Turn Can’t into Why Can’t We….
Download Printable Version (PDF)
The Ohio Manufacturers' Association - Manufacturers' Connections Directory -- November, 2004
By Ronald Dukes
Turn Can’t into Why Can’t We….
Say it often enough and you’ll believe it, right?
When it comes to hiring the best talent, manufacturers are no strangers to negative self-fulfilling prophecies. Unfortunately, these become insurmountable roadblocks to building manufacturing operations with outstanding executive and management talent.
Manufacturers should divorce themselves from conventional wisdom that perpetuates paralysis, a 1950’s point of reference, and an underdog mentality. Take the advice given by “arm chair” experts for what it is: theoretical analysis and intellectual solutions usually untested in real life, oft-times an enabler for inaction or complacency.
To change a mediocre hiring track record into one known for consistent high quality, approach the issues in the opposite manner used to date. Replace “can’t” statements with “why can’t we” questions to evolve a constructive recruiting program that meets the challenges presented by today’s business environment
Have you ever heard any of the following when involved in a hiring process? In 25 years as an executive search consultant, many clients have thrown these “can’t” statements out to either stay in a comfort zone or because they believe these are absolutes. While these usually are about a specific position or candidate, they can be symptomatic of major issues plaguing companies that have serious repercussions.
We can’t provide the job satisfaction that many of the top candidates require.
The first step is to qualify top candidate job satisfaction. Some clients are surprised to learn that they do have what top candidates want, and it isn’t just about the money. If clients really can’t provide the job satisfaction for top candidates, they have larger issues. They need to utilize their human resources talent to energize the culture and create positions that are challenging and satisfying. Top candidates will probe the full gamut of issues. Questions can range from specific opportunities for promotion to environmental policies to childcare options. Companies must forget the days when they were the “buyers.” They must be well prepared to sell the whole opportunity.
If we hire someone with superb credentials and background, they will just be recruited away.
Top candidates are highly selective in choosing positions. They think of advancement, growth opportunities, and the positive changes they can make. They usually stay long enough to make a mark. Mediocre players are the ones who job-hop. They need to move on before their lack of ability is obvious. Once companies attract talent, they must work to keep them. Companies need to break the destructive cycle of allowing superiors to “hoard” existing outstanding talent based on the excuse that these employees are too valuable to move out of their current positions. These individuals will move – out of the company.
We can’t offer advancement opportunity beyond the position.
To retain great talent, it is imperative that clients change position responsibilities to challenge top performers. This is an enticement for some individuals who like the company and fit the culture. However, the lack of opportunity to advance is probably known internally. Employees will be more open to leaving if satisfying careers are found elsewhere.
Many top candidates can’t pass our psychological and written tests, so they are eliminated.
Testing is a tool to be used in concert with interviews, referencing, and overall assessment of past performance. It is not an absolute measurement and should never be given disproportionate weight in hiring decisions. Written tests do not measure cultural fit. Only the client and experienced company managers should make this assessment. Even then, it is fraught with subjectivity. If top candidates are not passing these tests, it may be time to evaluate the tests. Many outstanding CEOs and senior executives have failed such exams. Time and again, it has been shown that past performance is a greater indicator of future performance than most other measurements – including written and psychological tests.
We can’t make a mistake in hiring so our management rejects many top candidates for seemingly frivolous reasons.
When a series of top candidates is rejected, the word will be on the street and the company will have a very difficult time in attracting any candidates. Often frivolous reasons are a sign that the individual rejecting the candidates is threatened. Some individuals do not want to give up the reins or retire and sabotage the hiring process. Though few people ever discuss this “secret,” it happens with astounding frequency. This destructive behavior is one of the biggest roadblocks in the hiring process.
Our job specification and corporate structure won’t allow us to attract and pay the most qualified people.
This isn’t a hiring issue – it is a strategic business and culture issue. If a company doesn’t have the best people to lead it, how will it compete in a highly competitive environment like manufacturing? If compensation isn’t competitive, not only will companies fail to attract great people – they are in danger of losing the ones they have. For decades, manufacturers have demonstrated flexibility and openness to change in operations and production. They need to do so in regard to their human resources policies and corporate structures.
We can’t pay new people more than some of our more senior people.
Don’t be held hostage by seniority issues. Compare apples to apples. New talent may be bringing new skills, contacts, leadership abilities, and experiences to the company that are not present – even in more senior people. Responsibilities and performance are probably different. The investment is warranted in terms of the return gained. If an internal person could execute the duties of the position, he or she should be interviewed as a candidate. Most companies have or will face this decades-old dilemma: an individual who has worked for several companies usually earns more in total compensation that an individual with a comparable background who has spent his/her entire career with one company.
People we hire are a fit for our culture, but we can’t seem to attract the best performers.
Culture is the company brand. Top candidates conduct their own research on companies when interviewing and they qualify what the culture is. External perception may be radically different than that possessed by company leadership. If a company can’t attract the best performers, an audit of the culture should be done and action taken. It may be a simple refinement in how the strengths of the company are communicated by top management and marketing. It may mean reinvigorating the culture or an overhaul.
We can’t find “hands on” people for our manufacturing operation and no MBAs need apply.
Understandably, a client may not want a Wall Street MBA stereotype. But people who pursue higher education show initiative, drive, intellectual curiosity, and the ability to achieve goals – hands-on qualities. Some MBA programs have concentrations in manufacturing. Many qualified candidates with MBAs have had jobs in high school and undergrad school in manufacturing, working the floor. They chose a career in manufacturing because they have a passion for it – and they have the communications abilities to work with anyone in the organization. These are some of the best “hands on” people a manufacturer could hope to have. “Hands on” is more than just working the floor and getting dirt under one’s fingernails.
We can’t hire him -- our consultant tells us that we should only hire people in the top 10% of their college class, as it is “proven” that they are the best performers.
They are the best “proven” performers – in an academic setting. Manufacturers need talent with the right combination of professional and personal attributes. Leadership roles demand superb interpersonal abilities, the ability to distill a great deal of qualitative and quantitative information, devise action, and persuade others to support it. Consider the number of top leaders heading successful companies who have an average academic record.
We can’t attract the best: our location is a small town.
Just ask anyone who commutes three hours or more a day, pays $500,000+ for a two-bedroom house, and has no life: small is starting to look really good. The location may be close to family or where a person grew up. It may be an easy drive to a college town with great health care, entertainment, and education. Some candidates are looking for a better life/work balance, a community for children, more reasonable living costs, and challenging work with people who have a good work ethic. The timing may be perfect for some who initially moved to a major city to get experience and earn money before finding a smaller community.
We can’t believe it -- as the leader, we expect people to beat down our door, but they aren’t.
Even companies known for superlative leadership development, such as General Electric, actively recruit. Candidates draw unflattering conclusions from such an attitude. They perceive this haughtiness as an indication of a hierarchal management either content to rest on its laurels or closed to creativity and new ideas. The opposite is usually true. The leadership is just out of touch with the realities of the market. Today’s reality is that the hiring process is no longer one-sided. Despite the pendulum swinging in favor of employers since 9/11, candidates expect that companies want them as much as they want the employer.
These “can’ts” may cripple manufacturers in meeting the challenges of global competition when it comes to products, innovation, and productivity. If they don’t hire the best, “can’t” might be the response given to customers, suppliers, and investors.
A comment shared with me by a FORTUNE industrial company CEO says it all: “My senior executives know what to do, but I don’t understand why they don’t do it.” The “can’t” mentality can immobilize otherwise effective executives.