Selecting directors is not an easy task. Sometimes we fall into the trap of only technical expertise. While technical expertise is one of the main selection factors, other factors cannot be ignored. Managerial and interpersonal skills must be considered.
Some highly skilled people as engineers/doctors/accountants/teachers have very limited management skills. Focusing on technical expertise can lead to a loss of experienced people and low performing managers.
Personality is so important that it is hard to change. You can train a manager on technical or management issues, but you cannot change his personality with training. If you choose a manager who has technical expertise and managerial skills but has a problem with his personality, you will cause a lot of problems. He can be very aggressive with colleagues or subordinates. He may not develop people who report to him. may lie.
1. There is no team in the “I”
Establishing a team philosophy is important to organizational productivity. Managers need to be good at promoting teamwork and setting an example for it. I avoid putting people in positions of leadership that stress their own importance above the contributions of others since, in the long run, this is a major organizational motivating factor and also a sign of too much ego. In addition, Show-Boater and Grand-Stander managers tend to distract from what should be the main problem: the solution to a successful project. See my article Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due for further discussion of this topic.
2. He knows everything
By the same token, leaders who don’t take credit for the talents and knowledge of their employees generally don’t achieve optimal results. Those who thoughtfully seek and enjoy the input of those they work for are not weak – they are strong. When bosses listen, employees tend to take ownership—which, by the way, is closely linked to organizational success. By definition, leaders who think they can know everything better themselves are called tyrants. Most people I know don’t want to work with a leader who just wants them to follow his orders.
3. Create the middle
Continuing on with the last point, I’ve found that a lot of “know-it-all” leaders treat input as a form of insubordination, meaning that if you’re not with me – you agree with my ideas – you’re against me. This is definitely not a recipe for the best business results. It is normal for people from different backgrounds and experiences to have differing views on issues. Leaders create a middle ground by pulling the best parts from all inputs and using them to craft better overall solutions. Thus, they are more willing to have people present their insights. On the other hand, people who work for leaders who react to outside input in a personal way—insulting and labeling the people who display it—learn to keep their ideas to themselves, which negatively impacts the organization in the long run.
4. On-the-job experience
There are certain individuals with such a rare talent that they are likely to excel in any position, regardless of their background. I keep looking for these types of people, but in over 40 years in the industry, I’ve only come across two people. Most people need a critical mass level of expertise in a specific job area – or a closely related field – to appreciate the structural challenges they will have to face in order to succeed. Employing people without a background within the structure they are expected to run puts the organization at high risk of failure. For example, if you were the owner of Ruth’s Chris Steak House, would you really consider hiring a chef who only has experience cooking Tex-Mex foods?
I’ve found that some leadership candidates have such a hard time with facts that you almost need fact-checkers to review and make statements about the veracity of anything they say, especially when it comes to their personal history. ! Most of these people are smart enough to understand that a piece of truth must be embedded in their statements so that they seem at least on the surface plausible. The old line from “Dragnet”—”Facts only, ma’am”—applies here. If the candidate cannot back up his words by citing documented facts and data, he is likely stretching the truth, or worse, misrepresenting the situation.
I don’t want managers who shoot from the hip as their primary modus operandi. Sure, sometimes this kind of thing is required. However, being shot from the hip increases the likelihood of saying one thing today and having to either revise it or take it back tomorrow when it proves to be off target. Or worse, double down on something that shouldn’t have been said in the first place. Either way, people are affected by words and for this reason, leaders must be measured and consistent in their statements. During the interview process, I look for thoughtful, thoughtful answers to my questions.
Employees are not and should not be treated as standards. People have different strengths and weaknesses. Leaders need to understand this and position their people for personal and organizational success. Publicly identifying and criticizing individuals demoralizes the entire organization, leaving employees to wonder, “Will I be next?” Oftentimes, substandard performance by an individual is as much the fault of the manager as it is of the employee. I think the old rule of thumb is that “Constructive criticism of others should be private and verbal while praise should be public and visible.” People like knowing they have a boss backing them up. Leaders who criticize everyone and their brother are likely to try to take the focus away from their own failures.
8. Job objectives
I once asked a candidate what his primary objective would be if I put him in the managerial position I was trying to fill. He replied, “I want to put myself in T
My next promotion.” At least he was honest. I know what he was achieving but I’m more interested in people who focus on “doing a good job for this job” first and foremost than someone who watches what the job can do for themselves as an individual. For the most part, If you do a good job, promotions will take care of themselves Avoid candidates whose primary purpose in life seems to be “looking for #1.”
9. Communication skills
Leaders need to have listening skills, and when they speak they need to be specific about what they are talking about. When I ask questions of candidates, I am interested in a certain level of elaboration in their answers. I want to know the details, not just a one-line bulleted element type response in PowerPoint. Better, I would like candidates to ask for more details about the question asked and then think about it for a bit before jumping straight to the answer. In my experience, it is relatively easy in an interview to identify candidates who are more interested in hearing themselves speaking than giving a meaningful answer to a question. should be avoided.
Integrity in general is something that needs no introduction. You know it when you see it, and you know it when you don’t. For example, if you hear whiffs of evidence about a candidate for a leadership position who hasn’t kept their word and — even worse — a written agreement with a supplier, that disqualifies them from any position of power, even if it’s outside of a buyout. An example of this might be failure to pay the full contract price to the supplier after the goods or services have been delivered. I want nothing to do with such an individual. Naf said.