I finally have the opportunity to add to my finance team. I have two candidates under consideration, one has the skill set I need right now, the other does not have the skill set, but I think has more potential to be mote valuable at the role evolves. My gut tells me to go with the person who has more potential and is not the safe choice. I am looking for advice around how others weigh current skill set vs, potential
Do I Hire for Current Fit or Potential?
Answers
For me it is potential hands down! Skills can be added or train for. Attitude and drive is much more difficult to hone. Furthermore, there is really no "safe choice" . With the right attitude and drive, someone "with potential" can get up to speed quick....and his attitude and drive will get him further thus more value for the company.
I would also agree that potential has ... more potential :-)
This is especially true if you are able to provide the coaching and guidance to help build that person into an 'A-player'. Sometimes the person with the skill already, becomes complacent and knows it all. Seek out the curious!
Do you have the skill set you need right now? Who would fill that role right now? It is a luxury to hire more for potential than proof. If you have that luxury you are lucky. But in the daily trenches, experience and skill trump gut feel and potential.
It depends on the organisation's requirement. We hire both, potential for growth as well as steady state person, depending on the requirement. There are activities which need a steady person who follows processes and completes the task. Whereas at times we need a dynamic person. It all depends on the requirement.
You are the best person to assess your current staff, and needs. As James and Tarun have intimated, it depends on what you current needs are.
I agree with the general theme of James and Tarun of "it depends". The world is full of untapped potential and few can sell it as well as a good candidate - and there's no more willing buyer than a desperate interviewer.
You mention one has the skill set you need right now - will that need change? Will that role require those same skills long term without much greater depth? Looking out 12 months, is that role better suited for a "B" player with an "A" attitude willing to just get the job done?
If hiring on "potential" (which is my general preference), when do you expect that potential realized to a point where that person will no longer be right for the job you are filling? If less than 2 yrs, I'd be careful unless you are using this position as a feeder for broader organizational needs (which is how we try to use our entry level roles). Constrained potential, or more accurately constrained ambition, can become dangerous in an organization not prepared to loosen those ties.
Is there a good reason you can't hold out for both (skilled and strong potential)?
If you have the luxury of growing your team, and the team in place isn't drowning, then I'd hold out for someone who can immediately make an impact, but who you can also grow.
I am a fan of home grown talent, but I believe in putting them in a position they are ready for, letting them
What we like to ask people is "Do you currently have your dream team working for you?" If the answer is no, you would want to look at what it will take to get your dream team and that is who you want to hire. Someone else mentioned looking at a successor. Could this person some day take over for you?
I would base the decision on need. Do you have a hole to fill now that can't wait for the higher potential candidate? If not, I would go with the long term upside.
How quickly do you need someone up to speed? The more immediate the need, the more the choice leans towards the capable.
How hard is it for an inexperienced person to get up to speed? The easier it is for someone to get up to speed, the more the choice leans towards hiring potential.
Can the rest of your team pick up the slack until the inexperienced gets competent in the tasks you hired them for? The more slack taken by the rest of the team, the more the choice leans toward hiring potential.
How competitive is your compensation versus the competition? The more competitive, the more the choice leans towards hiring potential. This is because experienced employees, once hired tend to be more stable. They accept what they get and settle into the job. The potential worker will expect more as they develop new skills, and will seek that compensation elsewhere if you are not willing to improve their compensation. You saw this in the IT job hopping of the past two decades (up until the economy tanked and everyone is just happy to have a job).
Personally, I would go with experience. In all my life, I have always found rarely does a person live up to their potential, but I can always rely one people to live up to their capabilities. An example would be, would you hire Robert Griffin 3 to be your quarterback, or Eli Manning? You know you have a two time Superbowl champ with Manning, and he produces a quality game almost every game. With RG3, you have a guy with potential...well, you did, until he got hurt so bad that he lost his potential. He was drafted in the first round because the Redskins thought he had the potential to be the head of a great team.
Experience reaps dividends daily, but, rarely, does potential pay off.
1
If someone is mentored effectively to any degree, then potential will pay off more often than not. Those mentored will have more loyalty. Potential can yield a "home run" employee. In a growth environment you want someone who is most adept at change, and thrives on it.
