Las organizaciones y sus “grandes” equipos

El día a día de toda organización y  los resultados que obtiene, se basan en sus equipos de trabajo. En sus empleados, recursos, humanos, talentos o mano de obra. Las personas que día a día ejecutan tareas en dicha organización. Según la época y modas, las nombraremos de diferentes maneras.

Sería ingenuo pensar que quién esté a cargo de seleccionar un nuevo miembro para un equipo, no vaya tras “el mejor”. Hoy todos coinciden en que encontrar los mejores empleados, es crucial para el éxito de la organización, el logro de los objetivos, la llegada a una misión desde una visión, y … si la organización la pensamos desde lo privado, el éxito del negocio.

Así lo manifestaba ( entre otros) Steve Jobs. Dejo al finalizar este post, el segmento que hoy fue el disparador de esta reflexión que comparto.

Si nos basamos en que vamos a buscar a “el mejor” nuestro proceso de selección debe ir tras ese  nivel de perfil. Y en ese marco es posible que se vuelva muy dificultoso.

Volver a las bases de un proceso de selección ( identificar las etapas, mejorar el proceso, evaluar resultados) es una tarea que debe ser encarada periodicamente por el equipo (  ya sea un equipo interno, o un proveedor externo) junto al requirente del ingreso de ese nuevo empleado.

¿Podemos seleccionar al mejor, si no tenemos relevado el perfil  y ayudamos a nuestro cliente ( interno / externo) a identificar y manifestar a nosotros y a él mismo qué busca?

¿ Escribimos un requerimiento atractivo aggionado a las redes sociales y utilizamos medios para lograr que nuestro pedido sea atractivo y – en caso de áreas de pleno empleo – que llegue a la mayor cantidad de interesados posibles?

¿Fortalecemos las fuentes de selección dando valor agregado a la simple y eventual publicación de un “aviso”?

¿ Los documentos que preparamos para nuestro cliente (interno o externo) plasma el perfil de manera adecuada, conteniendo el resultado de una  pre-selección  – screening – alineada a lo que busca? ¿Damos las herramientas de evaluación necesarias para esa etapa?

¿Sabe fehacientemente el candidato que pasa a una instancia de entrevista, qué buscamos y sabe identificarse como EL MEJOR candidato para el puesto? ¿ Estamos todos perdiendo el tiempo en una entrevista de alguien que no sabe lo que quiere con alguien que no sabe si aplica?

El papel del selector es crucial. Es difícil ( especialmente en mercados con una complicada realidad de conseguir empleados o en empresas de diferente envergadura).

Pero si no tenemos en claro que vamos a buscar a LOS MEJORES en cumplir los REQUISITOS de un PUESTO, habremos dado un mal primer paso que nos llevará a la falta de resultados.

En los siguientes posts, voy a dejar mis reflexiones sobre el camino, para seleccionar al MEJOR EQUIPO.

 


 

 

What talent do you think you consistently brought to Apple and bring to NeXT and Pixar?
I think that I’ve consistently figured out who really smart people were to hang around with. No major work that I have been involved with has been work that can be done by a single person or two people, or even three or four people. Some people can do one thing magnificently, like Michelangelo, and others make things like semiconductors or build 747 airplanes — that type of work requires legions of people. In order to do things well, that can’t be done by one person, you must find extraordinary people.

The key observation is that, in most things in life, the dynamic range between average quality and the best quality is, at most, two-to-one. For example, if you were in New York and compared the best taxi to an average taxi, you might get there 20 percent faster. In terms of computers, the best PC is perhaps 30 percent better than the average PC. There is not that much difference in magnitude. Rarely you find a difference of two-to-one. Pick anything.

But, in the field that I was interested in — originally, hardware design — I noticed that the dynamic range between what an average person could accomplish and what the best person could accomplish was 50 or 100 to 1. Given that, you’re well advised to go after the cream of the cream. That’s what we’ve done. You can then build a team that pursues the A+ players. A small team of A+ players can run circles around a giant team of B and C players. That’s what I’ve tried to do.

So you think your talent is in recruiting?
It’s not just recruiting. After recruiting, it’s building an environment that makes people feel they are surrounded by equally talented people and their work is bigger than they are. The feeling that the work will have tremendous influence and is part of a strong, clear vision — all those things. Recruiting usually requires more than you alone can do, so I’ve found that collaborative recruiting and having a culture that recruits the A players is the best way. Any interviewee will speak with at least a dozen people in several areas of this company, not just those in the area that he would work in. That way a lot of your A employees get broad exposure to the company, and — by having a company culture that supports them if they feel strongly enough — the current employees can veto a candidate.

That seems very time-consuming.
Yes, it is. We’ve interviewed people where nine out of ten employees thought the candidate was terrific, one employee really had a problem with the candidate, and therefore we didn’t hire him. The process is very hard, very time-consuming, and can lead to real problems if not managed right. But it’s a very good way, all in all.

Yet, in a typical startup, a manager may not always have the time to spend recruiting other people.
I disagree totally. I think it’s the most important job. Assume you’re by yourself in a startup and you want a partner. You’d take a lot of time finding the partner, right? He would be half of your company. Why should you take any less time finding a third of your company or a fourth of your company or a fifth of your company? When you’re in a startup, the first ten people will determine whether the company succeeds or not. Each is 10 percent of the company. So why wouldn’t you take as much time as necessary to find all the A players? If three were not so great, why would you want a company where 30 percent of your people are not so great? A small company depends on great people much more than a big company does.

 

“In order to do things well, that can’t be done by one person, you must find extraordinary people… A small team of A+ players can run circles around a giant team of B and C players. That’s what I’ve tried to do.”

– Steve Jobs (Co-Founder and CEO, Apple, Pixar)

– See more at: http://www.howtohire.org/#sthash.ttSfNq6D.dpuf