What is a "Pilot Hole" Hire?

A Fable: A growing family-managed firm had reached the point where it needed to hire its first non-family executive for a newly created role. Up to this time, family members had been able to share the many hats needed to run the business. After a diligent search and assessment, the new manager comes on board--excited about the prospects of bringing innovative ideas to the company. Within six months the executive is let go--the victim of another “pilot hole” hire.

The Relationship Between a Pilot Hole and Executive Hiring

A pilot hole serves as a guide. Drilling a pilot hole before using a screw or nail to join parts together makes for a tighter fit and prevents the wood, drywall or plaster from splitting. A pilot hole paves the way for transition.

The pilot hole analogy can be applied to executive search and management. Sometimes the first person entering a new job ends up being used to pave the way for an easier transition for this individual’s successor. Often, the problem isn’t entirely with the pilot hole hire.

Adjusting to Change

When a new function is introduced to an organization, the new executive hired to lead has a tough transition to make. Previously, the duties assigned will have been collected from among several people, who may feel that losing their newly transferred duties is not so much of a relief as it is a loss of power and status. Managers used to calling their own shots may resent the arrival of the new executive. As new rules, procedures and controls are introduced, managers can feel they have lost prerogatives.

Meanwhile, the new hire must adjust to an established setting, where there is ample opportunity for the “new kid on the block” to misread cues and traditions.

When inevitable chemistry, personality or philosophical differences come to light, people can begin to talk about the new team member as “not fitting in” and may start exhibiting behavior that undermines the new executive—often criticizing style rather than substance.

Same Hole. Different Person.

Most people are hired precisely because they are different and bring something new. But in newly created roles, it is all too common that the new pro turns out to be a short- term hire.

Ironically, the next person brought into the role often shares the same credentials and interpersonal style as did the predecessor; but is accepted into the organization much more easily because of the “pilot hole” drilled by the pioneer who paved the way.

Why the turnover? Part of the issue is that staff often want to keep things as they were. Meanwhile, the new hire takes to heart the boss’ phrase “we want you to make an impact” when given marching orders. Energetically, the new professional does a cannonball dive into what appeared to be a calm pool. The resulting impact on the rest of the people can be unsettling as the new hire makes a big splash within the organization.

Avoiding a Split

Is a “pilot hole hire” inevitable? Assuming the right person was hired during the executive search process, there are ways to help avoid troubles during the transition of this new hire into a new role. Here are some tips:

1. Make certain everyone on the management team is on the same page regarding goals, expectations and support of the new hire.

2. Provide solid orientation and make it a two-way process. In addition to orienting the new hire to the organization and its workforce, provide activities that help current staff to adjust to the new person in this new role.

3. The new executive should solicit counsel on how best to prepare to “enter the water” in order to build successful common alliances.

A wise entry plan can assure a solid and lasting fit.

Be Irrational When Selecting Leaders

Choosing the right people for your organization requires careful attention, assessment and analysis. Given the importance of these decisions, let’s break down the progression of thoughts that play into the employee selection process.

 Most of us take a left-brain/logical approach when faced with critical decisions. In candidate search and selection this involves an examination that is organized around job description specifications, key credentials and detailed criteria for leadership selection. It is, by its very nature, a rational approach.

If hiring success was a science and we used only left-brain predictive factors, it would reason that all people with excellent credentials should turn out to be star performers.Yet, common experience shows that rational criteria remain inadequate predictors of future successful job performance.   

Rational data can certainly be useful in paring down the field of candidates to a manageable number; but when the hiring process reaches the stage of personal interviews, it is time for the left-brain to concede to right-brain thinking.

Getting Personal

The person-to-person interview stage applies the most pivotal hiring factors—the irrational factors—allowing them to come into focus using intuitive measuring tools. These measurements may include: sensing whether a candidate “feels right," shares your values, displays compatible chemistry and communications styles with your stakeholders, or demonstrates both a high E.Q. (Emotional Intelligence) and the I.Q. to match with your environment.

Be Aware of a Caveat

There is a danger that can accompany this irrational/intuitive mode. The peril lies in the impact of misleading prejudices you may possess. For instance, it is important to guard against both positive biases (such as “just like me”) and negative ones. These negative touch points can range from: “I fear she’s a liberal (or conservative)”; “What’s up with his beard?”; or a myriad of other non-objective considerations tempered by legislation.

Choosing Wisely

The interview process is your invitation to think irrationally; and if you are careful to keep your positive and negative prejudices in check, you will choose well. As a spirited irrational screener you may positively identify that spark in a person that suggests a likely successful future relationship. You will be using your best human gifts for reading and relating to others.

