We Can’t Get Qualified Talent!

Especially in India, industries bemoan the fact that there are insufficient graduates and, to make matters worse, those they do find expect enormous rewards. Yes, there is also the stark issue that the graduates are not really properly prepared for industry. They’ve learnt what they had to in order to pass exams but not learnt how to apply concepts in real life. They cannot walk into a company and start working on important projects without being “trained in” sufficiently — which takes time.

My question in all this is simply … are we looking for the right people?

Particularly in the Indian context, there are a lot of people who have had minimal education. Are these individuals incapable of being great in engineering if given the opportunity to learn it? Just because their families’ financial circumstances were such that schooling and especially college education remained well out of their reach, does this mean they cannot achieve?

The two cornerstones of high performance are Willingness and Ability. If a person is willing to put in time, effort and focus into growing their ability, they are likely to be eminently trainable and become high performers. It takes time — but with these individuals, it is an investment.

Am I a dreamer?

No.

A few years back, I was working with an Indian manufacturing client who was based way out of a city. They too complained about getting qualified people. I asked them ‘Do you want someone who is determined to learn and grow and willing to put in the effort to succeed, or do you want a highly qualified graduate?’ I then added ‘You are far from a city but, surely, there are local people who would be willing to put effort into learning and working in order to keep their family and educate their children. Could you consider taking them in and giving them a chance to meet their aspirations?’

The CEO answered. ‘We've recently tried this. We took on a local, unqualified man and taught him to do a fairly straightforward job on a simple machine. He learnt that and became very efficient and turned out good work. We then decided to give him something more difficult and taught him the ropes. Again he applied himself and became an expert.

‘During this time, he mentioned he would like to get an engineering qualification, so we paid for him to take a course and he obtained that qualification.

‘His work continued to be excellent and he happily took on more complex duties, but felt he should learn English to be better able to read the instructions and settings on the machines.’

The last I heard was that the company was funding this for him also.

So the question is: instead of fishing for those who are money-minded, “me”-minded, showing no willingness to learn, and expecting the world to be given to them on a platter, why not consider a less well-educated, determined person with a strong work ethic and give them the opportunity to achieve their potential as well as making them better able to support their family and educate their children?

Do you want someone who is dedicated to the company because it is giving them a chance to build something so very positive in their life?

I see this as a strong “win-win” situation that requires recruiters to stop blindly following the academic approach they learnt in order to get their qualifications — this almost total reliance upon skills, knowledge, training, qualifications and experience — and extend it strongly into the much more productive behavioural traits and strengths: temperament, maturity, stability, attitudes and values, and self-motivation, together with speed of thought.

These are the ingredients that help you recruit winners, which has been proven hundreds, if not thousands, of times.

What is stopping you from experimenting in this way?

(And, if you need help in making the change, get in touch — I will be happy to help, train and coach you towards your objective.)
.

Believe it or not, This IS How Companies Are Run!

 

Most companies are losing out heavily on performance. Not just “losing out” but losing out heavily.

How can I say this? Quite simply, from experience. I have seen the inside of companies across many industries, in a variety of sizes, in a number of countries, and never cease to be amazed at how wilfully they waste potential. Few seem to understand this and, when they have been advised of it — even had it proved — they do not consider changing things for the better.

Then they wonder why there is a high level of both disengagement and staff attrition eating away at customer service, competitiveness and profits.

So, what is happening?

 

Take a look at the diagram below and imagine yourself working through this apparently simple filing process using the assets as labelled.

Thus, in the first step of the process for example, we have the “job” of being a desk (as labelled) being undertaken by an asset (as pictured — the filing cabinet.

 Now, I am sure you will say:

1. This is ridiculous.
2. No-one would use these assets in this manner. It would be totally inefficient.
3. People would get stressed trying to cope.

The truth about each of these statements in turn is:

1. Correct. It is ridiculous.
2. Wrong! This kind of thing is done every day in the workplace in most companies.
3. Correct. This is happening as a result.

Using items to do things they are not built to do will ruin performance. Trying to change their properties, like turning the “desk” (filing cabinet) on its side to use it like a desk, remains far from ideal and it is still difficult to operate this way.

But is item 2 really happening? Are assets being used for purposes other than those for which they are designed? Yes. Absolutely. Definitely. Most certainly. Let me illustrate further.

Come back to reality – the reality of people as assets.

 

Take a look at the illustration below, where the people are “labelled” as being in certain roles but behaviourally “built” for something different.

I have used the same labels and pictures but added behavioural assessments:

The behaviour “pattern” demanded by the “job” (the Label).
The natural behaviour “pattern” of the “person” (the Picture) placed in the job.

Thus, in the first step of our process, we have the “job” of being a desk (as labelled) being undertaken by an asset — the filing cabinet (as pictured). There is clearly a strong mismatch.

You will notice there is one exception where behavioural assessment shows a person suits the behavioural demands of the job: the hole punch. We have an asset with the right behaviours for the job to be undertaken comfortably and well.

Ask yourself the question: how would a person feel about:

• Being forced to take on a role for which they are not behaviourally “built”?
• Being pushed to produce results in spite of such limitations?

When you consider that around 70% of people are disengaged at work, does this not begin to explain one of the major reasons for it? Does it not also begin to say a great deal about morale, performance and attrition?

Yet this can be so easily prevented to a great extent 

 

... By careful and objective behavioural assessment of both job demands and of a person’s natural strengths. Organisations who have taken this step report higher levels of performance, morale, engagement and retention. (I can supply live cases that illustrate this fact.) 

Isn’t it time to re-think how selection is undertaken in your organisation?