High standards sometimes slow down key decisions to the point of frustration. Leaders who reject inferior answers or solutions until the team finds a better one can wear people down. The temptation to accept a workable decision becomes ever stronger as time marches on and yet another choice has been classified as substandard. Fatigue can set in and undermine the enthusiasm and commitment to a rigorous decision-making process.
I have seen this situation many times. Another wrinkle is that too often the “high standards” are based on arbitrary superficials. So, yes, set a high bar but don’t confuse irrelevant standards, such as where someone went to school, with rigor.
In this position, we sometimes change the job description to try to get a different candidate pool. The theory of how to approach interviewing has been worked out, the challenge is to stick to the recommended algorithm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem
Fun 15 minute discussion of this Field Notes entry here. Moneyball fans will appreciate the conversation… https://twitter.com/admiredleaders/status/167369884800960512
I have seen this situation many times. Another wrinkle is that too often the “high standards” are based on arbitrary superficials. So, yes, set a high bar but don’t confuse irrelevant standards, such as where someone went to school, with rigor.
Thanks, Jim!
Your comment was referenced in our discussion this morning.
https://twitter.com/admiredleaders/status/1673698848009605124
In this position, we sometimes change the job description to try to get a different candidate pool. The theory of how to approach interviewing has been worked out, the challenge is to stick to the recommended algorithm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem
I never have, but I’ve always wanted to experiment with using The Secretary Problem or Optimal Stopping Solution to higher for small N positions. Here is a link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/16/when-to-stop-dating-and-settle-down-according-to-math/
Hire not higher