Leaders Choose Their Futures, Sooner Over Later

As economic downturns lift, many people in business remain hesitant about driving forward with purposeful strategies. It is as though they remain in the dark, watching the rear view mirror and each side of the road for dangers ahead. Then when dawn is breaking, they find that the Sooners have beaten them again.

Think back in time. The Sooners were people who crossed the line into new territories in the Oklahoma land rush ahead of the starting time. In recessionary years it is almost as though many businesses keep “holding their horses” and as a result may have missed some earlier opportunities to hit pay-dirt.

Those holding back are conscientious people who mean well. They have good intentions. They believe they are protecting their organizations with carefully exercised prudence.

It is hard to quarrel with that wisdom in down times; but if you find yourself regretting your own timing and wishing you had invested more and sooner in what appears to be a continuing recovery, you ought to ask yourself whether your good intentions were really all that good for you or your organization.

Leaders who take a strategic, forthright, intentional posture to their futures (whether for their businesses or their own careers), place their eyes on the prize--not on conventional wisdom, the consensus of others, the law of averages or the uncertain behavior from a general statement of market conditions.

Consider those who apply a definite focus, who are clear and determined and do things on purpose. They are leaders who have a leg up on their futures. They operate with relish and assertiveness because they visualize opportunity. As a result, they marshal energetic support from their people --those critical folks who bring about the intended outcomes. Sometimes they execute on this vision with a sudden flourish, and in other cases after dogged hard work. 

These leaders are pro-choice. They are choosers who press for the future. They don’t spend precious time defending discarded strategies. They choose, instead, to lead the charge sooner rather than later.

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