Finding that diamond in the dirt: 3 myths debunked
This week, Marc Prosser shares his experience as Chief Marketing Officer for his 2000 start-up and tells how hiring new employees has allowed him to debunk three well-established myths when it comes to finding that diamond in the dirt.
The first myth consists in looking for applicants whom you expect to “play on the first line of your roster.” An array of articles have been published in that regard stating how important it is to select the right applicants or simply describing how to be in a position to sort out applicants (very much like hockey players who play on the first, second, third, or fourth line). Such publications claim that there is a specific type of employee for each position and each company should look for these qualities in every applicant.
The fact remains that several company managers have a tendency to believe that they have an adequate working environment for these top players. Unfortunately, it appears that such businesses fail to consider that these first-line players will be looking to climb the corporate ladder or to get some kind of compensation for the efforts put in, among others. If the company that has hired them is not in a position to provide such working conditions, it won’t be long before management is back interviewing applicants after their top player has left, which usually happens rather quickly.
The second myth underlines the fact that intelligence per se is allegedly a good measurement standard for assessing performance at work. Indeed, titans such as Google or Microsoft have one day or another believed that “machine-gunning” employees with puzzles and games would allow them to find that diamond in the dirt.
Ironically, intelligence is not that good a predictor as far as performance at work is concerned. At least, intelligence as we know it, at the general level. There are different types of intelligence and it does not mean that the tests administered to potential employees will embody the skills required for a specific position. On the other hand, it is to be noted that the notoriety of such tests has skyrocketed due to the foreseeability of the questions usually asked during interviews.
Finally, the third myth states that it is preferable to hire an applicant who is already employed elsewhere. It is believed that busy people are more productive as they value time more than other people do. Consequently, a number of managers have come to believe that a productive employee should already be working for another corporation; otherwise, he would have already been terminated.
Marc Prosser claims that this is antiquated thinking. Not to mention that by tossing aside applicants who are unemployed, you reduce the likelihood of finding that diamond in the dirt.
Read the entire article here: How to find the right person for the right job [3 hiring myths busted!].
Translation: Traduction-Québec
The first myth consists in looking for applicants whom you expect to “play on the first line of your roster.” An array of articles have been published in that regard stating how important it is to select the right applicants or simply describing how to be in a position to sort out applicants (very much like hockey players who play on the first, second, third, or fourth line). Such publications claim that there is a specific type of employee for each position and each company should look for these qualities in every applicant.
The fact remains that several company managers have a tendency to believe that they have an adequate working environment for these top players. Unfortunately, it appears that such businesses fail to consider that these first-line players will be looking to climb the corporate ladder or to get some kind of compensation for the efforts put in, among others. If the company that has hired them is not in a position to provide such working conditions, it won’t be long before management is back interviewing applicants after their top player has left, which usually happens rather quickly.
The second myth underlines the fact that intelligence per se is allegedly a good measurement standard for assessing performance at work. Indeed, titans such as Google or Microsoft have one day or another believed that “machine-gunning” employees with puzzles and games would allow them to find that diamond in the dirt.
Ironically, intelligence is not that good a predictor as far as performance at work is concerned. At least, intelligence as we know it, at the general level. There are different types of intelligence and it does not mean that the tests administered to potential employees will embody the skills required for a specific position. On the other hand, it is to be noted that the notoriety of such tests has skyrocketed due to the foreseeability of the questions usually asked during interviews.
Finally, the third myth states that it is preferable to hire an applicant who is already employed elsewhere. It is believed that busy people are more productive as they value time more than other people do. Consequently, a number of managers have come to believe that a productive employee should already be working for another corporation; otherwise, he would have already been terminated.
Marc Prosser claims that this is antiquated thinking. Not to mention that by tossing aside applicants who are unemployed, you reduce the likelihood of finding that diamond in the dirt.
Read the entire article here: How to find the right person for the right job [3 hiring myths busted!].
Translation: Traduction-Québec