You mentioned that you finally have the opportunity to add to your team. If your new person leaves, how likely will the company allow you to get someone else as a replacement? The reason I ask is that if the person with potential doesn't fit well in the current role and leaves, where would you be? Not knowing the people involved, I'm guessing the person who fits now sounds more likely to stay in that role. In a finance department there will always be the routine tasks, and if the company expands in such a way that it needs other skills I would think there would be room in the budget to get another person.
I would go with the one who has the skill set now. It gets down to hiring the qualified candidate.
2
Agreed.
To do otherwise is likely skirting with age discriminatory practice, whether one means to or not.
Skills come from experience. Age as well.
Potential? That usually is a positive trait but also indicates a lack of skills. That lack of skills means, a younger worker.
Hire for potential in a lower level position. A "starter" or
Hire based on skills for a responsible position. A seasoned employee.
You'll be happier with the end result over the long run.
Replying to my own, previous post:
Last Friday, I was interviewed via telephone by a recruiter for a position at another agency. I met all of the requirements, am familiar with the agency having worked there in the past and have a slew of very valuable experience for what they seek.
I have sixteen years experience in this industry in many roles and, I have another thirteen years experience in financial management in private industry before that. I have industry references of impeccable quality whom the new agency will be familiar with.
I also personally know and regularly interact with the past four incumbents in the position I was interviewing for. And, for once, I have a pretty good understanding of what I might be getting myself into both positives and negatives when measuring a potential new position.
So, why is it not a slam dunk for me?
Well, during the forty five or so minutes I talked on the phone with the recruiter, he worked two questions into the conversation specifically intended to determine my age.
First, he asked me how long I planned to continue working. i.e. he was correctly guessing I am near retirement age in the CalPERS program which I am, but due to a lack of health care coverage in retirement, am not about to be doing. Although caught off guard by the question, I didn't get offended at this and answered with a simple "I plan on working at least another ten years" anticipating what that he was seeking to ensure longevity after turning over three managers in the last ten years in this position.
Then, at the very end, he just casually blurted out, "What year is your UC Degree from?". Another very blatant attempt to determine my age. I answered very directly and he attempted an old sales spiel to mollify me by talking about the football history of my college back then as compared to now as though he was just interested.
I used to believe this was an overstated practice. Then, after I turned 40 and had my position eliminated and had to go out and seek new employment, I began to experience it first hand.
I spent three years un and underemployed and worked a lot of temporary jobs. I met an awful lot of others in very similar circumstances. The one thing we all had in common was, excellent qualifications but we were over forty and not getting much opportunity while watching lots of twenty and thirty some things jump from company to company with impunity. And, we overheard and experienced a lot of commentary from the younger managers about "older employees" not being a good fit.
This was at major employers like AirTouch and Chevron and even the then Big 5 audit firms. It was a very tough time for experienced staff as middle management was being cut all over the place.
What is that about potential vs experience again?
Easy, base it on time unemployed. The longest unemployed gets first shot (assuming the meet the magic 80% of your job requirements) Unfortunately, we are still not in an economy where we can hire for "fit" we have to get the long term unemployed back to work, so they get first shot.
6
Really? I shouldn't hire for fit but rather hire simply because they've been out of work longer? I couldn't disagree more. I'm not sure what is magic about 80% but if I'm willing to accept "C" fits while my competition grabs the "A" players, we'll all join the ranks of the unemployed while our competitors eat our lunch. I applaud the greater-societal-good mentality while in an all-else-equal scenario but ONLY if all else is equal. Taking a 20% haircut on the fit/capabilities of my hires is a disservice to my shareholders as well as the rest of the team that has to buttress an ill-fitted hire.
Yep Edward, You hire to get the long term unemployed off the dole. Obviously you have to hire qualified people. You can't put an engineer into a doctors job. That's stupid, but unfortunately, the economy hasn't recovered enough from the Great Recession to hire for "fit" When ALL long term unemployed people people in a profession are back to work, THEN you can start being a little more picky. Until then, we're still in recovery mode. Don't be the scumbag Scrooge who hires employed people with less qualifications over a long-term unemployed who has more. Those people shouldn't be breathing air.
