,

Find The Right People To Join Your Team

Find the Right People

Your net worth is equal to your network.

Not totally true but the value of relationships in almost any area of life cannot be denied.

It’s a double-edged sword though.

People can be your greatest asset or your greatest liability.

The right aligned team can take you to the moon (literally) and the wrong unaligned team can kill you (also literally just ask Julius Caesar).

People come to us again and again asking “how do you find the most outstanding people?”

I’m going to give you a simple high level process to you.

Be aware as with any aspect of success it takes work.

It’s not like there’s some magical site you can visit post an ad and get superstars. If it was that easy everyone would be doing it and based on almost universal struggles and complaints in this field we know it isn’t true.

There is a method to make a HUGE difference though I’ve used to build an amazing network all over the world of high level people, hired some amazing team members and helped clients do the same.


Lesson #1 – It Actually Doesn’t Start With Them It Starts With You

For 7 years I ran a recruiting company.

At one stage we even had a USP “we can hire top people better than you can and to prove it we’ll hire you superstars and only get paid based on their performance”.

Sounds pretty good right?

Turns out not so straight forward for a range of reasons but I’m going to give you the biggest as it’s probably the single most important advice I can give you about attracting, retaining, and optimizing a great team.

What we learned working with dozens of companies in a multitude of industries and across many positions is this…

It was comparatively easy to hire great people for great companies and almost impossible to hire great people for bad companies.

To clarify by “great companies” I don’t mean “big”, “well branded”, “successful”, etc. often these are horrible places to work and often small unknown companies are some of the best.

A players like to work with A players.

They like a certain kind of environment.

This is mostly about the people and in particular about the leadership within the organization (note I said leadership not just management or ownership).

So you want great people? Start by being great yourself. Have a great project, work hard to execute flawlessly, develop your leadership and management skills, actually care about the people you work with (show and practice empathy and understanding) and care about and work intensely with diligence on your project.

Intensity is perhaps the best predictor of success in many areas of life but with people understanding is the best predictor of success so work on yourself.

There’s a famous law called the “Law of Bob”, which states “if Bob has a problem with everyone then usually Bob is the problem”.

In this case you are Bob. If you consistently have problems with employees then take a good hard look in the mirror and figure out how you can change because when you change everything will change for you.


Lesson #2 – There’s No Such Thing as Good People

Within certain circles we hear talk of “A Players”. For a while I believed this and preached it. Now after many years, many employees, many clients and situations I can tell you this isn’t true.

One of the most important lessons we learned through all our testing and analysis was:

Management trumps recruiting every time

This means you can hire someone “great” and you can destroy their productivity with bad management.

You can also hire someone horrible and develop them into someone great with the right environment, coaching and management (granted this is very hard in most cases and often not worth it but more on that later).

Here’s a couple of anecdotes.

A number of years ago my brother was hired by a glasses factory.

He’s a truly quality guy, diligent, dedicated, responsible, hard working…but traditionally a slow learner. I’m not sure why but whereas I’m a quick study he picks up things slowly.

He’s smart though he’s realized he might not be the fastest but he can persevere longer and outwork others.

Not everyone else knows that though and he’s introverted so has struggled learning to express confidence and communication with his team. He’s great at it now but back then he wasn’t.

What was the result?

They almost fired him in the first two weeks.

How big a mistake would it have been?

He went on to set the record for highest performer in his jobs within the company, stayed longer than almost anyone else, got promoted to team lead then went on to have the highest performing team in the company.

Two other important examples.

Back around maybe 2010 my recruiting company was focused largely on hiring sales people and we hired one lady in particular who did great and you might have figured this wasn’t surprising since she’d been a top performer in a previous position.

It’s not so clear though since early on in that position she did quite well then something turned. I can’t recall exactly whether it was changes in her personal life or health but she started to struggle and for almost a year she was a losing investment for the company.

She thanks the manager for continuing to persevere with her and believe in her because she eventually recovered and rose to top in the company.

We hired another similar sales person who had a history of crushing it in previous roles including #1 in the country for nearly 10 years at a major national brand, extreme success in a position very similar to the one we ended up hiring him for…

And he crashed hard making hardly any sales and eventually being fired with disappointment all round.

