In today’s climate there is more of pretty much everything (except funding!) in many sectors and services. More high-quality candidates looking for jobs. More knowledge of and interest in professional growth (promotions, sideways moves, new roles). More professional development opportunities and potentially more appetite than ever before to develop skills, knowledge and expertise. As employers and professional development providers, this means a much larger pool to draw from and therefore the temptation (and some might argue, the logical choice) is to be more and more selective about who ‘makes the cut’. Because after all, if you can list all your ‘ideal’ criteria (and put the various hoops in place to jump through) and still get a high level of interest in your role, new structure or your CPD programme, why wouldn’t you be ever more specific about who it is that you want?
There’s not necessarily an issue with being clear about any essential criteria for a role or professional development opportunity, in fact it’s likely very helpful to be clear on who would match well with or benefit from what’s on offer. The issue I have been reflecting on a lot recently, is more in how ‘fit’ and ‘readiness’ are being measured and whether we are allowing enough room in these processes for emerging and future talent to get through, as much as we are those with past experience and successful track records.
Just the other day I was reading about a leadership development opportunity. The opportunity listed several criteria that those interested in it would need to meet and then there was a relatively long application form to complete (followed by an interview). The questions were a mix of asking individuals to outline their past relevant experiences and achievements, and how they would demonstrate commitment to several key areas. Essentially asking them to prove their worthiness and readiness for such an opportunity. I didn’t see any questions related to what the individual wanted from the opportunity, their learning goals or their expectations of the training provider and/or the development experience…but perhaps this was what the ‘interview’ aspect was for.
Similarly, I was looking through job adverts on social media and came across one that appeared relatively mid-level (in terms of responsibilities and influence) and yet had a long application form, followed by an assessment centre process, followed by an online interview and then followed by an in-person interview. The advert also started with a long list of criteria of who they wanted and what they would expect and only towards the end, finished with a bit about the organisation and what benefits there might be for the individuals applying (which to me is the wrong way round).
From these two examples (and I could list more!), let me explain what concerns me. For every positive these approaches might appear to bring, there are also trade-offs that potentially limit emerging talent (and I suspect a good level of diversity!) from making it through. By asking people to complete long forms and interview processes (especially for CPD opportunities), yes we might feel we are quality assuring and checking commitment levels but the trade-off is that there are likely many people being discouraged from applying as they wonder who is sitting in judgement of them at such an early stage.
If our role as an organisation is to develop and grow people, why are we asking them to prove their worthiness to us so early on? Isn’t an important part of providing a great (often paid for!) development opportunity, using our expertise to identify, nurture and encourage those with huge potential who (for whatever reason) can’t ‘prove’ that they have it yet? When we put barriers in place that require people to prove themselves to access development, to me it flies in the face of the underpinning principle of a development opportunity – i.e. it is there to develop and build people. If our expectation of people joining development opportunities is that they are already a proven ‘perfect’ package, where are the spaces for people who aren’t quite there yet (or alternatively are there, but don’t believe in themselves enough or have had people tear their confidence down)?
Ultimately, I am questioning whether there is enough ‘walking the walk’ when it comes to developing people. There is a lot of talk about it but if the approach is to be very picky, selective or narrow in judgement as to ‘who is worthy’ at such early stages, is there really a commitment to developing people or is it more a case of selecting a preconceived idea of ‘talent’ or the ‘safe options’ to minimise the risk of the ‘unknown’?
I understand the tendency towards what might be seen by some as ‘more measurable’ – i.e. previous work history/achievements, written commitments/statements – and I also understand the psychology of making something hard won and therefore potentially more gratifying when you’re successful. But I also question whether this approach really achieves what people expect it to – an assurance that your new recruit(s), your new development participants, or your promotion candidate, will be successful and give you their full commitment to the job or opportunity. Someone’s ability to write an application well or speak fluently in an interview isn’t a guarantee of success or commitment though.
Across my career, some of the best people I have come across were people who at first, didn’t have a long list of achievements and struggled to even believe they could be highly successful. But with some time, nurturing and supportive challenge, they began to thrive and in return became some of the most loyal, committed and hardworking people out there. Had long applications, interview processes and early judgement been put in their way, I doubt they would have put themselves forward.
So, how can we redress the balance and ensure emerging talent that might need some encouragement, nurturing or support has access to opportunities just as much as those who have already experienced high levels of success and/or can talk a good talk in applications and interviews? Here a just a few ideas I’ve seen work well (there are many more).
- Evaluate (on a regular basis) whether the initial steps you’ve put in place to access an opportunity really need to be there. For example, is a long application form necessary or could it be shorter? Speak to prospective (and diverse!) future participants to find out from them whether the main consensus is that it’s seen as a positive or negative step.
- If you are content the steps need to be in place, reflect on the language you are using – especially when it comes to CPD. For example, an ‘interview’ could become a ‘professional conversation’ or ‘introductions meeting’ so it sounds less like a judgement process and more like a dialogue and an opportunity to get to know each other.
- Equally, if you do put formal steps in place, make sure you have a diverse panel of people assessing applications/interviews to avoid unconscious bias or misconceptions. Make it clear to people that this will be in place as it may put some candidates at ease to know that their future opportunity doesn’t just rest on one or two people’s opinion.
- Evaluate the types of questions you are asking so that there is at least some balance between prior experience/achievements and future potential. Questions such as ‘Tell me more about what you would like to gain from the role/opportunity’ can help you understand individuals’ hopes and aspirations for the future. Questions such as ‘What would you like to see from us as an employer / training provider’ can help you understand the ways you can help to support and also implies a balance between you and them in terms of expectations.
- Reference in your materials (whether for recruitment, promotion/growth opportunities or CPD) that you are interested in (and would encourage) diversity in all its forms. For CPD, rather than emphasising the ‘calibre’ or ‘quality’ you expect (which implies a level of judgement), focus on your role as a training provider in harnessing and developing potential in people.
Ultimately, to end this on a very personal level, there are some opportunities across my own career that I just wouldn’t have had access to had it not been for someone seeing something in me and deciding to take a bit of a gamble in favour of future potential. Some of the roles and opportunities I’ve been my very best at, have been the ones where if I’d been judged solely on an exact match based on prior experience or achievements, I likely wouldn’t have made it through. Similarly, as I mentioned earlier, I have seen this play out in others I have worked closely with too.
This blog isn’t arguing for dismissing individuals past experience and achievements – these aspects are important…But they are important as part of a much bigger picture and one that includes potential and future capabilities. I truly believe that the best leaders are not the ones always opting for the perceived safest bets but the ones that are also taking calculated risks – finding ways to reveal ‘talent’ and potential rather than expecting it to find it’s way to them. Removing potential unnecessary barriers is a good place to start.
“The task of leadership is not to put greatness into people, but to elicit it, for the greatness is there already.” ~ John Buchan
“The greatest good you can do for another is not just to share your riches, but to reveal to him his own.” ~ Benjamin Disraeli
If you are looking for a specialist with in-depth experience and insights to work alongside you as you develop your people strategy, organisational strategy and/or your approach to culture, please visit my website at: www.elevatingleadership.co.uk or get in touch at alice@elevatingleadership.co.uk
