The ABC Theory Of Hiring

Hiring is like dating, always put your best foot forward.

When I started applying this theory of understanding people many years back, the questions came to my mind as to how do we not hire Cs at the first place. During my process of experimentation, I devised my  own methods to avoid Cs being hired.

I am still not sure if hiring A is tough or identifying and rejecting C. One of my boss and mentor told me once that rejecting a candidate is an easy decision because both you and candidate move on. However selection and acceptance comes with accountability as you will have to work together for quite some time. However, over years I learnt that both acceptance and rejection is tough. How not to hire a wrong person is as important as how to hire a right person.

Couple of methods that I defined for myself were quite successful for me and I would like to share the same here for everyone to take the benefit. These are  simple methods, a lot based on the "Blink" concept than extensive analysis. That's right, a lot based on judgment rather than complex evaluation process.

ATTITUDE I always tell my team to go and hire only and only positive attitude persons. Skill is secondary. A negative attitude person can pull back the whole team. They are acid for a team who only create stink.  I check this twice for key people. Once my team will check and then I reassure. After candidates are selected by my team, I do meet key people. I always begin with appreciating the candidates for their skills and potential, but I always ask them not join us if they cannot work as team and have negative attitude. They will find it difficult to survive in this team. The result is that a negative attitude person will either not join and leave the negative attitude at the door while joining(hopefully).

POTENTIAL and not just the skill. It is obvious that skill increases the potential but someone with just skills but no scalability can be good only for a short time and for a specific job, but will be unable to move up when needed. Do not hire for today alone to avoid disappointment later.

CONFIDENCE Most of the time it is not necessary that you need to dig people deep on skills. Ask questions to check the confidence and more often than not you will know the skill level as well. When candidates have fear they will transmit that fear to you as well. I often used this technique. I will tell candidates that they will be put in project straight after joining. Do you think you will be able to perform immediately or need some training. Candidates with good confidence and skill will readily agree for the project and candidates with low confidence will ask for a training in the beginning or would like to know more about the project and will fumble.

Well, one does not have to follow the examples or methods that I use. Everyone has enough examples, stories and anecdotes that they can use and must use.

I have often seen people making a big mistake on hiring people for skills and not attitude. It is attitude that makes people A, B or C and not skill. When I wrote my first blog a lot of people asked me this question as to why I was completely rejecting Cs. Yes, I would reject people with C attitude, I would give growth to As and Bs and not Cs. Until C can change to make itself A or B. C Needs feedback that it is his or her attitude that puts it in untouchable category and not the potential or skill. I will discuss this in a later blog and would like to put emphasis on first thing first. That is, how not to hire Cs. After all we all were taught- Prevention is better than cure.

I was able to use some of the thumb rules and my own observations rather than hard data very effectively, and success rate was good. However the challenge starts coming when your teams starts growing and you have to depend upon others to hire. It becomes practically very difficult to train people on hiring skills. However I believe a simpler ABC theory of hiring can be of help here. To explain this, lets understand the properties of A, B and C to see how they hire and get hired.

A category persons are self confident, can dare to take actions and responsibilities, are able to think on their feet and can think of changing their roles frequently as they cannot be locked and nailed down to one task. However, it is not that they are not possessive about the work that they do or about tracks that they are leaving behind. They are often very possessive but they also know that to nurture what they have left behind must be pursued with same vigor and passion.

B category persons will develop a taste for action slowly. And when they do, they would like it to see the light of day. They can often get attached to the tasks and not the outcome. They will work hard, as that defines their day, and would like to protect their turf as that becomes their comfort zone. Try taking B out of a project, and you will see a lot of reaction. They will prevent such actions and will try steer clear from any such decisions.

Mentioning C category properties is not important here. And I will explain, why.

The objective of hiring is not only to add more heads and hands to your workforce but to continue to improve the collective competitiveness of the organization. It is sad to see how many organizations count the people and not measure the competitive index. Pick any project, program or initiative, you will find that programs and actions are often completed by very few individuals in the team, and a lot of the other members are just in the marriage party.

Hiring is a superior function and not a task to be completed in hurry.

In the diagram, I have shown who should hire and who hires whom. Following three rules should be applied:

Rule A

Rule A suggests one very critical aspects of hiring. That is, always ask your A category people to hire. A category person will always hire A category person. Go through the properties and behavior of A-person and you will know why I say so. They are passionately possessive about the work they do and how they do the same. They would almost never  want to leave it in the hands of B &C. 

A does hire B sometimes but only when it is necessary for a type of role. But then they would like to choose someone who is an A within B category of people. The essence is that best chooses best in almost all conditions.

The bold line connecting the two category indicates that it is natural or most preferred style of hiring. A would almost always choose A, however can also choose B at few times when situation warrants it.

