Recruiters who scout talent for an organization are sometimes swayed by a particular skill, attribute, or trait that they believe is a difference-maker. If they allow this quality to overwhelm their attraction and assessment, thereby ignoring other data and important success factors, they invariably make a bad call. Even talent scouts as professional and accomplished as those in the National Football League can fall sway to overweighting a preferred skill.
My best attempt to solve the draft/hiring problem... Step 1: Machine - Use an algorithm with 5 to 6 orthogonal (not correlated) criteria and score them with equal weights. Set a cut score/threshold. Those falling below it - Do not hire/draft no matter how many 225 bench presses or other extreme measure. Step 2: Human - Assemble a small group of people who know your program/team intimately. Have them rank order the players/candidates who score above the threshold from highest to lowest. Start making offers to the 1st Rank - if you don't get them, move to 2, then 3, and so on. If you aren't able to get anyone from the 'qualified pool' don't dip into the 'not passes'. Start over.
Great read, but it begs the question about teachability and mentoring. Finding a candidate that fits the culture, has promising skills and is teachable sounds like a great hire.
Like they do in soccer - We learned about the development programs for Manchester United last year in the Leaders Studies. I think you're onto something. I also believe we pull people too soon out of college programs because they stand out in some way. Let them get more reps in and measure performance over time. Regression to the mean is a real thing that people (mostly marketing) don't like to admit.
IDK if it was a key insight, but the team had several development clubs/leagues all the way down to the youth level. So the coaches at the professional level often were able to see these players develop over a 10 to 15 year period as they moved up through the club. That's a lot of opportunities to observe compared to a few college games/seasons and how they perform on the Combine.
I was applying it more to business. The point about the NFL was well made and having one skill in a very specific area may not translate to success in a role, but I would like to think that in business finding a candidate that can learn about your business and shows promise will pay off.
Personally, I never understood why rugby never took off in this country, and North American football did
Regardless, I am not a professional or semi professional athlete.
In my line of work and my level, what they were looking for was soft skills and character. The technical stuff, they're willing to teach. Additionally this is, to some degree, what I look for from candidates. To be clear I would like people with a kitchen and/or retail background too. Ultimately through it comes down to will. If the individual is eager to learn, then we'll usually try to teach them.
How does the interview process you have in place help determine that candidates have soft skills and character. Joe? Any one thing stand out besides a select set of questions that get to that heart?
Good question. There are two abilities. Their ability to work in a team and adapt to an ever-changing environment. I believe "...character is fate" (Heraclitus). This perspective has better enabled me to predict how the team and I will respond to unforseen circumstances.
I think it has to do with advertising revenue. It is easier to break away in football to a commercial because they have discrete plays compared to rugby where the play is continuous. Plus, I think people (at least in the US) like periods, quarters, and rounds. Two 40 minute halves is a long time. I think it is the same reason why the MLB established the pitch clock - to speed up the game - instead of a 3-hour game, it is now around 2 hours.
My best attempt to solve the draft/hiring problem... Step 1: Machine - Use an algorithm with 5 to 6 orthogonal (not correlated) criteria and score them with equal weights. Set a cut score/threshold. Those falling below it - Do not hire/draft no matter how many 225 bench presses or other extreme measure. Step 2: Human - Assemble a small group of people who know your program/team intimately. Have them rank order the players/candidates who score above the threshold from highest to lowest. Start making offers to the 1st Rank - if you don't get them, move to 2, then 3, and so on. If you aren't able to get anyone from the 'qualified pool' don't dip into the 'not passes'. Start over.
Great read, but it begs the question about teachability and mentoring. Finding a candidate that fits the culture, has promising skills and is teachable sounds like a great hire.
As in... did those NFL teams have good development programs for young players?
Could they have met their draft expectations in another organization??
Doubtful.
Like they do in soccer - We learned about the development programs for Manchester United last year in the Leaders Studies. I think you're onto something. I also believe we pull people too soon out of college programs because they stand out in some way. Let them get more reps in and measure performance over time. Regression to the mean is a real thing that people (mostly marketing) don't like to admit.
What was a key insight out of the Man U case study, David?
IDK if it was a key insight, but the team had several development clubs/leagues all the way down to the youth level. So the coaches at the professional level often were able to see these players develop over a 10 to 15 year period as they moved up through the club. That's a lot of opportunities to observe compared to a few college games/seasons and how they perform on the Combine.
I was applying it more to business. The point about the NFL was well made and having one skill in a very specific area may not translate to success in a role, but I would like to think that in business finding a candidate that can learn about your business and shows promise will pay off.
Good morning,
What an interesting post.
Valid points are made.
Personally, I never understood why rugby never took off in this country, and North American football did
Regardless, I am not a professional or semi professional athlete.
In my line of work and my level, what they were looking for was soft skills and character. The technical stuff, they're willing to teach. Additionally this is, to some degree, what I look for from candidates. To be clear I would like people with a kitchen and/or retail background too. Ultimately through it comes down to will. If the individual is eager to learn, then we'll usually try to teach them.
Great points on looking for well rounded men.
Thanks for your time.
How does the interview process you have in place help determine that candidates have soft skills and character. Joe? Any one thing stand out besides a select set of questions that get to that heart?
Good question. There are two abilities. Their ability to work in a team and adapt to an ever-changing environment. I believe "...character is fate" (Heraclitus). This perspective has better enabled me to predict how the team and I will respond to unforseen circumstances.
Thanks for your time.
I think it has to do with advertising revenue. It is easier to break away in football to a commercial because they have discrete plays compared to rugby where the play is continuous. Plus, I think people (at least in the US) like periods, quarters, and rounds. Two 40 minute halves is a long time. I think it is the same reason why the MLB established the pitch clock - to speed up the game - instead of a 3-hour game, it is now around 2 hours.
What would be the assignment for these 100, Patrick?
Get what right?