Filling that Management Position

I spotted a senseless trend while going through the job pages.

For positions where one is solely in-charge of a specific function in the company and has a sizeable bunch of people under him, work experience of at least 15 years is sought.

That sounds logical, doesn't it?
You need solid experience (credentials) for these positions, e.g. Head of Department/SVP in the private sector or 'Director' in the public service.

But if we are rational about how the real labour market works, it is senseless to assume that the above-mentioned logic works for ALL companies.

In fact, this 'hiring formula' only works for the top companies where the best people are clamouring to get into, which probably makes up like 5% of all employers out there. And to begin with, these top companies do not advertise directly to fill their management positions.

So what's the deal with those companies which advertise to fill such senior positions?

Firstly, they have advertised because they are experiencing difficulties in filling the positions through their network. Top candidates know these are not the best companies to work for.

Secondly, if these second-rate companies stick to their stated selection criteria strictly and do not pay more than market rate, they will end up with someone who has the seniority but is obviously not the best around (coz the best with 15 years and more would have gone to work for the top companies). In other words, these companies will end up with second-rate Head of Departments and Directors. Not only do second-rate managers produce second-rate work, they also create other problems, such as inability/unwillingness to recognise top-rate talent potentials leading to morale problem etc.

Thirdly, to make things worse, if the specific function which the advertised position is meant to serve is highly specialised, i.e. few people in the workforce are in that industry/function (for example: Director of Diamond-Cutting Engineering), the problem of having to settle for second-best candidates will be more acute.

So, how can such companies break out of the second-rate cycle?

Instead of sticking to dead-end tactics such as hiring the second-best, the better solution is to opt for a candidate who has some experience of the function and has demonstrated potential to be top in his field. You are giving this candidate something which no other company is offering. He will be loyal to you. The vulnerability in his loyalty will only emerge when he becomes that top candidate with '15 years of experience'. (This will be discussed in later paras.)

Of course, such a selection process will be less straightforward than picking someone whose CV fits the bill through a check list or better still, an 'online matching system'. And yes, the above solution sounds risky. This person does not even have 'enough' experience, and therefore he is 'likely to screw things up' versus the option of a second-rate 15 years of experience who is not the best, but at least will deliver a tried and tested second-rate function/product.

Well, this is the 'compromise' a second-rate company has to bear, or remain as a second-rate company. In other words, when second-rate company does not innovate on its hiring policies, it's a clear sign that the company is either unthinking, or uninterested in fighting to become the best. Sticking to the same hiring policies/methods will get you the same stuff (staff). It's pure insanity to expect different results with the same action.

Of course, some like to solve all problems with money. Just pay above market-rate! Everyone is motivated by money!!

For second-rate companies, attracting the best candidates through money alone is a short-term solution. By paying top dollar, you can get the best candidates to walk through your doors, but are unlikely to be able to retain these top talents because top talents will either wish to join and be associated with the best companies eventually, and/or top companies will actively lure them away. In other words, paying more is more disruptive than taking on second-rate candidate.

Hence, it is always more prudent to learn to spot management talent*, then groom and nurture them. The bond developed during this process is less likely to be substituted by money, especially in an Asian context.

* Learning to spot talent is an art, not a science. There is no magic formula or a check list for talent, especially when the environment is dynamic. Hence, talent-grooming is also an iterative process, where BOTH parties need to be aware of the unstable nature of this relationship and always remember the purpose it serves, i.e. to ultimately benefit the organisation.

HR is one of the most important functions in any organisation, but sadly, it is usually overlooked and not appropriately-staffed to begin with. This goes back to the point that it is very tough to hire right. And because it is tough, most would rather pretend that it's not their business.