There is an old saying "we hire on skill and fire
on attitude". Of the two, the easiest thing to test and identify is skill, which
is why so much of the recruitment process rotates around it. Evaluating attitude
in the short space of time we have during the recruitment process, is very
difficult and subjective. However profiling helps with this and lets us
understand what kind of person we have in front of us. Of the two things that can be modified or improved,
"skills" is the easiest. It is much easier to improve someone's skills levels
than it is to modify their "attitude" or natural behaviour pattern. It is ironic
therefore that we are more likely to hire someone based on their skills (which
can always be enhanced) and not on their personality. If you have the choice
you would take someone with the right skills and the right personality.
However if candidates are thin on the ground then you may have to compromise and
what will you give priority to? Candidatres that have the skills but don't fit
with your personality benchmark? Or candidates that have a compatible
personality but dont have all the skills you need.
I have a client this now that is not selecting candidates because they are failing the English test. He is selecting candidates whose personality profile do not match his benchmark but that have good English. My belief is that if you have to compromise, then don't automatically choose skills over attitude. There are plenty of English teachers to be found.
Behavioural psychologists are much more difficult to come by as are good candidates that will fit in with your existing team with minimum fuss.
Comments