The resignation letter stared at Adrian. His best team member, Eric, had just quit. Eric was employee of the year last December and just received a raise two months ago. He was in line to become lead technician in his department. What could be better? What else could Adrian, his manager, have done?

I inquired about the exit interview conducted by the HR coordinator. The form stated that Eric left for better wages.

Adrian was worried. Three years ago, Eric entered the company as an inexperienced recruit among a group of seasoned veterans. Over time, his personal productivity outpaced the entire team. In Eric’s absence, Adrian feared the overall output would falter. Eric often carried the whole group.

I called Eric, already gainfully employed (at a lower wage) in another company. Happy with his decision, Eric shared his story. On a crew of six, Eric had consistently accounted for 50% of the output. The other team members were slackers riding on his coattails. I asked what Adrian could have done differently. The advice was quick and simple. “Cut the dead wood. Release the poorest performers and productivity would have increased, even with a reduced headcount.”

Adrian is left with the remnants of a mediocre team. But before he can heed the advice, he has to find another Eric. -TF

We had been working as a group for forty-five minutes and the words at the top of the list were sense of urgency.

Nanci, the head of the hiring team, was curious, “How can you interview someone for a sense of urgency?”

“You cannot see a value or a trait,” I replied. “You can only observe behavior that may be driven by that value or trait. So when we think about a sense of urgency, what behaviors are we looking for?”

“They don’t procrastinate and they don’t wait until the last minute to get a project started.”

“And what else?”

“They are quick to attack problems that might cause a delay.”

“Good, now we have identified two behaviors, enough to work with for now.”

You see, I don’t know how to interview someone for a sense of urgency. But I can come up with a dozen questions about how the candidate starts projects and prevents delays.

When a role in your organization requires a value or a trait, simply translate it into a behavior that you can interview for. -TF

Gerard was puzzled. By chance, the night before, he ran into Nancy, a former employee, at a local restaurant. The conversation was cordial, but surprising to Gerard. Nancy was responsible for a competitive product that was kicking butt in the marketplace. When Gerard had terminated Nancy for not reaching her goals, he felt she was a marginal contributor with a big “L” on her forehead. Now, she was in charge of a development team that was eating Gerard’s lunch.

Gerard explained to me that after Nancy’s termination, he had two more managers fail in the same position. His complaint was that he just couldn’t find good people. Now, he was puzzled.

Success is determined not only by the person in the role, but also by the circumstances and systems that surround that role. Before you terminate someone, be sure to check your system. If your system is broken, the next hire will not fare any better than the person you are currently pushing out the door. -TF

Martha was complaining about the performance of a new hire. After four weeks on the job, the budding new supervisor was showing signs of stress.

I asked, at what point in the hiring interview did she feel this person was the right candidate? Martha had been positive from the first few moments. “I felt an immediate chemistry with the candidate, I don’t know how I could have been so wrong.”

The biggest mistake by the hiring manager is making the decision too quickly in the recruiting process. Why is this emotional (chemistry) decision made so quickly? Two reasons.

1. The hiring manager has not created a position profile detailing the knowledge, skills and abilities for a successful hire.

2. The hiring manager has not created a list of 60 questions designed to collect data from the candidate related to the position profile.

In the vacuum created by this lack of preparation, the hiring manager has little on which to base the decision, other than chemistry. Chemistry decisions are made within a couple of minutes without the need for facts and we often make a poor choice in the process. -TF

The mission statement was clear, “We are the employer of choice!” But, when Anthony looked around at the company’s talent pool, that statement rang hollow. Turnover was running 68% per year with exit interviews pointing to better wages at another company. Anthony had tried paying more, yet attracted no higher quality worker than he had now. Training times were longer, waste and scrap was higher and throughput was at an all time low.

We changed the program. I told Anthony if he wanted to be the employer of choice, he had to start by choosing better. Choosing better meant turning away more of the applicant pool. We implemented three different skills tests. Two of the tests involved the operation of some basic equipment and one test was a paper and pencil test on some basic knowledge specific to the company’s manufacturing.

We raised the starting wage by $1 per hour. Any current employee below the new wage who could pass the skills test was also raised.

Of the 23 applicants the following week, Anthony would have made job offers to 18 of them. He had always made more offers than he had openings because he depended on a “no show” factor. In this new program, only nine passed the skills test. Anthony made offers to seven of those. All seven reported to work. This was the beginning.

To become the employer of choice, your company has to become a choosier employer. -TF