Rule B

As per Rule B, when you put a person of B category to hire, they would mostly hire a C category person. While A category person is passionately possessive about the project, B category is possessive to his or her position and task, and not always the outcome. Hence Bs would be very protective of their turf and would not want to get threatened. They do not want to leave their comfort zone and would often protect it by not hiring those who cannot challenge their position. Hiring Cs gives them much needed comfort.

B can also hire B but only sometimes. It is not his/her natural hiring style. It is necessary when B is being put in place to hire, a rigorous review method is applied to assure that good quality people are hired in the organization. A wrong person hired can put you behind on your competitiveness and performance which may take a long time to recover. Please remember, hiring a wrong person is easier but getting rid is tougher as there are not many companies who will choose them.

Rule C

Don't put C on hiring. Never. If you have put C in hiring then please go back and check your own category. Period.

It is good to have disappointing results during interview rather than getting surprises later.

Happy hiring...

Reflections (Assess Your Team)

In my first article on A,B,C theory and discussing the employees assessment subject was a great learning experience for me. All those who read and responded, gave a me a good insight into how readers read, how they experiment and how they associate their situation with it.
 

One clarification that I would like to bring forward is that A,B and C category is not about showing everything great as A and everything lagging as C. I know my first article and may be many more will point towards this direction, but when I try to simplify things in these 3 categories, not everything should be looked as great, good or bad but as three legs for an essential balance to life. In some of the cases it may be hierarchical in nature but in other cases it can be just three different perspectives.

Another clarification, C category does not mean they are inompetent or unskilled. A lot of time they are sufficiently or well educated, and have adequate skills as well. The attribute that put them away and in C category is their attitude. Everyone needs an attitude to succeed in life. Where A category puts it in a right and positive direction, C category puts it in the wrong direction. It is their negative, complaining and often self damaging attitude that puts them in trouble. Hence, when I say get rid of C category, I would have only two choice. Either the person gets rid of C attitude or you get rid of C person. I insist that there are no other choices.

The ABC Theory

Setting The Context

The ABC Theory of anything and everything!!

- Dharmender Kapoor

 ;,*,*,;

*,*,*,*

    )(

Let me begin with the thoughts that have been running in mind and I have been amused by this many times. I call this as ABC theory. In my opinion, everything ( or may be most things) in life can be summed up and categorized into three categories, A, B and C. A, B and C can take different shapes, concepts and objects depending upon the context but I found that most of the time I could categorize everything within A, B or C category. The idea germinated by my firm belief that everything in life is very simple; it is we who make it complex. Sometimes because complexity is more convincing, other times because people want to look good when they talk complex things. There are other times when we see something very simple, we tend to ignore this or take it so lightly that consequences become complex. Hence as per my belief, things are simple but consequences can be complex. If people speak truth, they do not need to remember anything, so life will be far simpler.

It was an interesting thought to begin with, which got into realization in many situations and then became a belief for me. And it got imprinted in my head so much that I started looking everything through this simplifying glass. My belief has only become stronger with time.

I wanted to write a good article on my first thought at least 5-6 years back. I wish I could have written it at that time. But my mind wandered and I started thinking more, it soon became many ideas and I started thinking about writing a book. I thought I will write a book when I will have enough ideas. Unknowingly I made it a complex project which never got started. I had to simplify this and one fine day I thought let me write just one page and then I will see. I started and it was much simpler than I thought. So here goes my first experience with ABC theory.

My First experience with ABC Theory - Assess Your Team

Assess Your Team

It all started with my experimenting with people. I have been keen observer of people behavior and always loved talking to people to know them better. When I became first time manager, I saw a different dimension of people. The observation resulted in appraising them on how they perform. As a manager my job was to get optimal contribution from them. And what I realized was that not everyone has the same potential. I found it was very necessary to know the potential and then map it with what activities are needed to get the right work done by right person. Through my experience in managing people over few years, I learnt to understand this potential of people and I categorized them into three categories which also maps well with kind of horses you see.

Employees can be compared with horses when it comes to their potential and performance. So let me explain what these categories are and how can you apply to your teams to know their potential.

Category A

The first category is of race horses. A race horse is fast and focused. Race horses know what their goal is and they run faster to beat others in reaching their goals fasters. They don’t need directions; they compete with similar breed of horses and get signals quickly to act. Race horses however do not carry weight, they may not work (or run) as hard as other horses but they work smart to build their stamina and speed. It is difficult to not notice them, they emit their personality. I call them A Category horses.

Category-A employees and team members are like race horses. They are sharp, fast and focused. They are proactive, do not need too much directions and look for signals to act proactively. They are always in competition with similar caliber peers to perform better and better. And as anyone would imagine, they work smart, not necessarily hard. They work to advance their career and take new responsibilities.

