Perfect Hire Blueprint Blog | Perfect Hire Blueprint

Skipping the Reference Check can Cost You – Bigly!

Reference checking is an area where many managers may fall short:

references are not checked thoroughly enough, or not at all
many references are friends or past coworkers who won’t (or can’t) tell you the truth
typical reference checking calls are useless because the reference is not objective and knows not to say anything negative
you might just be directed to HR, who (wanting to avoid legal troubles) will only provide dates hired and departed.

How can you avoid these common pitfalls with your next hire?

Assuming everything went well during the second interview, this is a great time to discuss the candidate’s references. Stress that your rigorous hiring methods do not let weak candidates become employees. To ensure that what is on the resume is the truth, reference checks are taken seriously – this is important to A-players.

Even if there were only a few areas from the Gap Report that caused minor concern, the resume deep dive did not uncover any surprises, and the hiring manager is prepared to make an offer the same day, reference checks (and potentially a background check) still need to be executed.

Tip: A best practice is to ask the candidate to call her references to let them know to expect a call, and to be candid on that call. One more level of candidate commitment is to have her schedule the reference This can save a lot of phone tag on the reference checker’s part.

The candidate should give at least 3 references, and the best are former managers, though it is understandable if the current manager is not provided. If you can’t get the current manager, try to contact someone who has left the company who was at a higher level than the candidate, who may know about her performance.

See it as a red flag if former managers are not provided by the candidate. You need to speak with the person who approved the paycheck. That person will know if the candidate was worth what he was paid.

Again, asking the candidate to contact her references, and having those references reach out to the person doing the hiring, will make this process easier and show the commitment of the candidate. Ideally, the candidate will schedule a time when the call will take place. This eliminates the frustrating task of playing phone tag with references. This is in the candidate’s best interest because it reduces the time to receive an offer.

I admit that this request may not be “normal” or expected by the candidate, but if she is excited about the job, she will arrange this for you. (A word of caution: some meek personalities may cringe at the thought. If it is too uncomfortable, you could lose the candidate, so don’t push too hard on these types of people.)

Some larger companies will have an HR person do the reference checks, but I disagree. Reference checking should not simply be a formality. The hiring manager needs to make the best decision possible, thus more firsthand information is important.

The manager will live with the consequences of hiring a Mis-fit, so she should ask the questions of a peer manager of the other company. Manager-to-manager and peer-to-peer conversations yield the best information.

There are the questions you should always ask, and there are the questions to be asked in areas of concern that have not been resolved in the interviews. Though some hiring managers will prefer to communicate via email, you will gain much more insight from speaking with someone on the phone.

Start the conversation with:

“I’m sure you want Joe to succeed, so I just want to make sure I really understand him.”

This will give the manager a chance to open up.

Here are some good questions to ask:

In what capacity did you work with Joe?
What were his biggest strengths or value to the group?
Would you say that Joe was in the top 25% in job performance as compared to his peers?
If you were managing Joe today, what area(s) would you think he could improve most?
In the interview, Joe told me the story about ___. Can you tell me what happened from your perspective?
Joe seems to be (character trait). Do I have a correct impression of this?
Where do you think the candidate could improve? And, would you hire/like to work with the candidate again?

In reference checks, it is important what is said, but it is also very important what is not said. The candidate gave you the references, so they should be stellar. If you are expecting to hear very positive comments, neutral responses or lack of comment would be a sign that you should not ignore.

Also listen for the tone of voice. If there is not excitement in the conversation, you should try to determine why.

Word of caution: I know at this point in the process you want this to be over. You’ve gone through the many steps to this point, and you’ve gotten your team to agree on a candidate. It is human nature to overlook a few issues. Just remind yourself that a finding out a significant issue will save you 10x the aggravation if you hire a Mis-fit.

There have been many cases where a candidate was not hired due to a poor reference, and the company that gave the less than stellar reference could be sued. A successful lawsuit would only be for defamation of character – knowingly giving false information. People don’t win cases when the facts were correct, or one’s opinion was given.

