These are my notes for a short presentation on the recruitment side of team building - be they for short 6-9 week projects, for longer projects, and for full time employees to complement an existing team.
For me, team building simply is the act of putting together a group of people to accomplish a goal. The goal may be to get something done quickly, in a short period of time, in a high pressure environment, or it may be to do something reliably over a long period of time.
Team building is key component of recruitment, where you are not only looking for a skill-set, but also an individual to complement an existing team. Equally important to consider are the organisations and team strengths & weaknesses, the individuals skill set, their temperament, and their personal desires/motivations.
I have found it relatively easy to put together teams for short projects, where the goals are easily definable and the end-date is set. Even with quite disparate individuals. It is relatively easy to manage issues as all are aware that the environment is only for a short period and differences can usually be set aside for that period.
Longer term roles [ie: full-time roles or greater than 12 month projects] are a quite a bit more difficult. There is dichotomy of needing to fill the role, but also ensuring that new person will enhance the existing team. There will usually be plenty of suitably qualified applicants, deciding which one will best fit the organisationan and team needs is a challenge.
I try & put together a profile of the target individual in two parts. Firstly, the easy bit, profiling the technical knowledge & expertise required to perform the role. Secondly, the hard bit, what personal characteristics are desired in the target individual ; here we are looking for temperament, ability to handle change, ability to implement change in a group, willingness & ability to learn/contribute/argue.. etc. For full time roles this can take me a few weeks before I'm happy. For short-term, usually an hour or will suffice.
Technical competencies are very easy to review. Just ask the candidate a series of problem solving questions; what you are looking for is the approach to develop a solution, rather than the end result. Then ask the candidate why they have done things they way they have. I've learned quite a bit doing this - seeing several different approaches to the same problem that create the same solution.
I find the personal characteristics much more difficult to quantity. Having already thought through the desired characteristics should provide some guidance during the interview. If you can afford it, for long-term or full time positions, psychological testing can be of some value & help you round out a character or perhaps raise a flag where one was not apparent. I worked in very risk adverse organisations, a large bank & a large Insurance company & they both utilised IQ & psychological Myers-Briggs style testing for all candidates. I hated it at the time as it generally ruled out the most interesting candidates. Looking back know, I see that it was doing exactly what it was supposed to. A risk adverse organisation will value stability & predictability; rather than look for people who will naturally push boundaries in front of them & potentially cause friction.
For a startup or small to medium company you will mostly likely not be able to afford such testing, nor be able to afford significant chunks of your teams time to interview candidates. You will need to rely upon your experience, instincts & reference check previous employers & employees.
How a candidate will fit into & effect an existing team is difficult to predict. Not every organisation can be like Microsoft, Yahoo, & Google & fly candidates in from all over the world & have them spend large parts of a day with various groups. It is usually worthwhile to arrange for the existing team to spend at least sometime with the short-listed candidates, provide their feedback, & feel that they considered a valuable part of the process. I've never been 100% right with my predictions of how things would work out, sometimes pretty close, & a couple of time just dead wrong. There will always be some level of unpredictable result [ie: people changing their sexual orientation & having affairs.. who saw that one coming?].
At times I've weighed technical skills higher than team fit to challenge the status quo, knowing that some form of conflict would occur - a high risk strategy; it took months, but it paid off in the long run as it challenged the status quo had an effect upon the culture. At times I've weighed social skills higher than technical competence to help stimulate higher levels of communication. Change is always a high risk exercise & each recruiting decision is based upon a unique circumstances that have their own potential risks & rewards. Very rarely is the right answer staring right back at you.
I've made some fantastic decisions & some bad ones. What I have learned is that its best for all parties to recognise a bad decision quickly and take remedial action, whatever that be. I always start an employment relationship clearly articulating expectations and the process if things are going well, and the process if things are going bad.
Take aways.
- Understand what you are trying to achieve - organisational & team goals - be clear on your technical & personal goals for the role
- Use pschological testing if you can afford it, but also equally value your instincts & take responsibility for the decision.
- Get existing team feedback on short-listed candidates if possible.
- Reference check, reference check, reference check - employers & employers of the short-listed candidates
Trackback URL