Qualifications vs. Contributions

I am always intrigued by the effort we give to job descriptions and job requisitions and even descriptions of vacancies. Often the emphasis in creating these documents is on establishing qualifications for the assignment. Now I am not saying that we should not make a diligent effort at concisely and clearly defining qualifications. Heavens, we all know that we could improve in that area.

However, when we are determining what we want in a management and/or executive role we often don’t also give adequate attention to the contributions that we want the person to make. Furthermore we rarely indicate in any advertisement what those contributions should be except in broad generalizations such as, “Must work successfully with other to achieve company objectives”.

I suspect that when we are considering a promotion, a transfer, or a hire in senior positions, there may be some value in pulling out the company’s objectives to see what the line of sight is between this open resource and the organization’s goals. If we fail to do so, the fabric of alignment between the firm’s human capital and its stated focus, will unravel over time. On the other hand, if we actively seek the link between why are we filling this position with what we want to accomplish as an organization, I expect that the chances of finding a candidate who is both qualified and of value will be much greater.

During a future chat we will explore the value and implications of making candidates feel as if they are being recruited for the assignment as opposed to how candidates are treated during the traditional employment selection process.

From Michael Salisbury with the Human Resource Alliance (HRA) at www.hralliance.biz