If the candidate gave permission to check the reference, the former employer is on even safer ground. For more articles on this topic (legality of reference checks, and a primer on defamation), visit PerfectHireBlueprint.com/Resources.

As a precaution, many HR departments of larger companies ask that either the reference gives only employment verification and the dates of employment, or that all inquiries are sent to HR to respond. This does not help the case of an employee who has a fantastic record of performance, so it seems that some companies may have gone too far.

All states have different laws, and employers need to be aware of these laws. The interviewer has no risk in asking, but the reference could get his company in trouble for not disclosing some types of information.

Be aware also of a false good reference. This takes more skill to detect, but I know of cases where a company did not want to fire an employee, but they made it difficult for the employee, hoping that he would leave. This is true of administrative staff and also higher level employees.

A reference check should be welcomed by that employer because it indicates that the candidate is seriously looking for a new job. A glowing report that is unwarranted could possibly pass the problem on to the new company.

The best reference to check may be one that was not provided by the candidate. If someone in your company knows someone in the candidate’s current or prior company who is not on the candidate’s reference list, try to talk to that person in a casual way to get candid information and opinion.

To download a list of recommended questions, click here.

Changing Jobs? Don’t Day Trade – Invest

Changing jobs should be more like investing than day trading.

Job hopping = day trading

Career move = investing

It’s frustrating for an employer to invest time and money to get a great new employee who leaves after a year or two, before the company has a chance to get a real return on that investment.

Job hoppers think that they can learn a lot quickly, put a lot of experience on a resume and demand higher salaries by moving to the next job than by staying in one job for a while.

I recently spoke to a person in his mid-twenties who spent 14 months in his first job, 9 months in his current job and just accepted an offer at a new company. He said that neither of the first two companies was a good fit for him for different reasons. He said that the new offer had a signing bonus, but that he’d have to stay for 3 years or he’d have to pay it back. He was leaning toward not taking the bonus because he wasn’t sure he’d be there that long. This struck me as strange.

My advice to him was

take the signing bonus, and
change your mindset.

First, take the bonus – why leave money on the table? Even if you have to put it in a CD, you’ll be better off than not taking it. The more important second part of that decision is the message to the employer. By not taking the signing bonus, the message received is, “I don’t plan on being here for 3 years.”

This leads me to #2. My advice was to look at the decision not for the short term benefit, but as the long term relationship. If a relationship is going to last, it takes work on both sides. Hopefully the employer will invest in the relationship, and the employee needs to as well.

(By the way, he took the job, and he said he will take the bonus and try hard to stay 3 years+.)

Whether you see job hopping as dating, renting or day trading, it all means that the employee is taking a short term view regarding the company. There has to be a change in mindset, and the employer can affect that.

As an employer, you need to help the candidate make a strategic decision, not a tactical decision. The tactical decision is to take the position with the highest pay and best title. The strategic decision is to choose the job that advances you to your end goal best.

The new employer needs to understand where the candidate wants to go, and why she wants to get there. Once that is known, then explain how your industry, company and this position are the perfect way to achieve that result. Without doing this, even great offers will not be enough to capture the candidate if another great offer comes along that aligns with her perceived career direction.

So even if the candidate is perfect and you think she would accept your offer, don’t give an offer until you have explained how the position is perfect for reaching her ultimate career goals.

Why Employee Retention is Important – and How to Do it Right

It’s always important to have a good retention strategy in order to keep your best employees.

There are specific times to be particularly aware: when your company or industry growth slows, and when recruiters are aggressive (if your employees’ skill sets are in high demand). When the company is doing well, people don’t tend to leave unless they are recruited. This happens at good companies when unemployment is very low.

If you don’t hold on to your A-players, you’ll be left with just the Bs (and maybe Cs), and that isn’t a recipe for success. A-players will always be in demand, and they will find good jobs in any economy. If you lose one or two, they are hard to find and expensive to replace. If you don’t replace them, you could end up with what Steve Jobs once called the “Bozo Explosion.”