Keith, you use the term "scumbag Scrooge" to describe the person who discriminates against an unemployed person with greater qualifications. I simply call that poor business and I completely agree that employment status should not work against a candidate, especially to a point where greater qualifications are ignored. However, I maintain that the flip side of that argument holds no less true as it would be equally poor business practice to ignore the greater qualifications of a currently employed candidate in favor of a poorer fit candidate "on the dole" (even if otherwise qualified).
Also consider that an unintended consequence of your proposal is that, although it serves to take care of those currently on the sidelines, it also acts to discriminate against and thus freeze those currently employed. That is a disservice to the hard working achievement oriented individuals who deserve better than they currently have - or must they sit on the sidelines for six months before they can have something better?
Edward,
You say..."...to describe the person who discriminates against an unemployed person WITH GREATER QUALIFICATIONS. I simply call that poor business (practice?)..." I fail to see why it is poor business to hire someone who has greater qualifications. Can you expound?
I think we are arguing with false choices and using extremes to argue our points. Let's just stay with EQUALLY qualified but one is unemployed (longterm or shorterm) and the other currently employed.
And with that.....
If I were given a choice, I would choose the qualified individual that has been on the sidelines longer. As I said below...."Learn to appreciate a wounded animal determined to survive." All things being equal, grit, survival (especially the long term unemployed) and determination determines attitude and drive. With those 3 alone, I give advantage to the unemployed. The more important thing I can attach to this is LOYALTY and APPRECIATION which has a longer term benefit to the organization. I don't think I have to explain that part.
As for A, B or C players, I think that it is NOT always an automatic choice for an "A" player against say a B or a C player that are "lesser" qualified. I think that an "All A Team" is a pipedream for most organizations. I think that "A" players have to be viewed in context of the culture of the organization or what the organization wants achieve or build.. "A" players carry with them the good and the bad attributes.
See MoneyBall!
Emerson, I think you misread my post because I agree with you. My statement was that discriminating AGAINST better qualified candidates is a poor business practice - regardless of current employment status. In fact, I don't have a problem with your (and Keith's) position of discriminating FOR the unemployed in the "all-things-being-equal" scenario in the effort of a greater societal good. My point is that I am not willing to have my company "take-one-for-the-team" by underhiring for a position when candidates are not otherwise equal.
Edward, You are right, I misread your reply...and that is why I asked for the clarification. My apologies
Remember, how do you propose to get the long-term unemployed back on track if you don't hire them Hmmmm??
2
A mentor of mine once said...."Learn to appreciate a wounded animal determined to survive."
Did I miss something? When did it become the paramount responsibility of individual companies to hire the long-term unemployed?
Do we have long-term unemployment because companies previously ignored fit and potential and hired the needy?
When did this new responsibility begin to trump the existing responsibilities to employees, shareholders and customers?
I must have been away that week. I would have liked to have been given a heads-up that we are no longer a meritocracy.
I completely agree with Edward here. This is a great example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. In addition, this particular road seems to be an eight lane super highway.
The causes of, and therefor the solutions to, long term unemployment lie squarely elsewhere - not with companies needing to start acting like charities. To enumerate these causes would take this conversation in a whole new political direction that I don't care to travel.
Speaking of the original question, I hire for both fit and potential, as they are not mutually exclusive. If I had two candidates with equal fit and potential and one was long term unemployed, I would consider giving that person the edge, but only because they might be more motivated to perform. Possibly.
I am all for hiring for potential as you will otherwise limit the ceiling of your team. However as others have also mentioned you need to consider how likely it is that the person with potential will stay with your team long enough to see this realized.
I generally hired for potential in my last role as a
Developing someones potential requires that you and the existing team buys into the project otherwise you'll be much better off by getting the here and now guy.
So one of the questions that I didn't see come up, is "where does the person with potential see themselves 5 years from now." Hiring someone with potential is great, but someone with potential may not be satisfied once they've grown into the position you've hired them into. Do you have "the next" position for them to grow into once they've outgrown the position you're hiring them into? Because someone who aspires to the next level now, probably isn't going to stop wanting to continue to grow once they've grown into the position you're hiring them for. Otherwise, you'll have developed talent, who will then leave your company for their next challenge. Same with the next person you hire for "potential". So the current position will be a constantly revolving door, that once people become "competent", they then want to move onto the next level.