What was the difference? Same person dramatically different results. The answer in his case was environment. The factors present when he first succeeded weren’t there in the new situation.

I could give you countless examples illustrating similar principles from well known athletes to average store clerks.

What it’s important to realize is it’s not so much just about the right person as the right time, the right environment, the right management.

Very often someone who will thrive in one environment will crash and burn in another.

Someone who will thrive at one point in time will collapse at another.

So beware the idea that someone is amazing, the question is “are they amazing right now for the environment and situation you’ll be putting them in and what can you do to adjust those factors to maximize their success?”


Lesson #3 – Almost Everything You Know About Recruiting Is Wrong

Recruiting is one of the most statistically ineffective processes within any business or organization.

Not only are failure rates among new hires incredibly high extreme outperformance and success are the extreme exception rather than the rule.

All of this in spite of people selection, delegation and management being one of the oldest responsibilities in history including billions of instances with monumental amounts of data.

It’s so bad that most smart companies will realize they’ll have to hire several people in order to get one who works out really well or at best settle for mediocrity.

Organizations have done all sorts of things in an attempt to mitigate this such as complex lengthy hiring processes, psychometric testing, and precise systemization.

Most hiring processes are essentially a crap shoot where you might as well select a random applicant and run the odds in fact for certain positions within reason we actually advocate this process but generally there’s a better process.

For reference efficacy of recruiting processes (their success rate) tends to vary from about 10% - 40% for the best common processes out there.

To understand why this is and what to do about it it helps to have a bit of context around what you need in order to succeed.

Think of the people you’re hiring like different dishes (very depersonalized I known, bear with me) in other words different flavors. Imagine the role or position like the taste of someone eating.

You’re trying to match the best flavor with the appropriate taste except with dramatically more complexity.

What do you need in order to do this successfully?

First, you need knowledge of the taste of the person eating. Second, you need knowledge of the flavor being offered so you can match them appropriately.

Chances are you don’t need an exact precise match in most cases a few taste options will work.

You’ve got 4 basic leverage points:

  1. Be really good at the match – we’ll focus on this shortly
  2. Adjust the tastes of the eater to give you more workable options (say through management)
  3. Adjust the flavor being offered to improve the fit (say through training)
  4. Become more efficient to run through more options

In general we suggest you do all four.

For now though let’s dive into #1, why it’s so hard and what to do about it?


Lesson #4 – The 4 Things You Need to Be Great at Matching

There’s a simple set of reasons most people and most hiring processes fail miserably.

In order to do it well on a consistent basis you need 4 things every single time:

  1. Understanding of the success factors – in other words what will make someone great in this position? Most people fail from the get go here.
  2. A lot of data about who they are hiring – people are so broad we need to know about all the different aspects about this person that might make them thrive for flounder within the role.
  3. HIgh quality data about who they are hiring – it’s not enough that we have a lot of data the data needs to be of high quality or accuracy in order to be useful.
  4. Understanding of how to interpret the data – all the data in the world isn’t useful if you don’t know what to do with it.

Failing to properly understand the success factors in the role is the first major gap in fact most people don’t deeply consider what the role is, what skills are required, etc. to create a proper profile.

#2 & #3 explain how come the traditional hiring process of:

  • Review resume
  • Conduct interviews
  • Do reference checks
  • Make decision

Is almost a complete waste of time.

After all, you’re asking someone who wants the job if you should hire them. In a sense giving them a chance to sell you rather than really digging in to research whether it’s a good fit.

Candidates are NOT a reliable information source about whether they are a good fit.

For the most part highly reliable hiring processes should almost entirely disregard what candidates state about themselves and focus instead on external unbiased indicators.

Finally, none of this matters without an understanding of how to interpret what you hear and in particular this requires getting past cognitive biases.

The challenge is not simply doing all of this but doing so relatively efficiently so you’re able to achieve a positive ROI.


Lesson #5 – The Method of Putting It All Together

Of course none of the above matters if you don’t have any candidates at all.

