 That would just be too easy an answer, right? In fact, it's the rigorous recruiting process from application to graduation that allows only the best to become Navy SEALS.
What special processes do they use to "hire" the best of the best, how can they do it so consistently, and what can you learn from it? The training is designed to screen out the weak. It might sound a bit Darwinian, but especially in this game, only the strong survive.
0 Comments
 Ah, the 91-Day Wonder. They provide just enough performance to get past most 90-day evaluation periods.
If it's happened to you, don't feel bad. This could happen to almost any hiring manager for any position, although sales managers may feel this more than anyone based on the example I'm about to provide. For some reason, they seem to be the most likely targets for this little scheme, which you'll understand better as this story develops.  Hiring new employees can be a risky business, though it doesn't have to be. One of the more common mistakes I see in the hiring process is screening in candidates to the pool of finalists.
What exactly is screening in? It's the hope that you'll end up with a nice selection of final candidates to find that diamond in the rough. Making exceptions, creating shortcuts, or whatever means you use, but the result of the problem is that you intend to compare candidates to one another.  The scenario: Really, really big dude across the valley wants to fight only one of us. Whoever wins, the whole army wins.
Commander to recruiter, “I want you to find someone to fight this gargantuan warrior and kill him. He’s huge! Good luck! Oh, and don’t fail.” Recruiter to commander: “OK, got it. What do you want to see in this person, and what’s in it for them?”  I’ve hired good people before, and I do OK.”
The trouble with this feel-good statement is that it relates almost entirely to turnover measurements. While turnover is a good measurement, engagement is even more important when it comes to business productivity and profitability. Numerous reports indicate engagement as:
Many times, engagement is sabotaged from the start through the use of faulty job descriptions. We’ll talk about how to fix that shortly, but first…
There are 3 questions that must be answered before making a critical hiring decision:
1. Can they do the job? 2. How well will they do it? 3. Will they stay & perform? While it seems simple enough, engagement, turnover, and productivity of most companies doesn’t reflect that these questions are answered sufficiently. In most cases, I think the questions aren’t really understood well enough.  Recently I've seen a deluge of comments in social media forums, Q&A sections, and even advertisements suggesting that to hire successfully you must find those who are not looking for a new job - also known as "passive candidates." The prevailing thought among many seems to be that the best folks in the talent pool are passive candidates.
Sounds theoretically possible, right? Heck, it's good enough for an argument among those who follow broken traditional recruiting processes. But that's not even the most disturbing part of the logic. One of the commentators revealed more than he may have realized when, as he asked for tips and tricks to find passive candidates, he stated that he's got to find more because they are the top talent he needs. Stop the presses!  When An Employers Market Really Isn't
We've recently experienced one of the highest unemployment rates in decades. Times are tough, but some companies are still hiring at various levels. To many, it would seem to be a target-rich environment for locating new talent. But there are pitfalls. I classify four different groups of available talent, and urge those in decision-making capacities to raise their awareness of each group. It's an easy assumption to say that some who have found themselves out of work were simply not up to grade in the first place. And it's fairly safe to say that they will have the most difficulty re-entering the work force. |
RSS Feed