But will you do windows?

May 27, 2010 3:26 PM

We find it exceptionally hard to find and hire people who are not only good at management, strategy and planning, but who are also exceptional at the hands-on tasks that are in their field of expertise. Most people we speak with, or even hire, tend to only be good at one or the other, or are only willing to do one or the other. How do we figure out if someone that we want to hire will truly be decent at both?

A bit of context: I work for a mid-sized but still fairly small business that engages in a lot of philosophically similar but tactically different activities. We're the kind of organization you hear about where it's not quite a startup, certainly not a big company, but an established firm with limited staffing where "everyone wears a lot of hats."

The problem is that we often have positions that are appropriate for just one or maybe two people, but where there's both high-level management activity (forecasting, budgeting, evaluations, responsibilty for major decisions) and a range of basic tasks, where they'd have to perform hands-on work with high attention to detail. In essence, we sort of need people who can be their own micro-manager.

When hiring, we've found that a lot of people who have been in high-level management positions for a long time tend to exhibit one of two qualities:

1) They resent doing the kind of basic work that they've delegated to other staff in the past
2) They're actually not good at doing that basic work -- they're only skilled at high-level tasks, not the activities that they've been previously asked to manage.

(Michael Moore did a bit about this on one of his TV shows years ago. He asked the head of Ford to change his oil, and the president of IBM to format a floppy, to point out that management was often out of touch with the necessary day to day tasks involving the products they sell.)

It works the same way going the other direction. People who may be qualified to do the hands-on lower-level work may have trouble grasping the responsibilities and tasks of middle or upper management. Extremely qualified people at the hands-on tasks may be deliberately avoiding taking on management tasks.

Making matters worse, we've made the nature of these positions clear during interviews, and people have indicated with much enthusiasm that they can bridge the gap between higher-level duties and hands-on work -- only, when they actually start working, don't actually display that kind of acuity, falling back mostly on one or the other.

Now, we have hired people who can do both high-level and hands-on work -- lots of people, actually -- so I know they exist. I mean, I hope I'm one of them. But we don't know how to determine whether someone new is that kind of person quickly or reliably.

Assuming that the company I'm working with is offering fair pay and benefits, and that this is an issue that goes beyond any one area of expertise (each of the departments of the company are like this, from HR, to accounting, to business divisions), how do you attract and then actually test for the ability to both manage and do detail-oriented hands-on work? Actual examples from hiring managers in a similar situation appreciated.

posted by I EAT TAPAS to work & money (18 answers total)

Making matters worse, we've made the nature of these positions clear during interviews, and people have indicated with much enthusiasm that they can bridge the gap between higher-level duties and hands-on work -- only, when they actually start working, don't actually display that kind of acuity, falling back mostly on one or the other.

I hate to state the obvious, but people who interview with your company are selling you on their abilities. If they have an opportunity to say "I can do X" most people, when asked if they can do X will say "of course!"

Now, I understand that you'd rather have someone say "Sorry, I don't think I'm the right guy for you because I can't do X," but, frankly, the vast majority of interviewees will neither be that forthright nor knowledgeable about their skillset.

I'd approach it in this manner: you have tasks that you need a hire to do. Say it's forecasting a marketing campaign budget. Rather than ask a candidate "Can you forecast a marketing campaign budget?" ask a more open-ended question, such as "Can you tell me how you would manage a marketing campaign from cradle to grave?" If they focus more on the creative aspects of the marketing campaign, but you're looking for a guy who can manage the numbers side, as well, then you have your answer.

Short version: ask candidates open-ended questions.
posted by dfriedman at 3:31 PM on May 27, 2010

I have seen two situations where you get people like the ones you seek:
-Internally. If you promote people from within, they are very familiar with how the nitty gritty of the business runs. They have done some of those more menial jobs in the past and they are willing to do them again if the organization needs it.
-People with recent technical backgrounds. If you are looking for a manager who can get the job done, sometimes you actually need to look for someone who can get the job done that doesn't mind managing (instead of the reverse).

The people that can do both are some of the best folks to work with. Their utility means that they can pretty much get the job done "no matter what". The issue with hiring them is that they are probably very well compensated and very much mission critical where they are. If you are going to lure one of those people out of their current situation, the reward needs to be pretty attractive. If they are going to be doing the work of a technical contributor _and_ increasing the effectiveness of the people around them as a manager, they may be more valuable than the salary you expect to pay.

Just food for thought...
posted by milqman at 3:35 PM on May 27, 2010

Is this a problem with your hiring process, or with your work process? I ask because I've had a couple of jobs where I realized that the only reason I kept having to do so much of what you call "basic work" was that the company wasn't willing to hire enough support staff. I resented it not just because that work can be really boring, and because it was an inefficient use of my time, but also because it was so obviously the company being cheap-asses. Hopefully that isn't the case with you, but it's worth taking a moment to think through how much of your current structure is helping people do their jobs, and how much isn't.