Also, if you're hiring and developing potential, there are alot of factors involved in that potential coming together into a tangible contribution to your business. Your training skills, cultural fit, coworker support and that person's willingness to do the hard work to develop their talent. Sometimes they will develop and sometimes not. Some will develop and then leave, before you've received your reward for your investment in their potential. So based on those different scenario's, you have a 1 in 3 chance of your investment in their potential paying off tangibly for you and your organization in the long run.
Years ago, I would have said, "hire the best talent you can with the most upside". But a company doesn't run on potential or talent, it runs on existing skill sets and getting the job done right and on time.
So now my two cents would be, hire the most experienced talent you can afford, and if you can't afford both experience and talent, hire for experience, because at least you know the job will get done. And at the end of the day you're hiring someone to get the job done, not for what other contributions they "might" make "someday".
Basically it's a low
Investing in "potential" is pretty much the same bet. So my two cents would be, this decision is more about your own risk tolerance, and how you see your own objectives and compensation/success being impacted by the person with potential not working out, vs. what you hope to gain if they do. Or hiring to simply get the job done, that needs to be done and how that impacts your long term success.
Clarifying my answer......fit and potential are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Judging from some of the answers, I think we are trying to make it to be.
One can be be a rough "fit" (i'd say 70%-80% of the job requirement) before one is even considered for the position. Then the factor of "potential" comes in.
1
I always define qualified as meeting the magic 80% of the job description
This is a fairly classic short term vs long term perspective as most of the comments have shown.
I would however look at it a little differently. I look at a candidate as to whether they have skills that can't be taught vs skills that can. For example, I can't teach someone to be smart. I can teach someone how to run specific program if they are smart. I can't teach someone to have an A type personality, but I can teach someone how to use that personality in different situations.
But the person already is working IS working and thus has income and thus pays taxes and (hopefully) contributes to charities to help the poor. The person who is long term unemployed has suffered far worse and is taking food stamps, draining food banks. Going through foreclosures and the lack of homes drains the
Actually David, you did miss the memo on playing fair and getting people who have suffered for years back to work ASAP and giving them preference to those already at work. Obviously, they have to meet the magic 80% of the job qualifications, but many if not most lost their job through no fault of their own, been trying to get back on their feet, and are barely surviving. They deserve to be front of the line and hired before those who haven't gone through their great recession.
4
Okay Keith, I will keep your suggested form of reverse discrimination against the more qualified in mind. It completely confirms to me that hiring on merit is truly the only possible course of proper action.
David, I just wanted to ask....is your rationale also applicable to returning Vets? Is the "Hire Vets" program flawed or as you term it.."reverse discrimination"?
Emerson, merit includes all factors - skills, abilities, potential, experience, attitude... everything. Just as an unemployed person may be highly committed to performing, a veteran may have a great work ethic or other qualities that need to be considered.
To be clear, I object to the notion that if an applicant is good enough (80% of qualifications as Keith noted), then you automatically give the unemployed the job by virtue of their need (over the better qualified).
So, Keith's 80% good enough staff will be competing against companies with staffs of up to 25% greater ability. Good luck on that. Good luck to your customers, employees and shareholders.
So your "merit/other factors" for a vet is viewed from a different light with"merit/other factors" of an unemployed (short or long) person?
To be clear, I am just poking on your reasoning and want to be clear about your position. I think you are clear on MY position (as evidenced by my posts on the thread). I believe that the "employ the unemployed" (made up program...lol) is similar in vain to the "hire vets" program (after all, they ARE unemployed) and if you say that the "employ the unemployed" is reverse discrimination, then I posit that the "hire vets" program is also the same. Then again, I may be wrong/mistaken!
A vet's military experience, what s/he did, were responsible for, accomplished, how they describe it, the skills involved, their attitude about their work/service, etc is essentially a valuable form of work experience, is it not? I think it would generally reflect well upon them, but in some cases may not.
The mere fact that the unemployed person is unemployed, by itself, has no bearing on my hiring decision. The details involved may be a positive, negative or neutral, but certainly does not automatically trump other qualified applicants of greater fit or potential by virtue of need.
Is this confusing to you, Emerson?
David, No, it is NOT confusing to me. It is clear how you have different views/standards of an "employ the unemployed" program vs "hire a vet" program in the context of what you call "reverse discrimination". You view the "other factors/merits" of the unemployed from a different perspective than the "other factors/merits" of a vet.
