The Disincentives To Teach
Do we have so little faith in our abilities that we don’t think we can teach an intelligent individual how to succeed at a job?
By attempting to minimize the time spent in the hiring process we tend to hire the person who has already done the job. Our recruiters are risk-averse and search for resumes with specific keywords (typically job titles) and the questions we ask in the interview attempt to elicit whether the applicant has already mastered the open job.
Unfortunately, resume search bots can’t detect who the person is behind the 8.5″ x 11″ facade. You have to. Don’t ignore experience, but recognize that it is not the Holy Grail. Limiting your hiring search to those with the right job title, in the right area who happen to be looking for a job at the right time is as crazy as it sounds. Yet, it’s what we do.
Unfortunately, there are a several reasons why managers have hired for experience rather than potential.
- Companies reorganize frequently and a mid-level manager is only as good as the last review. Long-term results don’t pay the bills or get ahead.
- Managers get promoted based on individual accomplishments and have no idea how to orchestrate a team. Mentoring their people never crosses their mind.
- Many managers don’t have the self-confidence or selflessness to share the spotlight or train their team to take their job.
- Most damning, is that companies do not provide the incentives for managers to invest in their people. How often do you hear a manager being rewarded for producing a team of people that are ready to be promoted to the manager’s level?
Short of completely changing the mindset behind the performance evaluation, how do we resolve this? Please feel free to comment below.
—
Photo Credit: Flickr user RatsJ
No related posts.
Speed is the essence of companies and lean is what makes it even more challenging. That is one of the reasons why getting people with the right experience in is crucial to jump start the new hires contribution. Competency based or behavior based interviewing using predefined competency questions enhances the chances of getting the right employee with the required behaviors to be successful on the job. Teaching though cannot be ignored but carried out within the context of ambiguity and speed of execution. Some companies adopt this competency – Learning on the Fly and it is crucial that risk taking is tolerated and use as a learning lesson. Hence leaders should constantly look for opportunities for teachable or coachable moments. It means helping by guiding with questions rather than solutions. Remember the old adage of "Give me a fish and I eat for a day but teach me how to fish, I eat for a live time."
Thanks for the insightful comment Michael. You hit upon several crucial points that I didn't recognize. I really appreciate your thoughts. I have two additional thoughts:
1. I think there is a difference between competency and behavior based assessment. The former evaluates knowledge, skills and abilities and the latter evaluates how they get things accomplished. I don't think we do enough of the latter. Given the interconnectedness of our working teams these days I'd suggest that how we accomplish things is as important as what we accomplish because the process will be a repeatable one. That is, you and I will have to work together again. So if you don't like the way I handled a given situation with you then how apt will you be to collaborate with me in the future beyond the minimum required?
2. I don't disagree that experience and knowledge is important. And while managers need a certain level of functional skills and experience their job is basically to make sure work gets done. At the mid-level and above they are rarely the ones rolling up their sleeves. They must rally the boots on the ground and guide the process. They are people managers not task masters. Yet we rarely evaluate these folks on their ability to grow their teams, inspire or mentor.