kirkwalsh.com

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. If you have any questions, please see my policies page or if you would like to contact me, you can do so here. You can find out more about me here. I sincerely thank you for visiting!

A post today over at ExUrban League made me laugh and think at the same time. It’s about a German officer that separated his troops into four different groups based on intelligence and work ethic. He found the best group to promote was the smart and lazy because they would see a problem and probably find the easiest solution to implement. It reminded me of a quote I once heard that progress isn’t made by the industrious but rather the slacker looking for a shortcut.

I was actually thinking along the same lines the other day in regards to management styles. Personally, repetitive tasks would drive me crazy. But for some people, being good at and having control of something is more important than variety. It was just a random thought that any department must have people at both ends of the spectrum to function, but when hiring it seems that this consideration is not really there most of the time.

During a management training course we all took a smaller version of the ubiquitous Myers-Briggs personality exam. Most of us (being young and on a management track) grouped around a similar set of results. The company that I work for is known for hiring people that would naturally fall into that particular area of the exam. However, a lot of the positions are routine, repetitive tasks and a lot of those young and driven individuals are driven right out of the company when they realize this.  

I can’t help but wonder if companies took the approach of that German officer and hired people more for the open position than according to a “best type”, would everyone be better off? I mean, not everyone is smart and a go-getter and not every job interests every person. There are plenty of people that are smart and lazy (in this case they would rule the world) or industrious but not as bright and would be perfect for a lot of positions that the smart and industrious are hired to do and miserably fail.

Before making a hiring decision consider whether the person you are hiring is really the best option for that position. Are you hiring based on a potential that doesn’t exist for the position? Is that person that is a fantastic employee really going to be a good supervisor or are they going to drive their staff nuts with their constant supervision and questions?

Hiring the right people is about the most important function of a manager but I think a lot of these questions get short shrift during and after the hiring process. A lot of managers just do not discriminate between the qualities that make a great employee and a great supervisor or the qualities that best fit a particular position. As an employee, I’ve flat out told interviewers that I didn’t think a certain position was right for me because of my personality and interests and the person doing the hiring simply didn’t understand. It turns out I was correct on at least one occasion when I was hired for a different position and saw what the original had entailed. 

As a manager think long and hard about any position while interviewing candidates. Always hiring the smart and industrious for every position isn’t necessarily the way to running a great organization.