The great news is there’s one method with higher statistical efficacy than any other achieving all of these at once and we’re going to look at how to supercharge it.

We call this the Climbing the Ladder method and I’ve used it for years in networking and putting deals together.

Where does the method start?

With something we’re all familiar with…getting referrals.

Notice the difference between getting referrals and asking for references.

If you ask someone for a reference about someone specific they’ll generally not want to provide a negative reference so it’s hard to get good quality information.

By contrast if you ask “is there someone you’d recommend who is amazing” they’ll simply not mention someone they might have wanted to avoid giving a negative reference to.

How does this premise work?

Your best data initially is regarding people you know and have relationships with but you only know so many people so you expand this by an order of magnitude by asking the people you know who they know and would recommend.

Here’s the simple math of how it expands your reach. Let’s say on average you know 200 people (most people know a lot more than this but with whom you have decent relationships this is probably reasonable for most people as a topline average).

Of these 200 very few might meet what you’re looking for but each of those 200 might know another 200 so this a total of 40,000.

Naturally, there’s overlap so it’s not close to that many but might be 10,000 or so. In other words in a small town almost everyone in connected through a maximum of 3 degrees of separation (you know someone who knows someone who knows someone).

Again most of those 10,000 people won’t be a fit but who knows if they might be a fit?

Those who have long personal relationships with them and plenty of experience.

So your recruiting process starts by going to your network with two questions:

  1. “Who do you know who might be a fit?”
  2. “Who do you know who might know who would be a fit?”

This will almost invariably generate a series of referrals as a starting point.

You’re now able to quiz these people about those they are recommending before you go to them:

  • “How do you know them?”
  • “What are they like?”
  • “What makes you recommend them?”
  • “What makes them better than others you’ve worked with?”
  • “What’s their style?”
  • Etc.
  • Etc.
  • Etc.

You climb the ladder by going to those who were recommended and repeat the process:

“So and so recommended you as someone who might be able to help. Who do you know whose amazing at this or who do you know who would know?”

In cases such as these people don’t want to look bad so they aren’t going to recommend someone who they don’t think will make them look good.

Because they have direct personal experience and don’t have an incentive to lie they’ll give you higher quality data about the person than the person themselves would.

Because they’ve known the person for a long time you’ll get more data from them in a shorter time than you could ever gather in an interviewing process or test task where you’re limited to a few hours to a few days of experience, a very small context.

Super simple but super effective.

There is of course a lot of advanced strategy regarding how to do this if you want to get really into it that will help you dramatically improve your odds and your reach but this is a strong starting point to give you a dramatic edge over the traditional methods.

If you’d like more information reach out to us or check out some of our trainings.

,

Hiring Case Study: Resumes are a waste here’s what’s better

As crass as the above image is it hits the nail right on the head. At the end of the day as business owners we must take responsibility for everything that happens within our business. I personally was sick and tired of hiring the wrong people for mine. What I’m about to show you has saved me thousands of dollars in outsourcing to the wrong outsourcers or hiring the wrong employees as well as countless hours of frustration, resentment and basically everything that makes me procrastinate and hate what I do.

Have you ever hired someone to build you a landing page or a website? And instead of making your life easier it just made it harder? and instead of saving you time and money it made things more expensive and consumed more of your valuable time? This used to happen to me all the time. Keep reading on as I show you the EXACT processes and systems I developed for screening and hiring employees till it reached the point of minimum effort and maximum gain (Typically called the Pareto principle but you get the idea).

The most commonly used methods to screen applicants when recruiting and hiring are also the most useless yet somehow most companies persist in this idiotic behavior.

You don’t need to be like them, you can improve your hiring results and decrease your time spent extremely easily through some simple changes to your process.

Today we’ll explore one of them – the alternative to resumes.

I should mention in advance this particular technique is designed for low and medium skilled positions.  Although it can in theory be applied to high skill and executive positions the application there serves a different purpose.

