Blue Elevator Blog

A primer on hiring

When I was little boy, the neighborhood kids would play cowboys and Indians.  The Old West wasn’t too far a distant memory back then.  And, if you are in the politically correct crowd, don’t get too excited.  This article isn’t really about cowboys and Indians.

It’s about an idiom: “Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.”  This translates to “Too many managers and not enough workers.”  And, let’s address this right away.  This article doesn’t insinuate that mangers don’t work.  The best managers are actually great workers themselves.

This article discusses a type of hiring glitch we’ve observed over the past quarter century.  And chances are this isn’t a 25-year-old trend – but an age old trend.

Why do organizations hire?

Organizations tend to hire during times of tension.  This tension can be positive or negative tension.

• Positive tension (growth).  The organization is growing and it needs more hands on deck.
• Negative tension (decline).  The organization is waning and it needs someone to help turn the tide.

For the undisciplined organization, the tendency is to always hire.  More business than you can handle?  Hire.  Things aren’t going well?  Hire.

The interplay between change and growth

It’s well established that if things aren’t going well, something should be changed.

You may have even heard this saying: “If you keep doing what you have been doing, you’ll keep getting what you have been getting.”  If you want something different, then make a change.

But, consider this wisdom from my friend and business pro, Dr. Norm Whan:

“Whereas growth brings change, not all change brings growth.”

So, here is the application:

If your organization is missing the mark somewhere, simply making a change (or hiring someone) won’t necessarily cure the malaise.  Quite possibly, it could even make it worse.

Why does hiring often miss the mark?

Organizations often mis-hire because hiring is often done under duress (e.g., growth or decline).  Either there is so much business that a quick hire is made.  Or, things are so bad that the organization needs to hire a heavy hitter right away.

This can be characterized as “shoot first – ask questions later.”  Or, hire someone now, and we’ll figure out what needs to be done once we get some help.

And, the trend is to hire managers over workers.

What is the right approach to hiring?

The answer here could be summed up in another old phrase: “Measure Twice – Cut Once.”

Hiring should really be a 3-step process:

1. Identify the problem.
2. Identify the solution.
3. Then, hire (and hire at the lowest level possible).

All too often, organizations hire BEFORE they identify the problem – and BEFORE they identify a solution.  Consequently, there is very little probability of success in the hiring decision.  In fact, if you follow the 3-step process above, you might actually arrive at the decision of NOT hiring.  A systematic approach might reveal that the real problem is “too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.”  And, the solution isn’t hiring another manager to organize the mess – but really to thin the ranks.

Whatever the case, first identify the problem, then identify the solution.  Then, decide what level to hire at.

Hiring a manager or a worker?

Am I hiring a manager or a worker?  Am I hiring a manager to discover the problem, devise the solution, and then implement the solution?  Or, am I hiring someone to implement and do what has already been decided?  Failure to follow this process will result in the hiring of too many managers.  And, this is often observed to be the case.

Often times, too many managers are hired because the existing management hasn’t taken the time to properly diagnose the problem and design a solution.

Also, a lot of managers want to hire any number of workers themselves.  They might want to hire former associates from previous employers to help do the work.  Or, they start cannibalizing internal resources to advance their internal agendas.

Here’s a typical hiring protocol:

If the leadership team hasn’t really identified the root problem and real solution, they tend to hire a heavy hitter.  “If we hire this person and give him/her the problem, he/she will figure it out and make all of our problems go away.”

Of course, in the leadership team’s mind, not just anyone can do the job – so the team looks for an experienced manager.

Because there is little probability of success, sometimes this is how things go.

The team hires Manager A who really doesn’t know the true problem.  And, therefore, Manager A may not have the solution.  Once the leadership team realizes Manager A doesn’t know how to solve the problem, they will often find another place in the organization for Manager A.  Consequently, the organization ends up with a big salary.

Sometimes you’ll hear this: “Manager A came to us and represented that he could solve the problem, but he really isn’t who he represented.  But, he is nice, so we think he will fit well in Department X.”

Then, the team initiates a search for Manager B.  But, because the root problem has not been identified and the solution has yet to be discovered, this process is doomed to repeat itself.

Now, if the hiring authority doesn’t value people as much, then it may have a different paradigm: Hire Manager A.  Fire Manager A.  Hire Manager B.  Fire Manager B.  Etc.

What is the key?

The answer lies in a systematic approach.  And, it bears repeating:

1. First, identify the problem.
2. Next, identify the solution.
3. Then, hire (and hire at the lowest level possible).

Symptoms of a mis-alignment (e.g., getting it wrong)

The following are some of our observations that may indicate that your organization’s hiring protocol may be off the mark:

• A bloated payroll that impairs profitability.
• Deteriorating company margins or tight cash flow.
• Organizational dysfunction due to too many hand-offs (e.g., things that fall through the cracks) or redundancy (multiple people handling the same thing).
• Frustration by fellow managers.  Competent managers recognize the inefficiency of the organizational operations.  They also recognize that mis-hired managers may not fit the organization or their designated roles.  For help with this, check out our article on Leadership & The Silent Majority.
• An environment where 20% of the managers are doing 80% of the work.
• Frustration by staff or workers.  Talented staff recognize whether the work a manager asks them to do is just busy work – or if it will add value to the organization.

Summary

Hiring is an important – but tough – job.  This article covered when to hire – AFTER identifying the problem and the solution.  The article didn’t really cover how to hire the right person – that is another article in itself.  Happy hiring!

If we can be of any assistance in helping your organization identify the problem and the solution, we’d love to hear from you.  Contact us here.