Two questions

Let’s say your organization is understaffed. Should you hire?

Let’s say the most amazingly talented person shows interest in joining your organization. Should you hire?

One answer

Hire the best, and don’t compromise.

If your team is filled with the best, has always been filled with the best, and is will only every be filled with the best, then you have the best chances of overcoming any obstacle, including whatever situation you are in that leads you to think you are understaffed.

But I need to hire!

You can’t afford to make many mistakes hiring people. What happens when you do? What kind of work environment is the result?

Back to the first question: your projections show you will be short 10 people for at least a year, but your uncompromising hiring philosophy has averaged at most one new hire per year. Should you make an exception and hire the next 10 people that apply? No, but consider subcontracting, bringing in temps, and other ways around rushing to fill your roster against your principles.

This person would be better at ANY job than I would be. Wow.

If you aren’t completely blown away by your candidates in your interviews, either reject them, or dig deeper with more interviews to confirm (or adjust/correct) your suspicion that you should reject them.

 

Adam Grant: Screen out the takers

“Can you give me the names of four people whose careers you have fundamentally improved?”