First of all, some disclosure is necessary in this highly charged political environment. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I have voted for many candidates in both parties as well as a few independents here and there. I’ve voted for candidates who can fairly be described as very conservative fiscally, socially, or both. And I’ve voted for candidates who can fairly be described as very liberal fiscally, socially, or both.
Secondly, some additional disclosure is necessary given that readers of this blog are mostly in the U.S. but also from virtually every country around the world. I grew up in Canada. Please don’t hold that against me. I’m a Canadian citizen and also a naturalized U.S. citizen so I have the pleasure of paying way too much money to both governments to renew my passports. Why the Canadian reference? Because it means that I am a hockey fan. And not a Youngblood hockey fan. A fan of real, old time hockey. So some of my analogies are to hockey. Bear with me those of you who do not yet know that hockey is the greatest game ever invented.
One of the key requirements for any team in hockey to be successful is its level of talent. Does the team have any stars? If not, it will be next to impossible for the team to win more games than it loses and virtually impossible for it to dominate game after game and win championships. Does the team have a bunch of stars? If so, it will be able to dictate how its games will be played and it rather than its opponent will usually determine the final score. Championships are virtually always won by teams with a bunch of stars but having a bunch of stars does not make you a champion. It requires more than talent. It also requires effort and chemistry. Some might refer to those characteristics as culture.
For years the Washington Capitals hockey team was mediocre. Then Alexander Ovechkin arrived on the scene. He’s now the highest paid hockey player in the world and deservedly so. The guy is electrifying. He has talent oozing out of his pores yet he has more than that. He is a team player. He makes those around him better. He is, in short, a rock star. Yet because of these characteristics he’s also risky to play because he sometimes takes chances that drive coaches nuts. He makes mistakes and some of them cost his team games. Recruiters who want to hire perfect candidates would likely not hire Alex because of those issues. The hires made by those recruiters would be safe and likely cause little harm to their organizations, but those hires also wouldn’t be stars. And stars are necessary to build championship teams either on or off the ice.
Over the past couple of weeks the world has discovered Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Two years ago she was the mayor of a town in Alaska and oversaw a staff of 50 people. Now she’s less than two years into her first term as the governor of one of the least populated and wealthiest states in the Union. And she’s also a rock star. Anyone who watched her speech at the Republican National Convention had to be impressed. She’s feisty. She’s energetic. She has the potential to transform the political contest. If McCain’s team wins, she will surely be one of the stars leading the way. Or not. She may also make some terrible mistakes that cost the Republicans the election. Although I don’t agree with some of her political positions, it is obvious to me that Sarah Palin is to American politics what Alexander Ovechkin is to hockey.
My impression of many but not most recruiters is that they are unwilling to seriously consider hiring candidates who have the potential to be star employees. Those fearful recruiters won’t hire potential stars because those candidates are often terribly deficient in certain areas. They may lack experience. They may not have the right credentials. Their personalities may be too big. But without stars on your team, your team will be mediocre. With stars, you’ll have problems that you wouldn’t have had with a staff who are all well qualified but nothing more but your employees will also find ways to innovate and capture business opportunities that merely well qualified employees wouldn’t dream of capturing let alone be capable of actually capturing it.
Every champion needs stars. The Capitals recruited Ovechkin. The Republicans recruited Palin. Who did your organization recruit?
September 5th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
“Would HR have hired ANY of the candidates (of either party, top or bottom of the ticket)” is the more accurate question. November is when the the presidential candidates’ pick of their VP will first prove to be good or bad and their own first performance review.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Well I’m actually from Holland and please don’t hold that against me, although de facto it means I absolutely don’t have any right to comment on US politics. Your post invokes an irresistable urge to do so anyway…
You can describe in detail Ovechkin’s qualities and he shows ‘m off on the ice rink regularly. Whilst when it comes to Sarah Palin, well…
Is she such a team player, can she play a great game? Actually no one knows. Ovechkin shurely could show for a great game before he went to Washington. Shure Palin’s fresh, feisty, a real personality, but I didn’t hear anything on the actual issues in her speech.