My only point is this...if you say that the "employ the unemployed" program is reverse discrimination, then it follows that you also view a "hire vets" program as such because they are similar in vain and principle/objective. That is MY point of view.
Emerson, you are over-thinking it. I believe that hiring less qualified people simply because they are long-term unemployed to be bad for the business. I wouldn't hold unemployment against them, nor would I favor them over it.
I also believe hiring less qualified vets simply because they are vets to be bad for the business.
Either being unemployed and/or a vet, in and of itself, mean nothing inherently positive or negative about qualifications. It's all of the other details that determine the meritorious hire.
Keith's attempt at social engineering, favoring the less qualified unemployed over the more qualified candidate, ignores existing responsibilities to employees, customers and shareholders and is not without consequences in a competitive world.
First, nobody is perfect and will have all of the qualifications. Most employers use about 80% as a rule of thumb ro account for that.
But we wouldn't have this problem of the long-term unemployed if companies truly didn't view it positively or negatively`. Employers who are not fit to breathe air much less run a business do however. That's why you need to regulate it.Fairness beats competitiveness
But in addition to that, then, how do you propose to get the long-term unemployed back to work hmmmmmmm?
Keith, what you are describing does not add one single job and therefor does nothing for unemployment.
When the person with a job, takes the new job (instead of the long term unemployed person), their job becomes available.
It's the creation of good jobs and new small businesses that is the solution to unemployment.... not a re-allocation of who gets the existing job under some "fairness" rubric.
Your impulse to regulate and control other people's business's, who you don't seem to have much respect for, is a big cause of long term unemployment.
On your question of how to get them back to work, which I agree with you would be good, do you believe over-regulation and over-taxation has helped create more jobs or killed more jobs?
1
Agree but what needs to be done is roll back taxes with the caveat that x amount of jobs at an average salary of y be created or the taxes return. Make business put their money where their mouth is. They want lower taxes? Give it to them but require the quid pro quo.
I don't have respect for businesses that treat their employees like dirt and who hurt others just to make a buck. Businesses can't be trusted to play nice, so thats why we have the regulation. Can we trust companies to play fair if we lift regulations? Not at this point with all the greed in the world, so it continues
So Keith, what your saying is the beatings will resume unless the attitude improves?
Instead of being so down on business, I would suggest trusting that business will act in self interest and increase employment as opportunities arise.
To help opportunities arise, get government's boot off the neck of small business - no quid pro quo required.
That's how to get the unemployed hired. Then, business will hire on fit or potential or whatever, but it will be a seller's market for labor... which government can't mandate.
2
As well it should. Fairness beats fit. When businesses show that greed no longer consumes them, I will be more trusting, but when you have corporate CEO's making 500 times as much as the janitor, I tend to be skeptical.Using the savings to reinvest in people/capital may happen to some extent, but its hard to trust that it will create the millions of jobs when you have the inequalities and greed.out there.
Unfortunately, businesses can't be trusted to do the right thing and thus the quid pro quo is required. The good thing is the long term unemployed are FINALLY coming back to work. Should have been done a long time ago. Now how does business help them replensigh their retirement that they took away. That's also where the huge CEO bonuses hurt the company
Keith, businesses aren't social welfare agencies. They do their good, paying wages, taxes, dividends, suppliers, charitable contributions, providing meaningful work and delivering products/services people want/need, etc. on the way to making a profit. Not the other way round.
On long term unemployed "FINALLY coming back to work," this doesn't look like an upward trend to me and represents a 38 year low in labor participation rate:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
This doesn't even begin to measure under-employment and employment outside of chosen field.
What we have is an economy over-burdened by taxes and regulations where most businesses are hiring, if they are hiring, to meet their commitments to their owners, employees, suppliers, etc. Without that, it's game over.
As far as "huge CEO bonuses" are concerned, what constitutes "huge"? Is it $50,000, $100,000, $500,000?
1
The amount is "relative" as it relates to the increase in value (performance) of the company that the CEO is responsible for. It also relative to the value of what other stakeholders (ie. employees) are getting. Even a $50k bonus is "huge" if the company is in the red.
I believe the conversation, at least in answer to the question is digressing far outside any bounds to the basic premise, "hire for fit or potential".
Maybe a different thread is required?
Filed Under:
Human Capital