We try to design and operate business processes in such a way
that new workers can smoothly step into a role or change roles,
and continue to deliver to deliver the values that
customers expect. This does not mean that people are simply
interchangeable 'cogs' or a generic commodity that management
supplies as an 'input' to the process.
When a good employee leaves, there is inevitably a sense of
loss. Since every individual is unique, their contribution to
work and to an organization is going to be different than anyone
else. In a benevolent work environment each new employee brings
unexpected capabilities to the workplace that are essentially
'freebies'. These 'upside surprises' sometimes reward the
company directly in the form of an unanticipated sale or a cost
savings, and sometimes the benefits are intangible in the form
of greater team motivation, morale, loyalty, and so on.
Of course, the reverse is also true. Every employee has the
potential to introduce an unexpected 'drag' on the organization.
'Karen' had a sick mother and is sometimes misses work. 'Rick'
was moody. etc. 'Steve' commutes over 30 miles and has
occasionally been made late by unpredictable traffic.
I think everyone is quite aware of these basic facts once
attention has been placed upon them. What may not be so obvious
is how these issues cloud judgement in the hiring decision.
The recruiting committee will often prepare a 'filter' in the
form of a job ad beginning like this: "Seeking an individual
with aptitude and experience in customer service."
Someone will note that the team always routed warranty issues to
'Joe' as he was more patient with complaining customers. So
"Warranty experience a must!" is added.
'Anne' and 'Sam' are rumored to be 'looking' so we tack on:
"Advanced spreadsheet skills, a keen memory and mechanical
aptitude is a plus."
Next, while thinking about the negative side of the ledger and
trying to formulate a selective but fair criteria - we finish
off with: "Must have a strong work ethic, have a record of
punctuality. Preference given to a local applicant."
Now the motivation behind constructing such a filter is to find
'The One', Mr. or Ms. 'Right'. Although we may consciously
reject this, our behavior is causing us to seek out the status
quo. Even though we can never literally replace 'Joe' we are
apparently going to try.
The 'deal killer' is when someone realizes that 'Joe' was the
in-house expert on the 'ACME AMAZING SOFTWARE
PACKAGE FOR Wonderful CUSTOMER SERVICE'.
So we add to our job requirements: "Applicant must be
familiar with AASPFWCS". We assume, I suppose, that if you
don't even know what the heck the acronym is, you probably don't
qualify.
This 'going nowhere' ad then has a boat anchor strapped
to it by the eternal optimist on the search committee who imagines
that there will (at this point) be hundreds of equally qualified
applicants. "BS Required. Advanced degree preferred."
Now, applicants may certainly apply if the salary is right, If
they want the job badly enough they may be willing to try to be
'Joe' with a touch of 'Anne' or 'Sam', and not themselves.
The fundamental flaw is in how we define our hiring objective.
When a great employee like
'Joe' leaves our company, we need to be able to look them
in the eye and say, "Joe. We'll find someone to do your job, but
we are never going to be able to replace you."