Hiring For Effect and Change
Most of us have heard that the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Yet often, when hiring replacements into our organizations, we do what we have always done, expecting new results. We continue to define the person best suited for the position based on outdated paradigms from yesterday’s business culture and climate.
As I travel around and talk with executives from institutions of all asset sizes, I hear them concentrate on a couple of major themes: First, the need to constantly stay ahead of change, thus requiring visionary staff and leadership; and second, the continuous need to innovate products and services around the commodity of money.
As I suspected, I found a common theme from among the desired traits listed in the ads. An overwhelming majority of the requirements listed could have been used verbatim 20 to 30 years ago. They contained phrases like these: “must have 10 years of direct experience in the job; must have X number of years experience at an X size institution; must have managed X number of direct reports,” and a plethora of various other must-haves.
Beyond the requisite education and a professional understanding of the process, I ask why this is. If the “must” is 10 years direct experience in a billion-dollar-plus institution, does that mean someone with seven years of experience in an $800 million dollar institution is blatantly unqualified?