A tough labor market may see some companies make “desperation hires.” Here’s what they need to avoid doing.
We’re in the midst of a “Great Reshuffling.”
According to McKinsey, folks are switching jobs and retiring early. They’re taking extended time off, or moving to non-traditional roles. The voluntary quit rate remains higher than it was before Covid, and it will probably be some time before it returns to pre-pandemic levels.
At the same time, the competition for talent remains high. As I outlined in a previous post, that’s especially true for businesses like dentistry that need to pull from specialized labor pools. Dental hygienists don’t just fall out of the sky; they’re highly skilled professionals that go to school for two years. There’s no lever you can pull to instantly increase the number of hygienists in the world.
A diminished labor pool and high competition can lead to some roles going unfilled. This, in turn, can cause some businesses to lower their hiring standards.
The trap of “desperation hiring.”
If a company’s been unable to fill a role for months, it can cause them to say, “let’s just get someone in the door.”
Maybe a few candidates have come through, and they just weren’t right. But then stress mounts, as others on your team are forced to pick up the slack. Production — and revenue — falter. Is it better to have no one fill the role? Or is it better to stem the bleeding and hire someone who doesn’t meet your standards? It’s a difficult question.
You can hire someone. Maybe they’re there for a few months, but you end up parting ways — then you’re back at square one. And in a worst-case scenario, a desperation hire sets you further back than square one, as their presence is destructive to culture, productivity, or both.
If forced to choose, always go with personality fit over technical fit.
I’m not the first person to say this, but it pays to think about the perfect candidate and divide them into two buckets. There’s “experience fit,” and there’s “personality fit.”
Experience fit is the technical side of the job. If I’m hiring a dental assistant, a person with good experience fit has graduated from a Dental Assisting Program and been an assistant for several years. They have the requisite skills necessary to do the job.
Then, there’s “personality fit.” Are they going to have a positive impact on the culture? Do they show up the right way? Are they enthusiastic and passionate? You can grade for personality fit during an interview. Condescension and entitlement are obvious red flags.
A perfect candidate is overflowing with both experience fit and personality fit. But my recommendation — if you’re in a desperate situation and have to choose between them — is to go with personality fit. Assuming a baseline level of technical competency, you can generally train someone up. It’s going to require work and a good onboarding program, but it’s doable.
You can train the technical side of things. Personality fit is, usually, another matter. This may even seem obvious, but hiring managers sometimes panic when they’re desperate. I have absolutely seen hirings based on experience rather than personality fit (if both can’t be found). The hiring managers usually regret it.
How to define a good personality fit — and how to recognize when a “neutral” personality fit is acceptable.
Personality fit is a broad term for professionalism, enthusiasm for growth, and having a positive impact on the culture of a company. You can get a feel for it in an interview, especially when asking a candidate if they have questions about the role or the company. Do they ask pointed, thoughtful questions? Professional references are also important, to gauge the impact this person’s had on other companies.
Sometimes, it’s okay to hire for “neutral” personality fit. Maybe the candidate has good experience, but doesn’t strike you as someone who will proactively improve the culture. They’ll most likely absorb the existing culture around them. If you have a strong culture in place, then taking on a neutral personality fit can work.
What I would never do, though, is hire a negative personality. I know it sounds crazy — why would anyone knowingly hire a negative personality? — but I’ve seen it happen. Someone flies red flags from the opening interview. They’re going to be entitled and not show up to work on time, and yet they’re hired anyway, out of desperation. It rarely ends well.
In an ideal world, you hire for both technical fit and personality fit.
But sometimes you have to choose. In that case, I would always advise you to go with personality fit. This advice becomes especially important as talent wars heat up (and specialized labor pools dry up).
It’s hard to overstate the impact of a hire with a bad personality fit. In a worst-case scenario, their presence — even if it’s only for a few months — is damaging to the culture of your business. Sometimes it’s better to have no one at all.
But if someone comes in with a good personality — they’re hard-working, open, trustworthy, conscientious, and willing and able to learn — they can be trained on the technical side (assuming a baseline level of competency).
It will require more upfront work, but it’s worth it. The integrity of your company culture is too important to risk.