We’ve used this method successfully to screen:

  • Labourers
  • Sales people
  • Engineers (electrical, mechanical, geotechnical, etc.)
  • Trades people (welders, machinists, mechanics, etc.)
  • Technical people (computer programmers, technicians, etc.)
  • Many others

 

You can grab our whole step by step process with examples by downloading our recruiting process templates

 

Background – The Screening Problem

bad hire

I owned a recruiting company for 7 years we screened tens of thousands of applicants, often we’d get literally hundreds applying for a single job.  There’d also be times where we wanted to go back into our database to find someone who fit what we were looking for…how do you do that when you’ve got literally tens of thousands to weed through?

This was an exhausting process to say the least.

Let me do some quick math for you.

If you sit down and review resumes thoroughly say they are on average 2 pages and you read 1 page per minute that’s 2 minutes per resume to read it over.  Frankly, some are longer and you probably won’t be giving much attention to detail but consider what this does to your hiring costs.

2 minutes per resume multiplied by say 200 resumes is 400 minutes of time…just screening resumes.  That’s over 6 hours!  And that’s without accounting for distractions, etc.

If your time or the time of the person screening is worth $50/hr (it’s almost certainly more by the time you consider operational overhead, etc.) that’s over $300 you’ve spent and for what?  You’re not going to remember most of those, at best you’ve got a very long short list.

What’s the alternative?

Most people develop biases that allow them to screen resumes faster.  I’d train our staff to screen a resume in about 20 seconds each looking for very specific things based on the position.

What’s the problem?

The biases are almost always at least partially wrong, things like “do they have a university degree” becomes a way to screen because you’ve got to do something to narrow the candidate list even if a degree has absolutely nothing to do with whether they’ll make a good hire.

The other solution involves technology.

Software can parse the resumes and make them searchable, decreasing how much time you spend opening files and reading through information.

The problem?  The resume itself is the problem!  It doesn’t matter if you can parse it, it rarely includes the information necessary to properly screen the person for the next step.  Search works based on keywords and a great applicant might through no fault of their own not use the keyword you’re searching for.

Why?  Because they don’t know what you’re looking for.  The candidate has created a form resume designed to be submitted to dozens of possible jobs so it’s generally generic and often includes irrelevant information while missing key points that matter to you.

What often ends up happening is whoever is screening the resumes doesn’t look through all the applicants but just settles for one near the top meaning they could be missing someone way better but because they don’t have the time to go through them all they’ll never know.

I’m as guilty of this as anyone and it felt bad to know that the squeaky wheel would get the grease or someone really good was missing out because they weren’t as aggressive in following up.

 

Resumes are Irrelevant

 

There are some voodoo consultants who claim to have magical powers to determine candidate fit from resumes.  It’s rubbish.  Complete and utter nonsense.  Here’s why:

  1. Often resumes aren’t even written by the person applying for a job they might have used a template or gone to a third party resume writing service so what you think you’re gleaning from that resume might have little to do with them.

 

  1. Often the best candidates have poor resumes because they aren’t used to having to write resumes because they are busy doing great work, they are throwing one together quickly to apply when they are otherwise busy. By contrast some of the worst candidates are professional job seekers who might have great resumes.

 

  1. A good resume is designed to sell you not give you objective information about whether the candidate is a good hire so it’s at worst lies and at best highly filtered data, neither of which tells you accurately whether the person is a good candidate or not.

We tried all kinds of fancy voodoo, language profiling, NLP writing analysis, learning for different personality patterns in the writing, etc.  We consistently got the same result…frustration as what the resume said or how it was written failed to correspond to on the job performance.

Think a spelling mistake or grammatical error means the person is a poor candidate?  First, in the real world a spelling or grammatical error is rarely high impact, second, anyone can make a mistake and it doesn’t prove anything as much as you’d like to think it does or should.

These are the kinds of biases people form reading resumes.

Bottom line isn’t to bash on resumes it’s to point out that they are a waste of time…quit wasting your time.  You’re literally throwing money down the drain unnecessarily.

 

The Disqualification Process

The goal of the resume or what we’ll call the application process isn’t to select someone to hire it’s to decide who not to move to the next step in the process.

Ideally, this step helps you build an easy to reference database and gather some market data.