So how do you retain them?

Keep them engaged
Give them opportunity
Give them slightly better than typical compensation

There is a lot packed into those 3 bullets. For me, the goal was always to make them happy enough that they would not return a headhunter’s call if one reached out. While some people are just curious, others will not waste their time if they are happy enough where they are.

What employees want more than a raise is:

To feel proud about what they do and be on a winning team
To be treated fairly and respected by their boss
To be heard and not micromanaged
To have a personal life and feel less stress
To see the incompetent (poor performers) get fired
To have job security

There is a lot of talk about employee engagement. While an employee is more likely to return a recruiter’s call when not engaged, not being fully engaged is not the same as being unhappy. As you can see from the list above, there is more to keeping an employee happy than just money.

Retention begins the first day they start at the company. Poor on-boarding can start the employee off on the wrong foot, and this is common in small companies. While showing a new person where the restroom and coffee are is important, enacting a development plan for the first 90 days is more important. Most people want to feel productive and valued, and providing goals for the first 90 days do just that.

An important key to keeping them engaged is to make sure they have a good boss. That could be a project manager or people manager depending on the structure of the company. If the boss cares about the person and her career, you may be able to prevent the disengagement which affects about 70% of all employees. People don’t want monthly 1-on-1 meetings – they want more frequent, less formal chats on how they are doing. Ask questions and give tips as needed or schedule more time as required. Use this time to say they are doing a good job (if they are), because everyone likes a little pat on the back.

Poor performance and disengagement can happen even to workers who were highly valued at one time. Jobs change and personal lived change. It is important to first recognize the situation and then address it quickly. If it lingers, it will likely get worse, and other workers will see it and wonder why it isn’t being addressed. It will either cause others to act similarly, or it may push your A-players out the door.

To retain your best and keep the team performance high: know your employees, challenge them professionally, recognize when something is wrong, and take appropriate action quickly. Paying them slightly above market rate will help if you can do it, but the items above are the most important.

Don’t Settle for a Poor Hiring Process

A recent PNC survey reports that 71% of small business owners are optimistic about the economy, but only 22% expect to hire. The biggest reason for this delay in hiring is because the small business owner believes more work can be done by fewer people. This can lead to the most valuable employees (A-players) leaving the company. It may even mean that no one is available to do the hiring when the time comes.

A prudent way for a company to grow is only to hire when the current staff is overworked – but this can make hiring a challenge. Most small businesses are not continuously hiring, so the hiring process doesn’t tend to be reliably repeatable. This can lead to hiring people that are a bad fit (Mis-fitÔ) for the company.

Some causes for the hiring of Mis-fits are:

Lack of defined job profile
Lack of hiring experience
Rushed/poor process
Poor vetting
Not enough resources
Hiring by gut feel
Ignoring personal biases

In a word: Settling

Settling never helps a business long-term. I have yet to see a (non-venture backed) small business that does hiring well. That is why I developed the Perfect Hire Blueprint. But that was not enough –most companies will not follow the entire blueprint because of time constraints, or thinking all the steps aren’t necessary. They are. I couldn’t help my clients grow without good employees and leaders, so I found that a blueprint wasn’t enough – I had to help them hire or recruit and hire for them. So we started recruiting for our clients in a way that makes sense for them: on an hourly basis.

Fixed price recruiters (I call them headhunters) charge way too much – usually 20-30% of the hire’s first year’s salary and that is too much for most small businesses. We find that we can keep the cost around 5-10% by billing hourly. In addition, we make the process transparent and give the client all information on every candidate. We even guarantee results if we use the entire process; that is how confident we are with the Perfect Hire Blueprint.

This turns out to be very good for the client. They don’t try to recruit by using a poor hiring process, they can stay focused on growing their business, and they get A-players to join that fit their company culture.

Do you have hiring needs? Contact us today to get started with the Perfect Hire Blueprint, and find your company’s A-Players.