Having just said that, when I helped with hiring at a non-profit (where for budgetary reasons people had to wear a lot of hats), we looked closely at people's resumes to see evidence that they had successfully managed to balance different roles like that in previous jobs, and gave that a lot more weight than straightforward technical skills or managerial acumen. Don't just ask if the candidate can do that -- ask for examples of how they have done so before, and look at the language they use to describe that experience.
posted by Forktine at 3:54 PM on May 27, 2010 [2 favorites]

What you're hiring for is a person who can think both strategically (management) and tactically (operationally); in my experience the people who can do that with any skill are actually fairly rare, and often have a preference of one type of work over another. I find this is especially true in technology, but it may be true in other lines of business as well.
Take a look at your pay schedule - you may be able to hire two or three operational types and thus need fewer managerial people (they could possibly manage more than one area?).
posted by dbmcd at 3:58 PM on May 27, 2010

But we don't know how to determine whether someone new is that kind of person quickly or reliably.

Ask them to do several high level and low level tasks at the interview. Don't ask them what they would do, have them actually do it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:28 PM on May 27, 2010

only, when they actually start working, don't actually display that kind of acuity, falling back mostly on one or the other.

I wonder what you mean by "mostly"? If you mean "mostly" as in "pretty much exclusively", then your problem is one of finding and hiring the right kind of people, as you say. If, however, you mean "mostly" as in "they achieve something more like a 60/40 or a 70/30 split" then your problem is one of making expectations clear and holding them accountable for achieving the balance you want. I'll assume, though, that you really do have a hiring problem.

It seems like you haven't found the market niche that holds the kind of people you're looking for. Without knowing the particulars of your business (but I'm assuming it's something hi-techy) I would think you're probably going to find that the right people are still doing the basic level work for the most part, but have some management experience. Perhaps in a slightly different industry, or have been an acting manager for a time, or just finished an MBA hoping that they could make a transition into management. People like that would probably jump at a chance to sign on with a company that is doing well and could, if all goes well, end up having an inside track for a pure management position when the company grows enough to justify adding some layers of management.
posted by DrGail at 4:33 PM on May 27, 2010

We find it exceptionally hard to find and hire people who are not only good at management, strategy and planning, but who are also exceptional at the hands-on tasks that are in their field of expertise.

As one of those people, I can say a few things that might be helpful:

First, those are two very different kinds of skill sets, and by necessity a person's time spent in the sweet spot (able to do the tasks, and able to manage those doing the tasks) is fairly limited. Plus, many of the personal attributes that lend themselves to one skill set don't necessary help -- or can potentially hinder -- the other. So you're trying to work from an extremely limited pool.

Second, people who can work both ends of the job tend to be sensitive and savvy, so are fully aware they are relatively rare and will charge accordingly. If you're not offering suitable compensation, or your interview process suggests that you will not be, you may be driving these people away.

Finally, for reasons that are obvious, identifying these people when they're not already part of your organization is difficult without references or reputations to go by. If you want to find someone like this, you probably won't find them from random resume pulls -- they tend to survive layoffs, become an essential part of an organization, and only leave when they've already got something better lined up (typically through their network of connections.)

So you're going to have to reach down into your staff and your own connections to ferret out these people, convince them you have something valuable to offer, and then lure them away. That, or grow people from the ground up that you believe have the potential to become that kind of person. One takes time and risk, and the other takes money and effort.
posted by davejay at 4:37 PM on May 27, 2010 [5 favorites]

Oh, also: you want "good" managers and planners, but "exceptional" implementers? Good luck with that. Implementers who are exceptional are typically highly focused, and allowed to focus on their tasks for long, uninterrupted periods of time. Neither of those are compatible with managers and planners, who need to gather information from and communicate with large numbers of people and teams, and multitask a significant portion of the time.

What you should be looking for, instead, is people who were once exceptional implementers, and still can implement reasonably well, but are now focused on being exceptional managers and planners. Allow them to take on a role wherein they spend most of their time managing and planning, yet can draw on their expertise as needed to assist the focused implementers on their staff.

If you really have your roles and responsibilities set up so that a person has to be a good manager and an exceptional implementer, you will likely end up with a person who is both of those things in isolation, but is set up to fail at both because they're being asked to fulfill two conflicting job positions.
posted by davejay at 4:45 PM on May 27, 2010 [5 favorites]

Seconding davejay. Even people who can do both well would have difficulty doing both well at the same time. Alternating between both realms on a day by day basis might be workable, but managers are interrupted a lot and that would be frustrating for someone who was working on detail-oriented creative or intellectually taxing work.
posted by amtho at 5:02 PM on May 27, 2010

Loosen up your purse strings and be willing to train your existing workers to do what you want.
See that bored proofreader in the airless, windowless cubicle? Train her to be "good at management, strategy and planning," and increase her pay accordingly. People don't just walk in the door gift-wrapped with the exact qualifications you wish for.
posted by BostonTerrier at 6:25 PM on May 27, 2010 [2 favorites]

God, your question is barely readable, because you use so many nothing words and don't describe your actual issue. I'm guessing you're in software development and you're a project manager because of the terminology you use, please correct me if I'm wrong.