The way to do this is to determine your “disqualifiers”, which are objective in nature and then screen out anyone who doesn’t meet them as quickly as possible.

Please note, these disqualifiers should be data driven, meaning there’s no interpretation involved.  A huge part of the problem with resumes is they are so open to interpretation that you can out think yourself.  You want to eliminate thought from the process and make it robotic.

What does this accomplish?

It means you can outsource this step for $2/hr. saving thousands.  It means it can be done extremely quickly saving thousands.  And it means you can make better quality decisions, which will likewise save you thousands.

 

If you’d like you can download our disqualification templates here.

 

The Resume Alternative

We generally refer to the resume alternative as a disqualification email simply because we deliver it by email but it could just as easily be an application form you have applicants fill out on your website or in person when applying (less practical today).

What you’re aiming to do here is to reduce your cost per hire and decreasing the time to hire while simultaneously increasing your quality of hire.

Bottom line your objective here is to improve your hiring ROI.  Remember everyone you hire should be making you money not costing you money and the less they cost you including the cost to hire and manage them the better off you are.  Literally, hiring can be a huge competitive advantage.

When we started doing this it felt so much better.  It’s more efficient, it’s clearer, and more organized for the future.

Process wise what you’ll do is have everyone who applies fill out this form you’ll create for them.  Literally you’ll never read an email they send or look at a resume those are both a waste of time.  On your website or in your ads you’ll encourage them to fill out the appropriate form and if they send you a resume you’ll reply with this instead.

It’s highly efficient and actually will allow you to give better service to the candidates, which they appreciate.

Literally, for the initial point of contact you can use an auto-responder or templated email.

Download a sample in our copy and paste recruiting template pack here.

 

Disqualification Form

Really it’s very simple.  You’re going to ask them for every objective piece of information you’re looking for rather than relying on them to guess what you need to know.

You’re going to remove emotion from the screening process by standardizing how you gather the information.

The key here is to ask for OBJECTIVE information.

In other words, you’ll never ask something like “are you a hard worker?” or “are you a team player?”

You’ll ask about whether they have particular certifications and ask them to provide a copy or a certification #.

You’ll ask logistical questions like what schedule they are available to work.

You’ll ask about experience only in an objective manner like “please name 3 projects of such and such type that you’ve worked on” or “please list the heavy equipment you’ve operated”.

The idea here isn’t to provide perfect screening on the quality of how well they’ve done it only to establish with relative accuracy that they have done it so it’s worth your time to screen further.

These questions should be tailored to the individual position you’re hiring for and not be generic though of course you’ll have some overlap between positions.  What this should also do is match

What you’ll end up with is a form you can fill out that corresponds to the position profile you created so you can see at a glance the quality of match.  It all works perfectly together.

To get a copy of the position profile, disqualification form template, etc. download our copy & paste recruiting template swipe file here.

,

When The Cat Is Away The Mice Will Go Play

There is a holy grail of business pursued by many who don’t love what they do and that is the idea of a business that runs without you.  Arguably, a good business, a strong business, should run without the owner to a certain extent.  It’s possible to achieve this feat in even small businesses if you have well trained staff, strong systems and can easily keep an eye on details.  This is almost never truly hands off in the absolute abdication sense but can certainly become low maintenance requiring no more than  one to four hours per week to maintain.  Ironically, there’s a bit of a sweet spot it seems in most businesses where this can be achieved beyond which more energy is required and below which more energy is required.  However, what you’ll learn is it is never so straight forward on a sustainable basis.

Energy input is required for growth, you can either put it in yourself or you can have someone else put it in, but one way or another it is required and if it’s to be to your benefit you’d better provide at least enough energy to direct it.  This brings up a very important principle, not so much a rule because it isn’t always true, but it’s a generally wise assumption.  People will tend to act in their self-interest.  People also tend to fall into routine.  What does this mean for you?

