Now, I don't profess to be an expert in the field (art?) of hiring and no doubt some will have differing opinions on what I'm going to speak to here so I'll preface this article with the following disclosure - yes, I have made some bad hires. Instead of speaking to how the hiring process should be executed I'm going to shed some light on the process I (we) use in building a team. I will do so in the knowledge that there are some HR professionals likely to grab their lanterns, pick axes and gather as a mob to hunt me down but the very act of making mistakes (I prefer to call it experience) has led me to what I feel is a process that works pretty well. I'm going to shape this monologue around the hiring of a supervisor as I've spoken to the importance of this role in a previous article. That being said, I believe the theory is generally applicable to most roles where leadership is a requirement.

Disclaimer (there's been a lot of those already hasn't there?): this, of course, assumes you have the luxury of "choice" in available candidates. It's easy to settle for someone less than your ideal but this rarely works out for the best.

1/ Resumes - I've recently read almost 100 resumes for a single supervisory position and found only a handful that even remotely connected with me. Most are dreadful frankly and if not dreadful seem to come from the same cookie cutter. No doubt you've experienced the same. Here's what I look for: a/ some progressive experience that tells me the candidate is capable of growth and b/ a broad enough range of experience that tells me the candidate has dealt with varying perspectives. I want to know what someone has done but more importantly how they've done it. I want to get a sense of how a person may fill a need. I want to be intrigued by the possibilities this person might bring to our organization. I don't need someone to come from the same industry. In fact, I quite prefer the skills that come about from working in different industries. I'm trying to build a team with complimentary skill-sets - this makes teams stronger (as long as the team understands that not everyone needs to share the same skills). This simply gets a candidate an interview.

2/ Interviews - we employ a team approach to interviewing. The team is made up primarily of those that will set expectations for the new hire but also those that will bring different perspectives so a collective view can be established. This group will employ situational questions so they can get a feel for how the candidate has handled him or herself in real-life experiences. They are looking for "fit". I can't stress enough how important fit is in the context off adding someone to an existing team. I held on to the notion for many years that you didn't have to like someone to work with them - I was wrong. It's just so much easier to work with people you like. Hiring someone that shares your values and the principles of your organization's culture is not something that is easily repaired after the fact. There is just so much to do in terms of adding real value everyday that having to "convert" someone once they're in place is a needless and potentially divisive exercise. We look for people that are comfortable in their own skin - self-assured without being cocky. A key consideration in all of this is how you see this person developing to fill other roles in your organization (succession planning). After all, if you're going to make a significant investment in someone's development you'd like to feel that possibility exists. Our interview process usually involves 2-3 sessions with different groups/ individuals. This allows for a collective "de-brief" that hopefully paints an accurate picture of the candidate.

3/ References (this is where the HR folks are likely to get annoyed with me) - I'm not a big fan of references. They are hand-picked by the candidate and not likely to shed a great deal of "light" on the individual. While I'm not fundamentally against them I think they should be treated cautiously. Everyone evolves through their careers differently and what might have been a bad experience in one circumstance can easily become a learning experience that allows someone to approach a new circumstance differently. I look back on the mistakes (the previously mentioned experiences) I've made over the years and I might not have been presented with the opportunities I've had if for a reference.

So there you have it. Not a reference guide (or anything earth-shattering for that matter) for the art of hiring but perhaps some insight into how some approach the process. First and foremost look for quality people - you can teach them the rest. Go cautiously into the night my friends!