Case Study – Industrial Sales

We recently helped a company hire a Sales Person for a remote position in NY/Southern CT (Home office in MA). We followed every step of the Perfect Hire Blueprint process and hired an enthusiastic, experiences sales person near the budgeted compensation level just 43 days from posting the first ad.

We took most of the load off of the employer: We posted the ad, we collected the resumes, we screened the candidates, we did the initial phone screens, and we passed along those who were qualified to be interviewed. What may be surprising is the efficiency in which it was done.

We had 44 total candidates. We interviewed 3, and administered a behavioral assessment on the most qualified. A total of ~5 hours were used for interviewing by the employer. One applicant was a perfect fit. Unlike when a headhunter is used, we highlighted the candidates’ weaknesses rather than trying to sell “our candidate.” What might also be surprising is that the job postings cost less than $150 total.

Many companies hate the thought of the effort and expense of hiring. In this case, expense and time for the employer could be described as efficient. This is not atypical when using the complete process.

The Perfect Hire Blueprint process works! Find out how the process addresses these challenges. If you have a job that needs to be filled, contact us.

industrial-sales-infographic

Making Your Good Company Great: Part 2

(Click here to read Part 1)

If you can find the intersection of your passion, expertise and market demand, you will have a winning concept.

Chapter 5: The Hedgehog Concept

The bottom line here is to find your company’s sweet spot. If you can find the intersection of your passion, expertise and market demand, you will have a winning concept. Execution is then the key to success. You don’t have to do everything well. If you do one thing better than others, you will succeed (ex. Hedgehog protects itself very well from a fox)

Chapter 6: A Culture of Discipline

I have always believed that to have sustained growth, you need systems and processes. When a company is small, a key person can hold things together, allowing the company to grow. But at some point, that breaks down. It could be that the person is no longer in the position, or the volume is too large to handle. Systems and processes are inevitably needed when the company exceeds a certain number of employees, or when volume exceeds the capacity of a few. Systems should not be put in place too early, or the business can stall.

Discipline is critical to consistent growth, quality and customer experience. When the company understands its sweet spot (hedgehog), then it is only a lack of execution that will bring failure.

Chapter 7: Technology Accelerators

My Bachelor’s degree is in Electrical and Computer Engineering. I love technology – inventing it, using it, evangelizing it, and watching how it changes the world. But, just using technology does not make companies great. Technology can be an enabler or can make things more efficient. Without a sound strategy and process, technology can just get in the way. Once you have the process in place, then consider automating it. Do it manually first (brute force) to prove that it will work, and then use technology.

Chapter 8: The Flywheel and the Doom Loop

Few people today know what a flywheel is, but it is an incredible mechanical invention. The basic concept is that a flywheel is heavy and it takes a lot of effort to get it going, but it also takes a lot to slow it down. Once it is going, small incremental efforts can prevent it from slowing.

This applies in business. It takes time to build momentum, and once built up, it will take something drastic for the momentum to come to an abrupt halt. Yet, if a business tries to go fast too quickly, it can also be stopped quickly. A company is in the doom loop if it tries to find quick fixes and tries many different directions without doing the work to build something sustainable.

Once you have your hedgehog, get great people, and start pushing on the flywheel.

Good to Great is not just for big companies. Small companies have to go through the same steps to build a great company, no matter if the goal is to keep it small but profitable or grow it to something that can be sold one day.

Making Your Good Company Great: Part 1

One enduring business book that every C-level should read is Good to Great by Jim Collins. Although some of the examples that he uses may be dated (Circuit City from 2001), the keys to creating a great company are timeless. I initially read and applied his philosophies in my corporate job when the book was first published. I recently read it again, and realized that I’ve been consulting to small businesses on these topics for over 10 years. I’ll highlight a few points, chapter by chapter, on what all companies should be doing:

Chapter 1: Good is the Enemy of Great

Historically, the great companies were led by people who worked tirelessly toward a vision that they created. You may have heard that the millennial generation does not have that same will to work for the outcome. They want the benefits of success without willing to sacrifice – “good” may be good enough, but it will never be great.