If you ignore your business one of two things will tend to occur, perhaps not immediately, perhaps not universally, but in general it will take place.  Either people will get lazy doing what they can get by doing as opposed to pushing the boundaries to do better, or they will take advantage of what is given to them to benefit themselves.  Three real examples from businesses I’ve owned:

  1. Staff were given a list of duties to complete daily and standards to live up to, certain amounts of work they were expected to get done by the end of each shift, however, in the absence of an on-site manager staying on top of what was done and what wasn’t done they started to slip, they’d leave something for the next shift, they would fail to get it all done, they’d let the standards of how well they were doing one thing or another slip, all of which cost us money

 

  1. Staff would clock themselves in for additional hours, not that they were lying about being present but the company really didn’t need them if everyone was doing their job efficiently,the business had no policy to pay them for those hours, they weren’t authorized to come in during those hours and it would cost the company money for them to be there for extra non-revenue generating hours

 

  1. Some staff would steal clients for their own private work outside the company taking them for on the side services competitive with what the business was offering saying “the prices will be lower”

These are startling examples from just one company of the kinds of things that occur when you’ve got absentee management, when there isn’t someone actively in place watching the numbers, the staff, the performance constantly.  It’s sometimes under appreciated by small business owners just how much difference being on top of the details constantly can make in a business.  In the case of extra staff hours I audited the time sheets and discovered inefficiencies due in part to staff spending extra time beyond what they should be and partially due to inefficient scheduling was adding an additional 20% to payroll costs, all of which would be pure profit with the right management.  In the case of staff who slacked off the estimate was somewhere around an additional 5-10% boost in revenue if the staff were only diligent.  These are small examples but they are also short term examples, factors such as these erode and grow building momentum until they eat a company, a $10 000 monthly profit can quickly turn into a loss if not carefully monitored.

There’s an expression that “people respect what you inspect”.  It doesn’t necessarily have to be you doing the inspection but there is an enormous cost to not remaining on top of the numbers and the people, not constantly optimizing and tweaking.  When you are absent people behave differently, they think and feel differently, they start talking in ways you probably won’t like.

Bottom line, for any business to succeed at a high level it needs effective management, whether you or someone else make sure there’s a manager in place who takes ownership, has the will and the skill to make the organization thrive.

If you’ve got business management or growth or any other questions we’d love to hear from you.  Contact us with your questions.

,

Are Business Coaches a Good Idea?

Today we’re going to discuss an interesting topic, are business coaches a good idea?  The discussion is prompted by a comment a business owner recently gave to someone advocating business coaching in response to “what was he doing to keep more money every month to build wealth?”  His response was “I now keep $4000 each month rather than giving it to a business coach”.  It’s an interesting point is a business coach just another expense or does he/she provide real meaningful value?

Generally, the people talking about this stuff are the coaches, authors, speakers, consultants, etc. those who have an invested interest in you paying for their services and that of their colleagues.  On the other hand it can’t be denied that top athletes all have coaches is that just a sports phenomenon?  Or have the sports coaches pulled the wool over the eyes of the athletic community?  It’s also noteworthy that major business leaders (former Google CEO Eric Schmidt is one of the most prominent examples of someone who publically advocated it as one of the best pieces of advice for a business leader).  Then again maybe that applies for high level business leaders and athletes and not those starting out?

It’s certainly undeniable that coaching can be a significant expense for a small business owner where $1000-$10 000 per month can make a huge difference.  By contrast for a company like Google affording a coach is really a non-issue it’s more a question of the leader’s time and focus than the actual monetary cost and the gain can be phenomenal because it’s leveraged over a much larger organization.  But is this an argument against coaching in low level business?

The simple answer is “it depends” on both the coach and the person being coached.  If you’re not coachable then having a coach is a waste of money.  There are also a lot of crap coaches out there and business tends to suffer a higher percentage of them than sports.  What’s the problem?  The process.  If you look at a professional athlete the way they are coached is the coach runs them through drills over and over, observes what they are doing and corrects.  In the case of business coaches most tend to operate by meeting with you every so often, sitting down to talk about the business generally with no hard data such as actual numbers and ask you questions to try to get you to do something different.  Not very surprising when the process is less effective than it is in athletics since sports coaches are generally training you the way you actually get better at things, business coaches are often like a friend discussing business issues with you, not that this can’t be effective but it tends to be less effective.

