At one point, we decided to check out job fit issues of over 1,200 executives (Directors or higher) employed in a number of large hi-tech organizations we had been, or were, working for. (See Site Map Proving Grounds and About). Numbers shown below indicate the percentage of participating executives who possessed that quality. Since candidates had been selected and promoted because they evidence strengths in the high percentage issues indicated below, those recruiting and selection criteria and processes need a lot of attention from the very top of the organization.
Take Risks (3%)
Make a Profit (4%)
Lead (12%)
Achieve Results (21%)
Set goals (21%)
Make risky decisions (22%)
Employ Controls (25%)
Thrive Under Pressure/Difficulties (26%)
Function as Team Members (28%)
Deal with abstract concepts (27%)
Manage (30%)
Strategize (31%)
Project Oriented (33%)
Solve problems (38%)
Function Tactically (40%)
Need Requirements/ Definition of Work (48%)
Meet Challenge/ Competition (54%)
Retain Individual Contributors Role (54%)
Communicate (89%)
Seek Growth/Improvement (97%)
Influence (100%)
Human Resources has an inadequate understanding of human nature as expressed in the individual employee or candidate for employment. Each of the 21 qualities listed as critical in determining management competence came from executives who went through our process. Any attempt to evaluate persons needs to examine the pattern of any candidate to see which of the 21 qualities are possessed, and which are not possessed. Unless and until you do, hiring or promoting candidates on the basis that they possess the top 6 qualities on the list adds to likely job misfit threatening current performance as a supervisor of technical professionals and further promotion to more responsible positions. This tendency to evaluate technical professionals, and their immediate supervision, and their next level of management overly weighting their social skills was at one point, epidemic.
Check the Blog “Did we hire the right engineers?” for a similar example.