While I do believe that work/life balance is more important to this generation than any previous generations, I don’t believe that they don’t work hard. They understand the “work smarter not harder” mantra. Let’s also not forget that millennials are more connected than any previous generations, so they are never unplugged. Millennials can make companies great, and this is important since they will be ½ of the working population by 2020.

Chapter 2: Level 5 Leadership

Good to Great was published well before another book that I refer to often, The Five Levels of Leadership by John Maxwell. Collins talks only of the Level 5 leader (humility, strong will, company minded), but Maxwell further defines all of the levels, showing that they build on themselves to get to Level 5. Maxwell’s book came out 10 years later, and I think he benefited from much more research on leadership in those years.

Chapter 3: First Who… Then What

Collins got it right 15 years ago: great companies have great people. For service companies, everyone has to be an A-Player to be great. Product companies might be able to become great without all A-Players, but only in limited positions.

I’ve been focused on hiring and retaining A-Players my entire career. Collins says: “Get the right people on the bus, get them in the right seats, and get the wrong people off the bus.” Too many companies allow the wrong people to stay, and the negative impact is almost immeasurable. One of the first things I look for when working with companies is to find the people who are in the wrong positions or on the wrong bus. Then I help the company find the right people. While I’m not a full-time recruiter, I help my clients find A-Players and have a great history of doing so. (Read my eBook: Perfect Hire Blueprint to learn how you too can find A-Players.)

Retention of A-Players is also critical, and I agree with Collins’ view that you can’t motivate people. You need to provide the right environment for them to thrive and then get the right people who will motivate themselves.

Chapter 4: Confront the Brutal Facts (Truths)

CEOs can be deluded into thinking that everything is great. Many times the people around him/her don’t want to give bad news (AKA: CEO Disease). This is critical in making decisions.

Collins speaks of the Stockdale Paradox (after Admiral Stockdale, who was a POW). The essence of it is this: maintaining the unwavering faith that your company will prevail, while confronting the most brutal facts of the current reality.

For some companies, their business has changed forever because the world has changed. It could be as subtle as customer’s expectations (ex. free shipping), to something more drastic such as lack of demand (ex. daily newspapers). Tenacity is a key attribute of a CEO. As long as there is a willingness to reinvest, the company can turn profitable again with an assessment and a good strategic plan.

(Click here to read Part 2)

How to Interview Now with New Salary Equality Law

percent “Equal pay for equal work” is the typical catchphrase of the Salary Equality issue, which was prominent at both major political party conventions last month. Hillary Clinton has been talking about the gender salary gap all along, and Ivanka Trump spent some time on it in her speech before introducing Donald Trump (who did not mention it).

It has often been quoted that the typical woman earns 79% of a typical man’s salary. (In Massachusetts the number is 82%.) These numbers have been sliced and diced, but that’s a topic for another time.

On Monday, August 1, 2016, Chapter 177 of the Acts of 2016 was signed into law. Though it does not take effect until August 1, 2018, the new law states that employers can no longer make job offers based on past salary data. The more accurate catchphrase for the law should be “Equal pay for comparable work.” The law defines “Comparable work” as work that is substantially similar in that it requires substantially similar skill, effort and responsibility and is performed under similar working conditions. So how does this affect MA businesses?

This is not just a woman’s issue. I believe it applies to all races and genders – white males as well. I believe I was impacted by this issue in my second job out of college. I would word the popular catchphrase slightly differently: I believe that “comparable pay for comparable results” is good for every gender and every nationality.

Employers who hire recent college graduates typically use a formula to determine starting salaries. These formulas calculate a job offer by weighing the quality of the school and the candidate’s GPA. If a potential employee attended a lower ranked college and did not achieve a high GPA, he or she could start at a lower salary than his or her peers.