If you’ve got a great coach the coach can be worth their cost many times over.  Why?  Because it can drastically shortcut your learning, which is the most costly and difficult part of success for most people.

So how do you select a coach that’s going to be worthwhile?  Focus on someone who has already solved (either themselves or with someone else) the problems you are facing, someone who can tell you “hey this is what you need to do right now and here’s how to do it”.  That kind of insight is immeasurably valuable.  Want to rank on Google?  You better have someone who can look at your webpage and tell you specifically the exact fields that need to be changed, what they need to be changed to, and how.

Next, if you’re going to get a coach get someone who will delve right into the metrics of the company with you and provide those metrics.  Someone who expects to sit in a boardroom across the country somewhere spilling out advice without direct information about your business isn’t the right person.  If you’ve got a problem with staff you want someone who can spend time in the environment with the staff and make an assessment.  If they are going to coach you on how to manage and lead those staff members they need to be able to watch you do it not just hear about what you think happened but observe it directly.

Of course all of this means nothing if they aren’t going to hold you accountable and you’re not going to trust them and do what they say so make sure you’re coachable.  If you put all of those together a great coach can be one of the best investments you’ll ever make.

If you’d like to learn more about about how to select a good coach or how to make the most of a coach or have any other business or wealth building questions please contact us by clicking “Ask a business question” floating at the bottom right of your screen.

, , ,

The Wrong Reason to Hire Someone

Today I got to re-witness a story I saw play out many times in my father’s life and business.  It’s a hard won lesson that some of you are going to take hard and be resistant to.  In spite of this I promise you it’s the right advice…especially for those who resist it.  Hopefully you’re not someone who has fallen into that trap and for you this advice will be self-evident.

I’ve had the good fortune over the last little while to know someone who has been struggling to find work.  My naturally tendency is to be soft hearted, generous, kind, etc.  All good qualities and in this case qualities I have to resist.  See my desire is to hire them for something, to come become a chef for me for my home meals (something I don’t need right now) or an internet marketing assistant (something they have zero qualifications for and would require massive training which their not motivated to undertake) or who knows what else.  The problem is this would do two things:

  1. It would be charity on my part effectively representing not a fair exchange and definitely not beneficial to me in fact likely costing me far more than the money

 

  1. Not serve that person even though they think it would and would like me to do it it would be a short term service at long term expense

 

Some problems simply aren’t solved short term and some problems are solved in the macro not the one off cases and this is painful for people who want to fixate on the small scale.  Not helping someone by paying for their trip to Mexico to a family member’s wedding, it’s hard they have to stay back (don’t get me wrong, you can do these things but they are pure charity and they aren’t addressing a root cause so the problem creating the situation will perpetuate, the best charity creates productivity but that’s for another discussion).  There are lots of examples.

Growing up I saw my father do this again and again in his small business, take pity on someone, see how he could help them and give them a job for which they were ill suited and resulted in a loss for him.  On the surface this seems kind hearted, it is in a sense, but it’s a bad move for everyone for a number of reasons:

  1. It’s just plain a stupid financial decision, there’s a stage and time for philanthropy and a way to do it well and this is not it
  2. It denies someone more skilled, motivated, and capable from having the same job
  3. It hurts your company reputation and brings the whole organization down
  4. It doesn’t build up the person you’re hiring so it perpetuates behavior that needs to change
  5. It leaves you with less to give in areas that you can have a higher impact

Among other faults it’s much like the give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish analogy.

I’ve made this mistake on a few occasions both lending money and hiring people sometimes literally to the point where I took money I legitimately needed (possibly as much or more so than them) and gave it away never to be returned.

The best result for everyone comes from win-win interactions, from creating the best net effect so there’s more abundance to go around in the long run.  This is a microcosm approach that seems good up close but hurts overall.

Learn the lesson, hire the best people you can every time and if you’d like to do charity or philanthropy do that separate from business and do it in a way that maximizes the impact you can make with each hour and each dollar and you’ll have the biggest possible effect in changing the world.

If you’d like some assistance or mentorship on how to hire the best people or on other business issues contact us and we’ll be happy to help.