wait) tray. All in all cumbersome!

Professional and academic qualifications

Coming to professional and academic qualifications, required levels of academic attainments and professional learning are a must and give the individual the theoretical body knowledge and the technical disciplinary knowledge to be engaged in a profession and the strength to function as a professional.

But does it give or guarantee skill or more importantly the competence, which is the ability to apply the skill appropriately to perform a job? Yes to a certain degree but not in many cases and certainly not as a ‘rule of thumb’.

Another fundamental fact of this argument is that even if all the above factors are satisfied as they should be, nothing can ensure that the individual will fit in and perform in the new organisational culture to which he is being introduced.

What is most important in hiring is that besides the academic, professional and career attainments the individual holding these must possess the biggest attribute of “right mindset” The mindset to be gainfully “engaged” in the job. Engagement again is not mere motivation. It is the passion and the drive to perform. A totally different dimension.

The all important formula

What then is the all important formula? What measurers should one take to ensure that the right person is hired? The answer is one must ensure that you hire the person with the right or most appropriate attitude. How then can you find such a person? What is meant by the right attitude? The answer to your prayers is a “high EQ personality” or a person with above average emotional intelligence.

A high EQ means as opposed to IQ is the ability of one to identify his/her own emotions and whilst being in harmony relate to other people’s emotions and attitudes driven by their emotional intelligence. It has been empirically proven that higher the EQ higher the ability perform and be gainfully engaged.

Emotional intelligence is a right brain activity. A person with high EQ has positive intrapersonal intelligence (ability to deal within oneself), interpersonal intelligence (ability to deal with others), adaptability and assertiveness which are fundamental for both individual performance and teaming.

Therefore, the best practices which can be found in the world today revolve around gauging the level of emotional intelligence or EQ of potential candidates before hiring. There are elaborate EQ testing tools including online testing tools free of charge; as well as certified world bodies to certify EQ scores.

The average organisation can easily log into the internet and down load an EQ test. But what is important is how you analyse and interpret the results for which you would need a knowledgeable person in the team. The new age HR head should definitely be able to do so as one of his core competences.

In addition specific “team role tests” such as the famous “Belbin” (many new tools are now available) or other “psychometric” personality testing gives added strength to the selection process if properly combined.

If one were to ask ‘what is the right mix of hiring mechanisms? my view is the following emphasis ratio:

Proven track record/career attainments – 25%; referees – 5%; professional and academic attainments – 20%; IQ – 10%; and EQ (above average of 110) = 40%. The single most weight factor is on the EQ. I’d even go as far as recommending a 50% weight on the EQ.

Organisations need to have a different approach to hiring to get the optimum results from the effort. The old adage ‘attitude determines altitude’ has never been paralled or contested!

(The writer is a HRD professional and corporate trainer. He is an executive committee member of the Association of HR Professionals and The Management Club and leads The Talent Gallery as Program Director/Key Facilitator. He can be reached at [email protected]and http://PKmindshare.blogspot.com.)