I went to a state school and had a “well-rounded experience.” While my GPA could have been higher, my first employer valued my real-world work experience and my practical approach to problem solving. I remember finding out that I was paid less than my peers, and I still hadn’t caught up by the time I went to my second employer after almost 5 years. My job offer there had been based on my previous salary. What compounded the issue was that my stock options were based on a multiple of my new salary. It turns out that the impact of fewer options at a successful startup had a major financial impact.

I have always believed in pay-for-performance, and I advise my clients to think this way. People who perform similarly should be paid similarly. For many companies, it is the results that matter.

When hiring, how do you determine what to offer if you don’t know what the person is currently earning? The simple answer is this: How much is the person worth to the company compared to others doing a similar job? The more complicated issue is determining if the person will perform as expected. This is where the Perfect Hire Blueprint (PHB) process becomes even more valuable. The system removes unintended bias and uses data – more than the interviewers gut feeling.

An employer cannot screen applicants based on their salary history. What I recommend is that you ask for the candidate’s salary requirements. Walter Foster, an employment and litigation attorney at Eckert Seamans in Boston says such an approach avoids some of the laws’ pitfalls. “The law prohibits an employer from requiring a candidate to disclose her salary history as a condition for an interview or consideration of an offer of employment,” says Foster.

As I mentioned in the PHB eBook, you should know if the candidate will accept the offer before you offer it. The best way to know that is to ask what is needed for the person to accept an offer from your company. If the compensation is higher than expected, the law could allow words similar to, “We’d like to make you an offer, but we need to reach agreement on compensation. You are asking for X, but peers in the position are getting Y.” The reason that works is that salary was not a factor in deciding to make an offer.

The new law doesn’t change the process. The process will continue to work for you and will ensure your compliance with the new law – two years before it goes into effect.

Adapt, Wither or Die

As we prepare for millennials taking over the workforce, we can see that changes are already in motion at established companies both big and small. Since they are not experiencing fast growth (including a high energy vibe that is like a magnet to millennials), slower growth companies will need to adapt. As the Baby Boomers continue to retire, how can these companies hire and retain the best young people to fill the gaps?

It wasn’t long ago that Yahoo was a place everyone wanted to work. While their hiring process still only allows high caliber people, the press about the company turmoil is a turnoff for many potential applicants. There are many “Best Places to Work” surveys. Glassdoor is one of the best because it encourages direct feedback from employees, which brings out the extremes (disgruntled former employees). If you haven’t checked out your company there, you should.

Older companies like PWC, P&G and GE have always been known for hiring and grooming great employees. They are also aware that they need to adapt. PWC relies on young business professionals, and they have been on the leading edge of the change. P&G is just starting to react, and will likely have difficulty hiring and retaining young professionals in the near term. GE is making significant progress on its process and image.

GE been airing TV ads (What’s the matter with Owen?) aiming to convince the young generation that there are “cool” jobs at GE. Engineer-like Owen talks about how exciting it is to work there, while the others in the room believe it is a manufacturing company. In a more recent ad, a friend runs into Owen on the street and tries to cleverly give him his resume, and there is another with singing telegrams. This is GE’s way of transitioning perception from an old stodgy company to one where young, bright engineers are trying to get in like it is a Silicon Valley startup. They even moved their headquarters from perceptively dull Connecticut to the more energetic community of Boston.

GE is adapting its review and compensation processes to make them more millennial friendly.
PWC has shown similar results from their internal surveys and has published this info.
GE has moved away from the often copied best practice of annual reviews.
GE has introduced a phone app for employees to assess both subordinates and superiors continually instead of annually.

A recent survey showed that Millennials expect to have 9 jobs in their working life, and many changes will happen in their early years. Fixed timeframe yearly reviews do not fit into that model, yet a Mercer survey showed that ~90% of the companies have a fixed date when everyone is considered for a raise. “It’s more like employees are serving tours of duty and you need to get them to re-enlist and get them re-engaged,” according to Steve Gross, a senior partner at Mercer.