So ok, take a risk. But there are risks and risks. I mean if the McCain/Palin team get’s the office, and something might happen to McCain, she would suddenly be commander in chief. Someone who sit’s on a grizzly and has a gigantic crab on her side table for companionship. I’m already informing about the costs of a bomb shelter in my backyard….
September 5th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Sarah Palin has experience and is ready to be the potential occupant of the White House. How convincing is that statement? Let’s examine some of that experience. When Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the population was approximately 7,000. The current mayor of Wasilla is also a woman, Dianne Keller. Would John McCain have considered her as a potential running mate? How many small town mayors across the country would consider themselves ready to become President of the United States? After serving as mayor for two terms, Sarah Palin moved up to become the Governor of Alaska. According to the U.S. Census Bureau the population estimate for the state is 670,053. In comparison the population of the State of Rhode Island is roughly double that of Alaska. Could it be that not all governors are equal? More importantly, could it be that not all experience is equal. If Sarah Palin had decided on her own to seek the office of President of the United States, how likely is it that she would have succeeded? During the recent Presidential Primaries both major parties fielded an array of highly qualified candidates. Anyone of which arguably would have been as qualified or more qualified to become President of the United States than Governor Palin. So what makes Sarah Palin qualified? She has yet to make a convincing argument. Ultimately her qualifications for the job need to be examined and we need to ask, “how and why did John McCain make this choice?” Furthermore, we the voters need to ask, “are we ready to entrust Sarah Palin with that level of responsibility?” John McCain may be ready to take the risk, but are we ready to take the risk?
September 6th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Palin makes much more sense than Barack Obama, and there’s a great recruiting comparison for the two of them. The answer is no, HR would never hire Sarah Palin, but it’s very possible that the CEO would.
Let’s take a look at the two careers.
Palin’s resume is as lengthy as Obama’s. They’ve been in politics about the same time. Compare her time as mayor, her time on the Oil and Gas commission, and her time as governor with Obama’s time as a state senator and US Senator.
1) Palin has a track record of huge successes everywhere she goes. She ran her town well enough to get drafted into the big leagues, and when she did, she took down the Attorney General and head of her own party for being corrupt. That took guts, skill, and political finesse. She rode that reputation to defeat the sitting governor in the primary, and then the ex-governor in the general, and then capped it getting the Oil and Gas pipeline contract signed (a project languishing for years) and she roughed up the Oil and Gas companies. That’s no small deal for Alaska, which is run by corrupt politicians in the pockets of those companies. And she did it all inside two years.
2) Barack Obama has a great resume. Ivy league schools. Law Firm, supposed constitutional law professor. He gets into the Illinois Senate, and does nothing until the last year, where he’s handed a slate of bills by Emil Jones that he sponsors to get attention for his Senate run. Once in the Senate, he starts running for president almost immediately, even though he doesn’t actually accomplish anything. He’s a fluff candidate - one who uses each position to vault him into the next.
Palin has a track record of success, but we don’t know how she’ll perform on the national stage. Obama does great on the national stage, but it seems all he’s good at is the political equivalent of interviewing.
September 6th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Lies, lies, and hyprocrisy! This woman has become more popular in less than a week than Obama and McCain. What does that say about the American People?…wow…
September 6th, 2008 at 7:56 am
HR would absolutely hire Palin AND Obama. We’d check a couple of boxes on our monthly “diversity” hiring report and congratulate ourselves on our “inclusiveness”. The more intriguing question may be: would HR hire McCain? Would you hire a 72 year-old with a mediocre history of performance in their current position and a litany of pre-existing medical conditions?
September 6th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Nice age discrimination comment, Catbert. I’ll make sure to hire you as a company HR professional soon. I guess you wouldn’t hire an old dawg like Biden either, who has far less on his resume than McCain.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:07 am
This whole thing is so bizarre to me. It’s like being in a bad dream and not being able to wake up. Palin was virtually unknown outside of Alaska just ONE week ago. A woman, who in her own words “wondered what it is a Vice President does all day”. A woman who wants to deny women the right to terminate a pregnancy even if conception occurs as a result of rape or incest.
