The HR Juggler

I am fascinated by how different organisations select their leaders.

My church is in the process of recruiting a youth minister and a potential candidate came to visit today. During the children’s talk, she was ‘interviewed’ and children read out all manner of apparently random questions, which she then had to answer spontaneously in fromt of the 200 or so people present.  Questions included –

• do you prefer ice skating or roller-skating?
• would you rather go to Disneyland or Darfur?
• do you prefer taking a bath or a shower?
• would you rather be an artist or a scientist?

It was interesting on many levels, not least because there were no generally known selection criteria, other than perceived cultural fit and ability to communicate effectively. In principle, none of the questions would necessarily have right or wrong answers, but they were surprisingly revealing – it turns out she didn’t know where Darfur was and chooses to take a shower directly after every bath. To what degree either of these things matter remains to be seen…knowedge of humanitarian crises and an environmental awareness could potentially be seen as important…but then perhaps honesty is a more powerful trait than an ability to negotiate questions with political correctness. It comes back to the selection criteria (and whether there is one!).

For the candidate, the whole day was to be a prolonged interview and selection exercise: she participated in the children’s sunday school activities, she was due to host a lunch for 20 so church members in their twenties, she was to meet with the deacons (church leaders) and then lastly preach at the evening service. After all of that, the church members will meet and vote on whether they would like to make her an offer.

It made me think about the potential corporate alternative: candidates spendig a day with the organisation whilst making a choice whether they felt it would be a good fit for them personally, lunching with colleagues, presenting to the board, exploring their personal values, in addition to the more standard interview, with all who met the individual having a say in whether they ought to be recruited or not.

I suspect there are lessons to be learned from both sides and being part of somethg so out of my usual recruitment and selection experience is great for challenging our accepted norms and thinking differently. One thing is for sure though – as and when leaders are recruited in this open and transparent way, in whichever organisation they join – they should surely have a huge amount of buy-in and support to lead their organisations forward and really make a difference.

What do you think?