Hiring for Culture or Qualifications?

Okay - admit it.  You've conducted an interview with a potential candidate and allowed, at least in small part, your own cultural biases to help make the hiring decision.  It's okay - many have done it and, to some degree, it is even preferred that you use company cultural markers to factor into the hiring process.  In fact, many companies are preferring to hire for cultural fit rather than add a new staff member based purely on qualifications.  Sure, it sounds like a bunch of human resource managers asking "Google-type" interview questions like "What is your favorite food?" and hiring candidates who like the same foods as them.  Not so. Think about what the typical interview is like (I mean the old standby, classic interview).  Usually you ask questions designed to find out what the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate are and ask questions designed to determine whether the candidate can back up their claims.  Is that the best way to find the most creative candidates, though?  Is it the best way to find candidates who will enjoy working with your current employees; e.g. someone who will be a great contributor?

According to Logan Hill's Bloomberg Businessweek article Only BFFs Need Apply, the answer is yes.  Companies are increasingly hiring for cultural fit which does not necessarily mean the most qualified candidate is being chosen.  As a marketing executive states "I once hired a woman who really didn't have the right background or experience...and because we got along so well, I was able to train her easily, and she ended up doing great things for us".  A recent Inc.com article by Ilya Pozin lists passion and commitment as one of the top qualities his company looks for and lists relevant experience as fourth.  Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos, in an interview with Inc.com, states that they have passed on hiring people who are smart and have the necessary qualifications but who do not seem to fit the company culture. Zappos even bases 50% of their reviews on whether the employee is inspiring the company culture. 

What is driving the move to cultural fit as being as important (or more important) than requisite qualifications?   Blame millennials according to Dan Schawbel, author of Me: 2.0.  Millennials have priorities that differ from previous generations.  "They'd rather have meaningful work over more pay....they want a culture that's less hierarchical, more flexible, and more understanding of differences" states Schawbel. 

Finding Your Super Stance!

It's time for another TED talk.  This time I thought I would throw in some self-empowerment that will assist you professionally but also personally.  Amy Cuddy, a social psychologist and professor with Harvard Business School, shares her research regarding power dynamics.  What I found interesting is a study that Cuddy mentions in the beginning of the talk.  The study had people observe doctor-patient interactions without sound; meaning, they could only infer how the interaction went and could not hear what was being said.  Based on simple observation, they were able to predict which doctors would have an issue with lawsuits.  Basically, how well you can interact non-verbally, as well as verbally, has a high impact on employee relations (when relating the study results to a business application). 

Now....go out there and display your best Superman or Wonder Woman stance!

Hit "Delete" to "Reply All"

How much time do you spend reading emails that are of no interest to you because you were part of a "reply all"?  Well, if your numbers are similar to the average you are spending a good 5 percent or more of your workday opening and reading such emails.  Beyond being annoyed that you just received the fifteenth "reply all" response to an email on whether staff prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream for the office party, opening these emails puts a dent in productivity.  Considering that approximately 15 percent of your day is spent on email that 5 percent can really add up.  "Spread those stats over a 10,000-employee company and you rapidly get to a pretty big number in terms of dollar cost- in the tens of millions of dollars per year" according to Bloomberg Businessweek article Re: Re: Re: Confidential.  

Some companies are taking drastic measures to combat the time waste (and interrupted concentration) that all those unwanted emails results in.  Wells Fargo's sales division head, Gene Sellers, decided that he was tired of it all and pronounced the "reply all" button dead to his staff.  The button is forboden and may only be used in special circumstances that involve the staff as a whole. Netmanners.com suggests users utilize Bcc   to remove the option of "reply all" from the receivers of your message.  

From my experience I can tell you that the majority of the "repy all" messages I have been on the receiving end of were due to simple carelessness.  These were instances were the sender was not paying attention, distracted, or just wanted to get the message out of their inbox.  Taking a moment to review, not only your response, but who you are responding to can save much aggravation and possibly avoid some nasty repercussions (for those not too nice griping emails). 

Managing Our Reputations

I recently read a very small sidebar in a weekly magazine that was focused on the "hockey mom" image of Sarah Palin.  The sidebar quoted the money spent in 2008 on clothing to ready Palin for the Republican National Convention.  The sidebar went on to state "and she still managed to look like she worked in human resources!".  Hmmm - I wasn't certain what I was to take away from that comment.  What I did know was that many employees and, in some rare cases, entire organizations still view human resources as stodgy, annoying, and out of touch with the average employee.  They also feel that human resource managers will "side" with the management team despite evidence of wrongdoing that tells another story and "protect the sham of performance reviews" in the words of one contributor to About.com.  Here, a Wharton School of Business article entitled Is Your HR Department Friend or Foe restates this rather succinctly:

"According to its critics, HR departments can be needlessly bureaucratic, obstructionist, stuck in the "comfort zone" of filling out forms and explaining company benefits, and too closely aligned with the interests of management yet lacking the business knowledge to be effective strategic partners. Dealing with these types of HR departments is like going to the dentist..."

Many employees have had only negative interactions with human resources and so - no wonder - they have formed such an opinion.  Unfortunately, sometimes human resource managers allow their department's reputation to be managed for them rather than taking an active role in forming the outward in view employees have on human resource functions and roles.  We all are aware of the push to make, and keep, human resources a partner at the strategic table.  This means pushing up change rather than letting change dictate what you will do next as in a reactive scenario.  This means using metrics to discern trends and establishing a sound case for acting on those trends when those at the top level are not reacting.  Taking an active role in the human resource department's reputation is a sure way to effectively manage it - don't let human resources just "happen" - drive it....and stop wearing "soccer mom" (or "soccer dad") business clothes...

Where's My Lunch?

Thought I would lighten things up a bit and write about a subject that, while a little light, is a sore spot for some employees. Imagine that it's early afternoon and you've put a solid few hours of work - you are ready for an energy infusion (e.g. lunch). You open the fridge and find that someone else has beaten you to your lunch and decided they needed it more. You now feel like this is not going to be a good afternoon. Other than the fact that you have to eat out of a vending machine now, you realize that there is someone in your office that has very little respect for boundaries. Maybe though, this person left you a little bit of food (you know, because they felt bad)...

What should you do? You could take the route of striking back and some passive-aggressive tactics. Some interesting ideas (culled from actual employee strike backs): 

hide your food in a jar labeled "medical specimen"

hide food in the back of the refrigerator

camouflage your lunch as in this clip at HuffingtonPost Canada

Or, you could make an attempt to instill a little guilt and peer awareness into the perpetrator by leaving a note stating "hope you enjoyed that leftover chicken and rice, maybe try bringing in some for yourself".  If lunch stealing becomes a constant issue, your office manager could try posting signs that send a clear warning to stay away from food they didn't bring.

There are several articles on the topic and even a web site, Passive AggressiveNotes.com *(note: site contains some content not entirely suitable for children) devoted to the topic of addressing (or redressing) those individuals who feel compelled and entitled to liberating your lunch.