did you watch the super bowl? Sadly, i did.
so what do you think? Did the new york giants beat the new england patriots-for the second time in four years and in the same sort of way -because of attitude, or because of skill?
watching the game along with 111. 3 million other spectators, i couldn’t help but feel that it was a small bit of both. But if pressed, i’d have to say that the giants brought more attitude. Or possibly – it was more skill. Oh, the hell with it.
there’s been lots of discussion in business and human resource circles lately, that when building a team, you hire for attitude and train for accomplishments.
two authors, both subscribers to forbes. Com, have opposing views on the subject. one of them, dan schawbel (i play tennis with dan’s father, steve) interviewed mark murphy, author of the trendy book, hiring for attitude. In dan’ posting, “why almost half of new hires fail in 18 months. Hire for attitude. ” schawbel supports murphy’s faith that it’s more indispensable to hire for attitude. Taking the other side, forbes. Com contributor, bill fischer, believes that attitude only gets you so far.
for me, this is no “either/or” proposition. In my over 25 years as an executive recruiter, successful hires – those who add value to customer organizations, meet particular skill necessaries, have a track record of considerable, quantifiable career acquirements, strong leadership and interpersonal qualities; and most significantly, their personalities and temperament fit the culture.
football fan or not, feel free to forward this article to colleagues, coworkers, and friends.
hire for attitude or hire for skill?
does it take one or both to win a super bowl?
in dan schawbel ‘s article in forbes. Com he reveals from his consultation with mark murphy, what murphy believes are the causes why such a good deal of new hires fail so rapidly, why soft accomplishments are so indispensable now, and how the hiring landscape is altering.
why do such a good deal of fail within the initial 18 months of taking a job?
when our research tracked 20,000 new hires, 46% of them failed within 18 months. But even more surprising than the failure rate, was that when new hires failed, 89% of the time it was for attitudinal reasons and only 11% of the time for a absence or unavailability of skill. the attitudinal deficits that doomed these failed hires included a absence or unavailability of coach-ability, low levels of aroused intelligence, motivation and temperament.
why are technological and soft accomplishments less indispensable than attitude?
it’s not that technological accomplishments aren’t indispensable, but they’re much posing no difficulty to valuate (that’s why attitude, not accomplishments, is the top predictor of a new hire’s success or failure). Nearly every job (from neurosurgeon to engineer to cashier) has tests that may valuate technological proficiency. But what those tests don’t valuate is attitude; whether a nominee is motivated to learn new accomplishments, think innovatively, cope with failure, assimilate feedback and coaching, collaborate with teammates, and so forth.
soft accomplishments are the capabilities that attitude may heighten or undermine. For example, a newly hired executive may have the intelligence, business experience and financial acumen to fit well in a new role. But if that same executive has an authoritarian, hard-driving style, and they’re being hired into a social culture where pleasure and camaraderie are paramount, that combination is unlikely to work.
additionally, a lot of training programs have demonstrated success with incrementing and bettering accomplishments – especially on the technological side. But these same programs are notoriously weak regarding creating attitudinal change. As herb kelleher, previous southwest airlines ceo applied to say, “we may change skill levels through training, but we can’t change attitude. “
how will the hiring landscape not be the same in 2012 and beyond?
between the labor pool from china and india and the fact that there are such a good deal of workers sitting out there unemployed, we may find the accomplishments we need. The absence or unavailability of sharp wage increases in most job categories is farther proof of the abundant supply of accomplishments. Technological proficiency, once a guarantee of life-time employment, is a commodity in today’s job market. Today’s companies are hiring for attitude. And not just any attitude; companies want attitudes that absolutely match their distinctive culture. Google and apple are swell companies, but their cultures are as dissimilar as night and day.
as the focus on hiring has shifted away from technological proficiency and onto attitude, it’s precipitated a lot of tactical changes in how job consultations are conducted. For example, the new kinds of consultation questions being asked are providing real selective information regarding attitude instead of the vague or canned answers hiring managers applied to get. Smarter companies are less likely to rely on the old standby questions like “tell me regarding yourself” and “what are your weaknesses? ”
companies now have answer keys by which to accurately rate candidates’ answers. Interviewers may listen to candidates’ verb tense and other grammar selections and make exact findings regarding someone’s future performance prospective.
where are companies finding campaigners with the proper attitudes? The majority is using social networks but is that even working?
companies are not becoming high performers from the common roots. They’re hiring in what we call, the “underground job market”. As stated by our latest research (outlined in hiring for attitude), companies are finding their best people through employee referrals and networking. They’re realizing that the high performers they already have, fit the attitude they want. These high performers are the people they should be asking to help find more people exactly like them.
given that selective information, it seems like campaigners should be networking in every way possible – including social networking. But one thing that people misconstrue is what networking is in truth regarding. Too a lot of people are not networking; but instead are ‘need-working,’ as in: “i need work, or a lead, or an intromission from you”. Usually people on the receiving end of this dodge those inquiries. Job seekers need to ask themselves ‘how may i add value to this individual? ‘ and then go from there.
attitudes change as workforce dynamics change. What happens in this case?
the attitudes for which organizations will have to hire are not abstract or based on a theoretical idealistic, but instead are just the features that discerned high and low performers.
southwest, google, apple, and the four seasons are all swell companies and they all hire for attitude. Their high-performing workers live their attitudes every day and it’s a large allocation of what makes these organizations so successful. Low performers who struggle with those attitudes are specifically rejected by the culture. But those companies’ attitudes are very unlike each other. They couldn’t with swell success emulate every other’s attitudes.
every company has to discover the attitudes that make their institution distinctive and particular. and even if the company’s attitudes change over the years, those attitudes will always be an organic reflectiveness of their most successful people.
to read bill fischer’s opposing view go to the publications page on my web-site. He says that, “for every day work, hire for attitude, train for accomplishments; but when huge change, suchlike innovation, is envisioned, then hire for skills (because you need them) and figure out how to deal with the attitudes (because, all too ofttimes, they come along with the accomplishments). ”
when hiring genius, which do you rate higher?