Stagnates or stars?

As I’m currently job hunting I’m quite reflective about the challenge of getting a role that is a step up. A step up implies work that I have not done before, and is outside my proven capabilities. In a similar vein, I am also a volunteer on the HRINZ Auckland branch committee looking after the student liaison portfolio. I’m conscious of the volume of students coming out of the Universities with an interest in HR or L&D who have no, or little, experience in the field. It’s difficult to get that job when you don’t have the proven track record. I remember when I was starting out in my career (about 10 years ago now) and it was the old catch 22. I didn’t have the experience so I wasn’t offered the roles where I could get that experience.

I got there eventually, seizing opportunities as I went and proving that I was capable. However, the catch 22 repeats itself, albeit to a lesser degree, when looking for that next challenge. But it raises an interesting thought. Why should we hire people based on their experience? Why not hire people based on their potential? Yes, I know, experience is often an indicator of potential performance, but it’s not always.

For 3 years now I have been involved in the development of front-line and senior managers. Before that I worked closely with managers on HR processes. Some of the best managers (or leaders if you want to use that term) are those who tell me that they don’t know how to manage/lead people. They are usually engaged in some sort of learning and development activity to fill this gap. What makes them different is that they are SOOOO enthusiastic to learn, develop and apply what they have learnt with their team. They’re like happy little sponges. They’re also the ones that will tell me that when they don’t know how to do something (like a performance management process) they simply talk to their staff member about it. That seems to work really well. Is that authentic leadership or what?

The difference is that these people don’t claim to know anything and they want to learn everything. At the other end of the spectrum are those who tell me that they are a great manager and don’t really see the point in learning. They’re already awesome the way the see it. These are more likely the ones who really need the development because they are doing a passable or terrible job of leading and empowering their people. They’re closed off to that sort of feedback so there is not much chance that attitude is going to change.

So it comes back to the age-old recruitment question. Do you hire for experience or potential? If you’re hiring for experience you may get someone who can ‘do the job’ (I use that term loosely) but is unwilling or unable to change. If you’re hiring for potential then you’re getting someone who may not be able to do the job at the outset but could be a fantastic employee longer term. Which risk do you take? Stagnates or stars?