To compete for bright, young, professional talent, the established companies will have to once again follow GE’s lead. Millennials are forecasted to be 50% of the workforce by 2020. This isn’t just for large companies. Small businesses can adapt to this trend quickly and compete for the best talent available as well. Many small companies have difficulty hiring, and these changes can make it much easier to get the perfect hire.

Replacing a Departed Leader? Avoid the Pendulum Effect

When replacing a departed leader at or near the top of the pyramid, it is human nature to focus on the areas that the past leader lacked. While it seems to make sense that the company would grow by improving the leader’s weaknesses, I’ve experienced two cases where the focus on the weaknesses overshadowed the strengths required for the position.

In both cases the leader retired after a long stint from a very public position. One was a town manager, and the other was a senior minister. In both cases committees were formed and the members were intelligent, influential and knowledgeable of the requirements, yet in both cases the committees recommended and hired someone who was almost an extreme opposite of the former leader.

Dictionary.com provides the following definition of the pendulum effect:

1. Also called pendulum law. Physics. a law, discovered by Galileo in 1602, that describes the regular, swinging motion of a pendulum by the action of gravity and acquired momentum.
2. the theory holding that trends in culture, politics, etc., tend to swing back and forth between opposite extremes.

In definition one, gravity is responsible for the action. The bottom of the pendulum is the steady, stable state (equilibrium). The bottom is where the pendulum wants to go, but it overshoots its goal, then tries to return to it. Definition two is what we see in the political system: driven by a group of people who don’t like the current administration, the majority votes for the other party.

In the case of the town manager (politics, but not elected), the previous leader was a micromanager and controller. While the townspeople didn’t know the specifics of how the town operation functioned, it appeared to be well run and it was well regarded, desirable, and ranked at the top for towns in the state. What wasn’t apparent by many was that the managers under the top manager never had to make decisions because the town manager would approve them all. The committee that was formed to hire the next town manager decided they wanted more of a delegator for the next leader. The pendulum had swung to the other extreme. While I approve of more delegation, there was no transition plan put in place for the new manager. It was like the inmates ran the asylum: total chaos! Luckily, after a few years and much angst by all who worked there and those on the fringes, the 2nd level leaders adapted to the new management style.

In the case of the senior minister, the pendulum swung from an introverted intellectual to an extroverted multitasker. The search committee surveyed the congregation, looking for a scholar who was a good teacher, but they also wanted someone warmer with a higher emotional intelligence. While the new pastor received his PhD soon after starting in his new position, his sermons were not as intellectual as the previous minister, and many came to miss the old sermons.

Both of these positions are incredibly demanding, and there is a very long list of skills needed to succeed.

If the starting point for the new leader is the position of the departed leader, then you will likely get someone who on the other side of the pendulum arc. The further away the previous leader was from the stable, steady state (amplitude), the further the next leader will be from equilibrium due to the kneejerk reaction to the prior’s weaknesses. That’s just how a pendulum works – if it’s pushed a large distance from the bottom, it will go the same distance up the other side. No matter the position to be filled, people tend to try to hire someone who was either successful in a position, or the opposite of someone who failed.

The pendulum effect can be disrupted by benchmarking the job. The benchmarking process that we use for hiring uncovers the requirements of the job, and doesn’t focus on the people who may have previously held the position.

It’s important to understand what is unique about one job versus other related jobs. The critical success factors (I prefer key accountabilities) are determined through a process of brainstorming, grouping and prioritizing. Then, a handful of stakeholders take an online assessment – not about themselves, but about the job. This creates the benchmark for the ideal candidate: the one that can stay in equilibrium due to possessing the behaviors, skills, motivation, and acumen needed to succeed.

Leadership positions can make or break a business. Companies need to stop guessing and start assessing the candidates, then compare them to a customized job benchmark to find the ideal leader.

Get the Perfect Hire Blueprint eBook on Amazon for detailed info on the entire hiring process, or contact us to get a personalized solution for your business!