What we’ve learned from our failures, and how we built a better way without complicated algorithms or expensive recruiters.
The Great Resignation. Quiet Quitting. Quiet Firing. Labor shortages and layoffs. One thing is for certain: there has been a lot of churn in the labor market. Employees and employers both are looking for good fits. And much like online dating, the landscape is fraught with obstacles. Seasoned managers have all run across the inevitable catfish resume. Prospective employees oversell their experience and spin a story from their last employer. It happens. But more likely there is just a lack of connection, a misalignment of values, a simple miscommunication of expectations.
Bad hires are common, but the reasons are usually benign. There is rarely ill-will between the employer and employee. In fact, just the opposite is more commonly true. Everyone wants it to work out; it just doesn’t. Unfortunately, these hiring misses are expensive for managers and for prospective employees. They’re expensive to morale. Companies need good help. Employees are looking to build their resumes, build experience and contribute to a team doing meaningful work. But often what could be a win-win becomes something less. Everyone is disappointed. Everyone pays.
How did it happen?
As the CEO of CoBUILD Construction Services, I’d love to tell you we’ve had a perfect track-record for hiring. We have not. And while I can’t claim to be an expert in hiring, I can tell you I’ve paid tuition. That’s God’s honest truth!
We’ve sent out tentacles into our relational networks. We’ve honed our interview questions. We’ve gotten clearer on our company values and our culture. We nearly always have prospective employees shadowing our work. It all helps, but there is one simple tool that emerged out failure to connect that has served us especially well.
Not long ago we sent our current employees a link to a quick survey; it takes less than 5 minutes. There are ten pairs of morally neutral statements of work preferences. It’s not a personality typology. It’s simply what people prefer, their bias towards getting work done.
Clove, our data geek (err…one of our data geeks, we tend to trend geek heavy) created some beautiful data visualization that helped us see with clarity something that several on our team had been feeling.
While our team is on the same page about CoBUILD’s mission — creating environments for people to succeed — the nuts and bolts of our work styles can differ dramatically. Differences can be great for shaking up the collective perspective, generating new ideas, and challenging norms we take for granted, but only if they’re identified and supported. When differences are stifled or ignored, resentment can build. What we expect from our team is colored by our internal biases, but we neither communicate those “silent contracts” nor ask our colleagues to do the same. The building resentment leads to burnout, miscommunication, and unproductive conflicts. One such example within the CoBUILD team was made clear via our survey.
Our administration team is made up primarily of people who like to be given a lot of autonomy to do their work. One of our team, however, appreciates being given very clear detailed instructions. This employee felt frustrated that she wasn’t given enough direction, while everyone else was treating her like they wanted to be treated. Conducting this quick survey brought the disconnect into keen focus, and it created pathways for teammates to extend generous interpretations of another’s actions.
The culture survey question that identified a disconnect in our admin. team. Responses are real, but names are not. Notice how Jordan might feel a disconnect with the rest of her team if this work preference wasn’t communicated.
How does this relate to hiring? Now we interview for competencies and culture fit, but we also look at how a new employee might experience team dynamics. Are they similar in work style preference to the team they will joining? Do they think about getting things done differently? Will that different perspective be a net asset or liability?
There generally isn’t one right way to get work done. But there certainly are ways of working suited to one role over another. And there are people who will more easily slide into an existing workflow and people whose perspectives and preferences will challenge the status quo. It serves both the team and the individual to understand this going in, and it helps us make informed decisions in our hiring practices.
Hiring will never be easy; I am convinced it is impossible to get the “fit” right every time. But we do a better job building and growing stronger teams when work preferences are understood and made explicit. And to be clear, we aren’t looking for sameness; we want to increase awareness. Eyes wide open teamwork depends on truly understanding how teams work.
