There Is No Perfect Hire

There Is No Perfect Hire

by Dave Winston | Talent Management

 

Long ago the philosopher Voltaire observed, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Yet many talent leaders forget this serviceable bit of wisdom when recruiting top executives. They develop an inflexible profile of the ideal candidate for a role and, believing this person actually exists, reject candidates who could bring the company maximum value.

 

Early in the recruiting process when companies have seen few candidates, they are especially prone to pursuing perfection, passing on candidate after candidate. Subsequently they find themselves having to settle for someone who brings less to the table - and brings it later because of the protracted process, delaying and diminishing value creation in a critical role.

 

A more nuanced and effective approach to the complicated business of key hiring decisions may be found in the principle of "satisfice," a combination of satisfy and suffice. Satisfice provides guidance through complicated decisions characterized by multiple criteria and competing objectives. However, satisfice is emphatically not about settling for what is merely sufficient. Rather it's about choosing the option that has the most chance of being satisfactory and getting as close to the ideal as possible when making complex decisions.

 

In the case of executive recruitment, calculating which option satisfices is doubly difficult because companies and candidates calculate differently. Candidates have one set of criteria, each of which they weigh according to their individual circumstances, while companies have another, which they weigh according to business needs.

 

Companies that want to escape the trap of the perfect without settling for the merely sufficient must understand the candidate's calculus and find a way to harmonize it with the company's calculus - in short, reach a decision that satisfices and thereby creates maximum value quickly.

 

The Candidate's Calculus

 

The relative weight candidates give to specific factors when considering an opportunity will differ at different times in their lives. But it is possible to generalize somewhat about the things they are ultimately trying to determine, and which choices are most likely to make them happiest. They may weigh considerations such as geography, family issues, compensation and other factors differently, but most take a holistic view driven by the desire for happiness as they define it.

 

Balancing all of the factors that go into one's happiness can be complicated. Candidates may desire the lifestyle afforded by a particular geography, but they also may be reluctant to disrupt their children's schooling, or they may wish to be near aging parents. They may be in a dual-career marriage that is difficult to transplant, or they may simply be comfortable in their present roles.

 

All of those factors must be weighed against the appeal of the position, from the nature of the opportunity to compensation to numerous factors alone or in combination. Two factors weigh particularly heavily for executives. First, almost all focus sharply on the content of the role: will it challenge me, will it develop me as a leader, will I make a genuine contribution to the business' success? Second, they strongly consider whether the company has a culture in which they will thrive.

 

When making their calculations, candidates can be just as bedeviled by the perfect as companies. This perfectionism may manifest itself in one of two ways. They may reject opportunity after opportunity or, conversely, may jump from opportunity to opportunity hoping that the perfect one is just over the horizon. Sometimes this pursuit of the perfect can promote unrealistic expectations, such as an executive jumping to an exciting industry for which he or she is poorly suited.

 

The most successful executives apply the principle of satisfice to their careers. Long before an opportunity appears, they reflect deeply about their motivations and goals. Rather than simply reacting to things that occur, they've thought far ahead about their careers and lives, and made deliberate decisions. They change companies or industries for good reasons, and they also take advantage of unexpected opportunities that fit with their deep self-understanding. They instinctively know in balancing the many factors that go into their happiness and their families' happiness that perfection is unattainable. But they also know they can make a choice that has the maximum chance of being satisfactory.

 

The Company's Calculus

 

Companies, by contrast, are in the business of pursuing profits, not happiness. Their decision criteria are much more narrowly focused on business issues. Though narrower, these criteria are as numerous and complex as the issues considered by candidates. As with the candidate's decision, perfection is unattainable, and companies that are unable to address complexities in an efficient way are likely to suffer significant opportunity costs the longer a position goes unfilled or if it is filled by a superficially perfect candidate.

 

Further, while candidates tend to think about the appeal of particular industries, companies tend to focus on a candidate's domain skills, such as the finance skills of a chief financial officer. They may segment the criteria even further, such as defining a sales role in terms of products, services or multiple channels. When focusing on skills, companies sometimes downplay a candidate's characteristics, such as leadership potential or raw intellectual power. Similarly, the emphasis on domain expertise tends to make companies weigh work experience over competence. Also, given that happiness ultimately drives candidates, too few companies seriously consider whether they offer a good work environment.

