MANAGEMENT
The promoters of any organisation, entity or association can come up with the most christened and noble objectives in the shape of vision and mission. That alone can’t take the organisation anywhere. At the end of the day, what matters is its human resource. The quality of human resource determines the quality of the organisation. The most important and indeed the most difficult job of a manager are to hire and collect the ‘right’ human resource. Hiring is therefore critical to the wellbeing of an entity. If hiring is significant then what do you have to look for in any person- skill or attitude? The impelling quest is, should the hiring policies of an organisation be based on the premise of ‘hire for skill and train for attitude’ or ‘hire for attitude and train for skill.’ Both the approaches are at opposite ends of the pole.
It needs examination to determine which one of the two is either the easiest or the most difficult to pursue. Imagine the cultural impact on the organisation if the hire is competent and highly skilled but has an obnoxious attitude! And what about a candidate who has an excellent attitude but has close to zero competencies or skills. Both would ultimately lead the organisation to a disastrous P & L situation; where L would prevail over P; in the long run. So how does one strike a balance? Evaluate which is more difficult to impart skill or attitude.
Most HR professionals adopt the skill and competencies based interviewing process. They rely on how the candidate performed in related jobs at other organisations. Consequently their approach to interviewing is to bring a skill possessed individual who would possibly be the right person for the right job. In such interviews the HR usually draws upon subject matter experts to judge and evaluate the ‘quality of skill’.
In such situational approach, there is only one thing on the mind of the interviewer; is this person right for the job? Bottom line/business ethics, mentions following three all-encompassing hiring traps; experience trap- it is not the best predictor of success. Many a times it is one mediocre year multiplied over 15-20 years; education trap- a good or superior quality of education is no guarantee that the applicant is bright, emphatic or flexible enough to learn and grow with the company; ‘hiring-in-your-image trap- surrounding the organisation with people who are like you (the boss or the interviewer) is bound to create serious imbalances in the organisation. Anybody with similar competencies similar to yourself could potentiality have similar limitations to yours. Skills are based on acquired knowledge and the ability to translate into practical action. The need to acquire and possess skills to get the winds and waves to be on your side can never be underestimated. Skill is a necessity but it is acquirable as against attitude. Skill can be developed in the shortest time frame, but attitude is a lifelong training which is most dependent on several factors that start to influence individual’s right, when they step into age of adolescence.
Attitude is built from mother’s lap, from schooling, from education, from good company and from good habits. In an organizational context, attitude is about the ability to remain steadfast against adversity to keep calm and stoic composure when forced with challenging critics; to harness the negative elements around an issue; and above all the patience to bear the onslaught of bad behaviour with graceful and dignified response. Knowledge may give weight but accomplishments give luster and many more see, than weigh (Lord Chesterfield).
Technical skills can be imparted with ease and these can be made most proficient by training. Hence it is very unlikely that organisations fire employees for lack of skills. Instead the likelihood is that those who are asked to go, besides reasons of moral and financial integrity, are usually those who demonstrate in their personalities a general laid back, lazy attitude or indulge in insubordination or even worse, they can’t get along with any team.
In my personal experience I have found personal characteristics as more important than mere possession of technical skills. Those possessed with right attitude can be trained to learn skills ranging from nuclear science to mundane banking principles and practices.
In an organisation there would be jobs that call for special skills and talent. While it is best to row with the oars you have, it is equally pertinent to make available to the organisation, those especially skilled individuals who may score low on attitude traits. A good supervisor knows that all paths have puddles. And only a skillful mariner can navigate through rough seas. In such situations, tolerance to attitude issues is not entirely a bad decision to make.
However today, in a knowledge based economy most organisation have begun to realize that they will need people who will have the ability to innovate, strategize, make judgement calls, possess and demonstrate leadership and communication abilities. Vision is an attitude. Mission is a skill.
Had a colleague at an overseas location, who had the best skill for credit disbursement evaluation, but he had the most despicable manner in dealing with his team members; he was loud, uncouth, abrasive and demeaning in almost every conversation with his subordinates. He made a good pay packet, but the design of the destiny did not allow him to climb up the corporate ladder after a certain level.
For enduring success it is best to combine the highest qualities of personality traits alongside technical proficiency.
Success without abilities but with positive attitude is a possibility; but success with competencies devoid of right attitude can be distant and remote likelihood. The zeal for empathy, the urge to engage with people on an emotional plane and the capacity to handle stress are intrinsic qualities for leadership.
Skill testing is easy. It is quicker. Not so is the case in evaluating attitude and personality traits. In a limited by time interview, no judgment can be made of how any person will respond in contradiction. Even the psychological tests cannot be fully relied upon. But to avoid future problems there is no harm to invest more time and enquire about a candidate’s attitude, it certainly saves future costs. In my conversation with HR professionals I come clean to admit that I subscribe to ‘hire for attitude and train for skill’ concept. Because it is an easier route, less costly and more enduring with greater guarantee of success as against, ‘hiring for skill and training for attitude’. To quote a management Guru, hire hard and manage easy.
The writer is a senior banker and freelance columnist
