What happens when you only hire people based on college degrees and work experience? Why should you hire for potential?
Many organizations make the mistake of hiring the “perfect” employee. However, Adam Grant says that hiring these types of employees overlooks people who can help your business grow in the long run.
Continue reading to learn why hiring for potential will benefit your business, and how to find people with the greatest potential.
Hire Based on Potential, Not Superficial Success
Grant contends that when organizations aren’t hiring for potential, they often overlook the applicants with the most potential to help them achieve their goals. This happens for two reasons:
First, organizations typically place too much value on prestigious college degrees, which Grant suggests are poor predictors of future performance. Studies show that on a technical level, there are few differences between the work done by graduates of elite universities and the work done by graduates of less prestigious ones.
Furthermore, job postings that require college degrees exclude large segments of the workforce. Many people gain valuable, employable skills outside of college. For instance, they might learn directly from experts or teach themselves.
Second, Grant argues that organizations often make the mistake of judging candidates solely by their prior work experience: how long they’ve worked a similar job or how well they did at that job. However, this experience doesn’t necessarily translate to success in a new role—the years someone has worked don’t prove that they learned anything during that time. Additionally, you can only judge candidates by the quality of their past work if you’re hiring them for a job that requires those exact same skills. Often, organizations falsely assume that if an applicant did well in their previous job, they’ll similarly thrive in any job.
| An Alternative System: Credential-Centered Hiring In The End of Average, Todd Rose also criticizes employers for relying too much on fancy college degrees and past work experience, for many of the same reasons as Grant. To fix these issues, he suggests a systematic overhaul of our hiring practices: Instead of looking at degrees, employers should evaluate candidates based on what Rose calls “credentials.” Credentials are certifications that prove someone has the skills and knowledge required to do a specific job. For example, instead of getting a generic business degree, a candidate could earn credentials in areas like accounting, data analysis, and project management. According to Rose, an applicant’s collection of earned credentials would paint a much more nuanced picture of their unique capabilities than if you were to judge them by their alma mater or work experience. Workers could obtain credentials by passing exams or completing focused training courses on particular topics, as opposed to broad college programs. This specialized and personalized education system would help students only take classes that directly prepare them to thrive in the jobs they want. |
How to Conduct Job Interviews That Unearth Potential
Grant explains how organizations can fix their flawed hiring practices by conducting job interviews that identify applicants’ true potential. Rather than judging candidates based on prestigious degrees or past work experience, learn enough about their background to assess the obstacles they’ve faced to get to where they are today. Candidates who push through hardship often develop skills that help them do great work but aren’t obvious on a résumé.
For example, imagine a candidate who grew up in a rural area with limited educational resources and taught themselves math and science from library books to earn a GED. This demonstrates exceptional self-motivation and proactivity—skills that would serve them well in any job.
(Shortform note: Although Grant recommends letting applicants’ unique backgrounds inform your hiring decisions, be careful about what types of information you solicit: In the US, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission forbids employers from asking questions that may lead to hiring discrimination. For example, it would be illegal to directly ask a candidate “Where are you originally from?”, as you could be accused of asking this question to discriminate against people from certain countries. Instead, ask how they learned the specific skills you’re looking for.)
Additionally, offer candidates the chance to demonstrate the skills they’ll need for the job during the interview process on a project that’s familiar and easily understandable. This way, you can witness firsthand if candidates have what it takes to thrive in your organization. For instance, if you’re hiring a business consultant, ask candidates to imagine what advice they would give to a friend who’s running a struggling barbershop.
(Shortform note: In Rework, Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson offer similar advice: They recommend paying top candidates to do a small project for your company—around 20 hours of work—before deciding whether to hire them full-time. This will provide a more complete picture of how a candidate will fit into your organization than even the most comprehensive interview.)
Finally, Grant recommends making your interview process as comfortable and accommodating as possible. Traditional job interviews feel like high-pressure examinations designed to expose candidates’ weaknesses. This adversarial approach creates unnecessary stress that prevents candidates from demonstrating their full abilities. Instead, do whatever you can to make applicants feel relaxed.
(Shortform note: Consider keeping your workplace as comfortable and accommodating as possible after you’ve hired someone, at least for the first 100 days. According to Geoff Smart and Randy Street in Who, many new hires change their minds and either turn down a job they’ve already accepted or quit within their first few months. After 100 days, however, new hires have typically made enough of a commitment to your organization that they’ll stay without further encouragement.)