 

Being a good place to work has many facets. Does the culture empower leaders by providing access to the resources necessary to achieve success? Is there a well-defined career growth path? Can executives create long-term wealth? Is the company a leader within the industry? Is there a clear strategy, product or service that differentiates the company from competitors? Does the company's financial position provide a solid foundation for growth?

 

In summation, what drives the candidate's calculus starkly contrasts with the drivers for most companies:

 

a) Pursuit of happiness vs. pursuit of profits.

b) Industry excitement vs. domain expertise.

c) Culture vs. skill.

d) Expectation vs. experience.

 

Not surprisingly, the more rigidly companies cling to decision criteria, the more likely they are to miss out on the best possible, as opposed to the perfect, candidate.

 

Putting Principle Into Practice

 

At the heart of most methods to evaluate candidates lies a qualitative and quantitative formula to assess or rank candidates either against the position, other candidates or both. Adopting the principle of satisfice, however, does not mean adopting a new formula; there is no HR algorithm. Satisficing means evaluating candidates in a way that is more supple, nuanced and appropriate. The key lies not in a mathematical formula but in adopting practices that will make nuanced evaluation possible while increasing the selected candidate's likelihood of success.

 

The most important practices include:

 

1. Picture success and work backward.

Instead of developing a rigid job specification, picture what success in the role looks like in one, three or five years. Define success in a wide range of key areas and not just revenues or profits, such as customer and employee satisfaction, continuous improvement, career development and succession planning.

 

2. Know the talent market.

Assessing internal and external candidates requires a realistic view of the market. Provide a comprehensive talent map of leading and promising executives around the globe. Such a map allows talent leaders to benchmark internal assets against the best talent anywhere, and not just against each other. It also helps avert the trap of the perfect, but nonexistent, candidate. At the same time, by including talent inside and outside an industry and a company, it expands the possibility of achieving maximum satisfaction with the ultimate choice, and achieving it faster.

 

3. Hire for character and train for skill.

Overemphasizing experience and domain skills at the expense of leadership potential and competencies not only lengthens the time to value in the role, but also likely results in a less than satisficing choice. Being quick off the starting line or having domain experience does not necessarily ensure a win, place or show outcome in a marathon.

 

4. Make development a priority.

Hiring for character and training for skill is pointless unless an organization maintains a robust development program. Opportunities to grow and develop figure highly for most executives today. As part of a comprehensive talent management system, development should include in-role opportunities, stretch assignments, mentoring and executive coaching. Knowing that such a program is in place gives talent leaders far more flexibility in finding the candidate that satisfices.

 

5. Understand the candidate's calculus.

It is critical to know what really motivates candidates, what worries them and how they weigh the factors in an opportunity. Otherwise, talent leaders could find themselves selecting someone who quickly derails or who is jumping into a role without having calculated its personal and professional attractions and drawbacks. Skilled interviewers can surface those issues with candidates who may have only half-articulated the issues to themselves.

 

6. Be flexible.

Once talent leaders understand which happiness and employment factors weigh most heavily with candidates, they can determine if the satisficing answer is to adjust position requirements. For example, instead of rigidly insisting on relocation, talent leaders can find a mutually satisfactory solution to meet the candidate's and the company's needs.

 

7. Establish a comprehensive on-boarding program.

To ensure effectiveness, satisfaction and retention for new executives - and a return on investment - a comprehensive on-boarding program should begin well before the new hire's start date. Companies that believe they have found the perfect candidate often make the individual entirely responsible for making the new situation work, and then are surprised when the candidate derails. The chances of success for senior hires are far greater when an on-boarding program that explicitly integrates the firm's culture and the new executive's interests is consciously created and consistently executed - in effect, harmonizing the candidate's and the company's calculuses.

 

With the principle of satisficing in mind and the practices in place that support it, companies can free themselves from the tyranny of the perfect in executive recruitment. The paradoxical result is better hiring decisions, more successful executives and a reputation as a great place to work, which in turn attracts more talent. In an age when talent has become the ultimate source of competitive advantage, nothing less satisfices.

 

 

[About the Author: Dave Winston is the global managing partner of Heidrick & Struggles' aerospace, defense and aviation practice and the partner-in-charge of the Dallas office.]