Both A-Category horse and employee are unstoppable. They need new challenges to nourish themselves. If you keep them away from these challenges for long, they may lose their potency and can become a confused personality. I would not say they will become Category B horse or employee because that category has different properties. I don’t think it will be possible and right to put them in any category. Such employees often become frustrated, inactive and confused when they are forced into an environment which does not let them perform.

Category B

The second category is of those horses that pull carts. You might have seen them pulling carts loaded with people or material, and are means of transportation. These horses carry a lot of weight and obviously run slower than race horse. They work hard and go long distance. They have patience and take occasional directions when their course has to be changed. They do not have ambition to run faster unless forced to. But they run faster for short distance and then come back to their natural speed and potential.

Category-B employees are same as cart horses. They are valuable as they carry a lot of work on their shoulders. They are not as fast as Category-A employees but they make a large project reach the goal. They work hard, execute and deliver results, albeit slow. They are not replaceable by Category-A employees as Category-A employees may not stick to a project for long, whereas Category-B once given the charter, will carry the team to see the light at the end of the tunnel. They may not be as ambitious as Category-A but are valuable.

Both B-Category horse and employee need occasional directions when the course is to be changed. You may find them sometimes working with blinkers and they see what you may want them to see. A lot of them may not ask too many questions or react (sometimes they do) if they are given a comfort zone. They achieve perfection by repeating the same work or route and may not have ambition of going a different path everyday. They should be used to provide repeatable and commodity services.

Category C

The third category is of very interesting horse. This is called as marriage horse, the one you see in Indian marriage on which groom sits and goes to marry his bride. They have an attitude. They can be flashy but will deliver the least. They are neither fast nor carry a lot of weight. They need a lot of attention and always need to be guided on every step. They need to be fed before they start walking and walk short distances. After every few steps they stop, then people dance in front of them, shower money and then they walk again, for few steps to stop again to repeat the process. There is always a master who is holding its leash to give the direction. They will show as if they are carrying a very important  task, but they will deliver the least.

Have you seen such employees? Do you have some of these in your team? These C-Category employee will take maximum attention from you. They will not only work slow but will make others work slower. As a manager you will dance in front of them multiple times to make them perform. After all you are supposed to make everyone perform, but your dance often goes in vain. They are flashy, and will show as if they are the one who are at the center of everything, but the actual contribution will be minimal. And they are expensive. They will have least productivity but will take time and attention from manager and many of other colleagues. They are “minus” resources who reduce more productivity than they add.  Aren’t they interesting? Yes, but not for you if you are the manager. As a manager, you are going to have an interesting time!

Both Category-C employee and horse may seem needed but are not necessary. They neither work hard, nor smart. They neither carry weight nor run fast. They will neither perform not let others perform. They should be stopped but they are difficult to recognize. They will appear to look like Category-A sometimes but you will know only when you sit on them. 

How

should

you act?

Get rid of Category-C first. I know it will be hard, you may want to try them in pulling the cart or run in a race. After all this is what each management book says. But you will not be able to. It is not worth finding exceptions as you will realize only when it is too late.

Category-B will work better if there is no Category-C. Imagine, you put category-C horse in pulling a cart. You will dance, your customer will dance and leave alone the enjoyment that your competition will have while watching this. No one but you will be blamed for putting marriage horse on a cart. You WILL abandon that project or customer will abandon. Result will be same.

Category-B should not be disturbed too much. They know what they are told to do, and let them do that with complete focus. Most projects and customers will depend upon them for reaching where they want to be. After Category-A has won the business. Category-B should be nurtured physically so that they have the strength to keep delivering. That would mean giving them wholesome work. Else they will stale. Category-A on the other hand have to be nurtured intellectually and on specific skills so that they can have will and strength to win. Category-A will want to win different projects or race but Category-B will happily execute the tasks allocated to them. You may win a lot of business on Category-A but you will have to depend upon Category-B for sustenance. Category-A will be sellable but Category-B will finally deliver. Both are needed in an organization to grow. Switch there job and you will see the difference. A sale will not close if Category-B is selling. A project will not get delivered if Category-A is delivering. And if you think that a project is not getting delivery because you have got a Category-C guy but in fact you have put Category-A guy on delivering then You, the manager, need training. You will learn it with experience and that is the reason for some of the Category-C people still in your organization.  God had to create jobs for C people so he created confusion in judgment. Faster you judge, better it is for you. Better the judgment you have, sooner you will recognize them. Sooner you recognize, faster you will make your team perform.

As I write this, I want to go on and on, but then I had limited time in my hand. I hope to take it further and write my experience on how managers should identify, select and deploy A,B and C category people in organizations.

PS: Feel free to send me your thoughts :-)

;,*,*,;

*,*,*,*

    )(