4 ms·

> ...but I do see hiring based on personality or "fit" remaining a target even when it makes sense and is done appropriately and the right intentions. I think

by tetrep 10y ago

> ...but I do see hiring based on personality or "fit" remaining a target even when it makes sense and is done appropriately and the right intentions. I think "fit" is a cop-out when left unspecified. It's a reasonable way to reject someone when you can clarify why someone is unfit. I think rejecting a hire because you don't like them isn't okay unless you understand why you don't like them. Understanding that someone would be bad because they're overly argumentative, can't take criticism in a calm or level-headed manner, or because they're prone to interpersonal conflict is a legitimate way to reach the conclusion that they would be a bad fit. But if you get the cabal together and accept a simple "I don't like them" without requiring details, it becomes ripe for abuse; if only by your own subconscious judgements.

bpyne 10y ago
Each member of your team has a set of strengths and weaknesses in subject area, technical ability, learning ability, and too many other soft factors to enumerate. When hiring a new person, you're trying to find a fit for the existing strengths and weaknesses. For example, a team with generally good technical skills and learning ability that has gotten a little complacent about trying new technologies may benefit from a person with a lot of passion for new technology (and an ability to "sell" the technology to other team members). Basically, as a leader you're looking for a "spark" for that team. If you're interviewing a candidate who is great in every way, but has more of a "go with the flow" personality, the person isn't a good "fit". I used a simple hypothetical example around one desired trait, but I hope you understand how hopeless it is to have an objective standard for "fit/unfit" when it changes according to the dynamics of the team. A boss of mine many years ago gave me the advice, "To be successful as a leader, you have to remember that your primary task is managing personalities."
- jacobush 10y ago
  ... your own."
Nomentatus 10y ago
I suspect you're right, tetrep, in thinking that most companies will fall back into their own subconscious preferences. But ideally this article would lead companies to track their hires and force themselves to hire touchy, argumentative innovators if it was clear that their last several hires were low on innovation. Because now "best fit for the company" would mean "different than most people already in the company" as opposed to "someone who would fit right in 'cause their personality-skills are entirely redundant." Generally managers chose whatever course of action makes their own lives easier; and will then convince themselves that that's also in the interest of the company. The research the article cites should make it harder for HR managers to do that in the future; but we'll see. If nothing else, this research gives you a way to evaluate your HR people. If they aren't hiring a variety of personalities, or are predominantly hiring people with personality scores very similar to their own; toss them immediately.
- jacobush 10y ago
  Thanks, I came here to try to say this, probably in a confused way.

by tetrep 10y ago

bpyne 10y ago

Each member of your team has a set of strengths and weaknesses in subject area, technical ability, learning ability, and too many other soft factors to enumerate. When hiring a new person, you're trying to find a fit for the existing strengths and weaknesses. For example, a team with generally good technical skills and learning ability that has gotten a little complacent about trying new technologies may benefit from a person with a lot of passion for new technology (and an ability to "sell" the technology to other team members). Basically, as a leader you're looking for a "spark" for that team. If you're interviewing a candidate who is great in every way, but has more of a "go with the flow" personality, the person isn't a good "fit". I used a simple hypothetical example around one desired trait, but I hope you understand how hopeless it is to have an objective standard for "fit/unfit" when it changes according to the dynamics of the team. A boss of mine many years ago gave me the advice, "To be successful as a leader, you have to remember that your primary task is managing personalities."

jacobush 10y ago
... your own."

Nomentatus 10y ago

I suspect you're right, tetrep, in thinking that most companies will fall back into their own subconscious preferences. But ideally this article would lead companies to track their hires and force themselves to hire touchy, argumentative innovators if it was clear that their last several hires were low on innovation. Because now "best fit for the company" would mean "different than most people already in the company" as opposed to "someone who would fit right in 'cause their personality-skills are entirely redundant." Generally managers chose whatever course of action makes their own lives easier; and will then convince themselves that that's also in the interest of the company. The research the article cites should make it harder for HR managers to do that in the future; but we'll see. If nothing else, this research gives you a way to evaluate your HR people. If they aren't hiring a variety of personalities, or are predominantly hiring people with personality scores very similar to their own; toss them immediately.

jacobush 10y ago
Thanks, I came here to try to say this, probably in a confused way.