If you are accustomed to using rational approaches to decision making, try positively applying your gifts for irrationality. You’ll improve your chances of achieving success with the leaders you bring aboard.

“To want to tackle everything rationally is very irrational.” Ilyas, Kassam, author

Hiring the "Least Worst" Limits Future Results

Executive staffing has perennially been a matter of discovering that there are too few stars available, despite the steadily increasing demand for effective leadership.

Making hiring compromises has long been viewed as a pragmatic response to the reality that there are more jobs begging for skilled leaders than there are ideal candidates to match them. Too often, this results in the “least worst” candidate being hired.

Why does this happen?

The decision to hire a person from a pool of finalists who are “not quite” what you originally expected is usually a result of:

·         Incomplete preparation and a lack of investigation regarding the intended search process. Examples of processes that require up-front clarification include: decisions regarding whether you will seek outside expertise in the search and selection process; who within your company should be involved; and how the available position will be promoted.

·         Making inadequate assumptions about necessary job criteria or credentials, rather than choosing standards that are based upon factors that correlate positively with success on the job.

·         Taking short cuts in both recruiting and assessments by: limiting the number of trained interviewers; skipping over psychological assessments; or failing to dig thoroughly into references from past employers. 

Impatience with the screening processes due to a search that is focused more on “fast”  than on “fit”.

·         Screening people chiefly on their credentials rather than on their values and the behaviors that match your company’s culture.

·         Mismanaging distractions that shift the hiring executive’s focus toward other priorities, thus shifting the search to a back burner.

·         Unwillingness to problem-solve your process when the “right” people don’t happen to surface early on.

It stands to reason that “least worst” hires do not meet all of your “fit” expectations; therefore, it is likely that they will also be unable to achieve all of your outcome expectations.

Despite the organization’s strong legitimate pressures, your long-term interests will be best served by taking the time to prepare well at the outset in order to choose the “right” candidate, rather than compromise in a rush to hire the ‘least worst” choice.

When choosing leadership, choose wisely. Your organization’s future depends on it.

 *Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Be Irrational When Choosing a Leader

Choosing the right person to lead typically receives careful attention, assessment and analysis; and for good reasons. Yet, if we become too logical in selecting leaders we risk ignoring the Achilles Heel of hiring...a counterproductive vulnerable spot in the leadership staffing process.  

Classic logical/left brain executive selection methods are organized around examining a prospect's key credentials, employing a presumably rational hiring process. If hiring parties apply such presumably objective approaches to their selection processes, how will an irrational approach positively contribute to better decision making?

Credentials and career history far too often turn out to be inadequate predictors of future successful performance on the job. Granted, this rational (but often unreliable) data offers the benefit of sorting a field of candidates down to a manageable number to interview, but once that pool of possibilities is assembled the left-brained/logical part of the process should end.

Getting Personal

Personal interviews allow the principal hiring characteristics--the irrational factors--to be assessed. While the right brained interviewing stage brings the principal credentials based selection criteria into play, there are interpersonal decisions that are made irrationally...and appropriately so.

Classic interview formats permit the hiring parties to determine whether the candidates share the organization's values; demonstrate a communications style compatible with the organization's stakeholders; have sufficient "E.Q."(Emotional Intelligence)and an adequate I.Q. to match the environment's demands.

But there is a danger that accompanies these intuited yardstick filters. The peril lies in the impact that any subtly misleading prejudices you hold may skew your assessment decisions. It is fundamentally sound to guard against both positive biases ("halo effect", "just like us") and negative ones ("not our kind", or here fill in the blanks with all of the foolish discriminations now addressed by legislation, as well as those carried in your own personal "baggage"). Underlying assumptions of the interviewers may be just as far off base as are some of their rational criteria.

Choosing Wisely

While the interview process inevitably carries some element of thinking irrationally, if you are conscious in freeing your judgment from the constraints of your prejudices you will judge well. As a spirited, freely irrational screener you no doubt will identify the spark in a person that suggests that you are likely to advance a successful future relationship, applying your best gifts to reading and relating to others.

On the other hand, if you self-handicap your assessment judgment, whether with irrelevant rational criteria or with intuited prejudices you invariably will fail to judge wisely.

We are accustomed to relying on rational approaches to our decision making. Acquiring or amplifying our native gifts for irrationality serves us well. When we become irrational in selecting leaders we improve our odds of success in choosing leaders.

"To want to tackle everything rationally is very irrational."  Ilyas Kassam