If I'm right: good programmers are very, very rarely good managers. These are entirely different skill sets, and even if I've got the context (software development) entirely wrong, good practitioners rarely make good managers in any field, and you are doing injustice to both practitioners and managers by expecting your staff to do well at both, no matter how tight your budgetary constraints.

Hire good managers, based on their ability to manage staff, and you will have good staff.
posted by goo at 6:41 PM on May 27, 2010 [5 favorites]

Without knowing anything about your organization, I would wonder that if all of these responsibilities fell on one individual whether all activities were actually needed at the level of detail expected.

Years ago I forecasted principally on trending and the thumb test. Then I met an economist and learned how to use broader brush techniques. Now, I may not provide detail on a daily planning level, but I can telly you whether it is worth increasing marketing spend, whether a product is performing as expected, and most importantly - senior management now has insight into strategy and planning.

While yes, right now you may look at the business and think that you need someone who can wear many hats, is it possible to rethink your approach, simplify your business model, and go after someone who only needs to wear one hat?
posted by Nanukthedog at 7:03 PM on May 27, 2010

>> But we don't know how to determine whether someone new is that kind of person quickly or reliably.

> Ask them to do several high level and low level tasks at the interview. Don't ask them what they would do, have them actually do it.

This.

Surely you can think of simple tests you can do. Any "high level" folk who might think doing a "lower level" task in an interview is beneath them? They don't fit into your company culture, ergo they just failed a big test right there.
posted by jeremias at 8:21 PM on May 27, 2010

It may or may not be rare to be able to be both types of person at once (I've known some,) but I'll be honest here: it sounds like that job SUCKS. I like the challenge and sense of making a difference of management, and I like the relative simplicity, pride, and zen of being a good craftsman, too. I could be happy either way. Trying to be both at the same time, though, you couldn't fully just get r done as a craftsman with all that responsibility on your mind all the time, and having to do all the grunt work detail is distracting from thinking big-picture.

I don't care how much you paid me, I'd start picking one or the other, too, or at least heavily favoring one side. Meanwhile, I'd be polishing my resume. Enjoying your job is important, too.
posted by ctmf at 8:26 PM on May 27, 2010 [2 favorites]

goo, I'm afraid you're mistaken. The specific situation that prompted me to post this was an unsuccessful attempt at finding an HR manager to perform a very broad set of HR duties, but we've had several similar difficulties in hiring for positions in different disciplines with broad requirements.

It sounds like you're really quite upset at the software development project managers of the world, with their nothing words and vague descriptions. But then again, who hasn't been?
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 8:27 PM on May 27, 2010

I was in a job similar to the one you describe and the experience was . . . challenging. Challenging for everyone involved. I wasn't allowed the time or space to perform either strategic or tactical work to my satisfaction and my co-workers were very confused about where I fit into the overall structure of the organization. Every day was two steps forward; one back – or vice versa. It's essentially a "no win" position for a new employee and someone who has been around the block will read that in an interview. Personally, I will never accept a position that mixes the two again.

Here's what I would advise: peel away all the wordiness of your post and distill the position down to a single definitive mandate. It should be one sentence and the statement should be agreed upon by all the stakeholders.

The catch: if you end up with two mandates then you should hire two people. Don't burn someone out under the guise of "everyone wearing a lot of hats". Your organization is growing and as that happens it's natural for roles to become more specialized.
posted by quadog at 9:21 PM on May 27, 2010

Man who chases two rabbits, catches neither.

I'm not saying it's definitely the case, but you might look into the question of, even if you had a person who can do what you're asking, is the lost productivity due to task switching and "part-timing" both jobs just worth paying two people and having one be the manager of the other?

'Cause you sure are setting up that one person to always be displeasing you with the amount of time they spend on one vs. the other. Is equal time the right amount? Maybe, until you get unhappy with some task being late or needing rework due to first time hastiness. Then, maybe they'll want to spend a little more time on the implementation, but then they're necessarily short-changing the managerial portion. It's a suicide mission.
posted by ctmf at 6:45 PM on May 28, 2010

I am somebody who has moved into a managerial role over the last couple of years and I was pretty good at the detailed work but managing comes a lot more naturally to me and is much more enjoyable to me.

I am also somebody who's worked in an understaffed environment for the last year. Therefore I had to push very junior people to do stretching things, had to make do with frequently changing teams on my jobs and thus a fair amount of the detailed work fell through the cracks and had to be picked up by me.

And it is virtually impossible to do the detailed work and be available to support my teams, communicate properly with my bosses and my clients and do the various other internal roles I hold, which entails supporting the wider office.

It is impossible as I need to be able to work with limited interruptions for seveal hours at a time to do the detailed work and that's incompatible with answering the teams' questions, meeting with and otherwise communicating with my clients and my bosses and doing the innumerable small tasks that go with managing a process as well as helping the people randomly sidling up to me going 'can you just show/help/point me....'.

So I have found myself doing the detailed work at night, over the weekend or very early in the morning. Result - very long hours, very tired, very stressed and thus not at all happy self!

So as your business grows you'll need to rethink these role profiles and consider a more specialist/generalist role profile with support staff to do a lot of the detailed day to day stuff.
posted by koahiatamadl at 10:42 AM on May 30, 2010