Here is an interesting overview by Dr. Charles Handler on the relevance of hiring for potential versus skill. Reading it I am reminded of the many times I have been asked by Casino Organizations to interview their analyst candidates, usually as a part of the final selection process prior to an offer being made. As an interviewer I always looked for specific traits in an analyst candidate – the ability to communicate effectively using a variety of mediums, a background exposed to critical thinking, and, most importantly, the ability to “sell” a specific idea or viewpoint. In short, I generally espouse a strategic view of candidates during the hiring process.
Dr. Handler has challenged my strategic thinking by making an excellent tactical point on the need to understand the culture of the hiring company when determining which candidate traits actually represent the best “fit.” For example, if the hiring company does not possess the mentors required to develop a candidate into a polished analyst then raw potential will usually remain just that – having not actually accomplished anything. Also representing the tactical argument is the pain threshold of the hiring organization. In cases where a Casino is desperate for analytical output I would recommend that a more experienced candidate be brought on board so that already-acquired industry skills can be put to immediate use. Short of bringing in independent consultants to assist the organization, the tactical hiring for skill in these cases would seem to make good business sense.
As Dr. Handler suggests, the reality of the situation probably lies in between on the hiring of potential versus skill. A careful understanding of the hiring organization’s business situation, culture, and ability to develop potential should be undertaken prior to beginning the hiring process. Knowing the correct balance of the strategic and tactical needs in advance will allow the best candidate to receive the offer.
No comments:
Post a Comment