Now, she’s more popular than Obama or McCain. What does that say about the mindset of voters in this country. I’ve heard people express how much they love her, her kids, even her parents…who’ve only been shown on TV once at the RNC and have never uttered a word (as far as an interview goes) So what is it about her that has endeared her to so many people.
The scandalous baggage that accompanies her nomination is as lengthy as the Bering Strait…yet she’s almost revered by every woman and some men that have been interviewed since the announcement by McCain that she would be his running mate.
The “maverick” is looking more and more like a sidekick…merely going along with the powers that be…he says and does whatever he thinks his champions want to hear. Just like calling lobbyists ‘birds of prey’ which is a total contradiction to what his true ties with these unnecessary evils in Washington are.
Come on America…are we so shallow that a pretty face is all it takes to win us over? Gov. Palin hasn’t given not ONE interview outlining her plans for this country as VP since McCain picked her….only pre-written rhetoric aimed at tearing down the Democratic nominee and his party. Even after her acceptance speech, I still don’t know who she is..
September 7th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
I would much rather go hunting with Sarah Palin than Dick Cheney. On the other hand I don’t hunt and Cheney will not be treated very well by historians so the comparison is problematic at best. Relating Palin to Obama is not relevant unless you count on McCain to croak so I will reserve judgement until after McCain and Obama’s picks for Veep have at it.
It is fortunate though that Sarah lives so close to Russia…as was pointed out by McCain [and therefore can be assumed to have a neighbors knowledge of goings on I suppose].
The good news is neither party’s picks can represent us any worse than the current administration- so sorry if that offends but…as was mentioned before, history will have its say.
If HR had a key role, it would have been in support of the hiring manager not as a replacement for him. Her choice offered high risk high reward- because it surely was designed to shift the conversation. It has and I would like think HR would have presented her among the slate of possibilities.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
In order to answer your question we need to know what makes a successful President and Vice President. From an HR perspective, this means job analysis. Anyone care to conduct a scientific study of the competencies required to succeed in these jobs?
September 12th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Durbin I dont know you, but by posting your rant you ensured that until I do know you, I wont think much of you.
“Supposed constitutional law professor” ? Are you suggesting that he was not one? Are you suggesting that his years in that role mean nothing? What are you suggesting? I bet you are suggesting that some of us take the Constitution a little too seriously.
On the topic of this post Bryan B, I imagine that HR would seek applicants with subject matter expertise. Since the successful applicant will swear to God to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, one might think that careful, structured, and intense study of the item for years on end would give an applicant a leg up on a person with none.
The supposed Constitution, I should say, since being President now equates to being a small-town mayor in our new backwards world.
Oh but this does say something about how hiring is done. Sarah Palin is where she is now not because of anything she has done or not done. Because of a weak bench, the way was open for her to find herself carrying the colors of a great political party.
Seperating the person from the brand is no longer possible, and the brand is what buyers will buy. In corporate hiring, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, and some few others carry the brand, and hires will flow.
Oh, one of applicants HAS a sterling academic qualification, but it does not mean very much in this context….hmmmm…..
Could it be that ANYONE could be President who carries out the will of the party ?
I dont think we want to go there, but some people certainly have.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Ahh my comment may have been a little strong, as in I apologize for the personal snark at the top of it. I checked out Mr. Durbin’s blog and was impressed- although still not so much with his politics. Probably better to not post on political subjects on business blogs….
November 19th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Martin — Glad that you pulled back a bit on Jim Durbin. He is worth knowing. Actually, very worth knowing. You may disagree with his politics and I’m sure that’s fine with him as he’ll likely disagree with yours. But Jim is one of the most thoughtful people in the recruiting industry. Get to know him. You’ll be glad that you did.