In his classic book Management Practice, Mr. Drucker pointed out that about 1 of the three is accurate when selecting managers from outside, that is, the accuracy rate is about 33%. More than half a century later, this data is still valid in today's enterprises. As far as the average level of domestic enterprises is concerned, this data has not exceeded 30%, and even in some western enterprises with advanced management level, this data has been hovering around 50% (the purpose of this paper is to let some excellent enterprises break through this boundary and let competitors drift in areas below this boundary).
At present, in terms of the effectiveness of talent selection, the recognized evaluation center is the highest, followed by structured behavior interview. Nevertheless, under the confusion of the above data, we can't help asking further, can these data be higher? Is there the best way?
As far as external recruitment is concerned, the answer is still uncertain. A person's future performance after entering the company is influenced by many factors, such as development opportunities, colleague relations, resources, company development, etc., including many uncertain factors, so we can't find a foolproof method to ensure the accuracy of selection. It can only be said that making good use of the methods that have been proved to be effective at present, such as evaluation center and behavior interview, can greatly improve the accuracy of selection and avoid some basic mistakes. However, in any case, the company can't put such an important thing as selecting managers on the recruitment of airborne troops. In fact, as the bestseller Evergreen proves, relying too much on airborne troops is often the beginning of corporate disaster. Among domestic enterprises, some first-class enterprises, such as UFIDA Software, Peking University Founder, TCL, etc. Experienced in the recruitment of airborne troops, they are all suspected of anticlimactic.
On the other hand, as far as selecting managers from within the enterprise is concerned, the answer is yes. For example, Welch, former president of General Electric, once said that the accuracy of selecting managers before leaving the company can be as high as 80%. We also have enough cases and studies to show that this optimal selection method does exist.
To understand this best choice, we need to start with two cases.
Case 1: General Motors Personnel Decision
Drucker is a master of management. He was invited by GM executives to study GM's policies and structure. At that time, General Motors was in the era of Si Long, which was dazzling, supported American military and economy during World War II, and played an important role in the recovery of American automobile industry, American economy and even global economy after the war.
However, what impressed Drucker most was the talents of General Motors at that time. At that time, it was no exaggeration for GM executives to describe it as a gathering of stars. Even at that time, Ford, GM's biggest competitor, was mired in a quagmire, and when there were no successors, it was a large number of executives from GM that saved the giant of the automobile industry from extinction and prospered again.
The secret of GM having so many talents can be summed up in four words: be careful.
Mr. Drucker found something. Most senior managers of GM spend their time discussing personnel instead of studying company policies. Although Si Long actively participates in strategic discussions, he always gives the leading power to the experts in charge of meetings, but when it comes to personnel issues, it must be him who holds the power of life and death.
On one occasion, the supervisors discussed the work and job allocation of grass-roots employees for several hours, which puzzled Drucker.
In this regard, Si Long's explanation is: "The company gives me such generous treatment, which requires me to make major decisions without making mistakes. Please tell me which decisions are more important than people's management? "
Si Long spent nearly half his time on personnel issues. For example, in his notebook, he recorded 143 memorandums of personnel decision-making in a certain year. Obviously, nothing is more important in his schedule.
Case 2: The story of 50 people and 500 people in Vanke.
When it comes to Vanke, it is easy for people to think of another term "professional manager". At present, Vanke has entered more than 20 large and medium-sized cities such as Shenzhen, Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou. As a real estate enterprise in China with a history of more than 20 years, its construction capacity can already be compared with that of its counterparts in the world, and that of HOMESPULT in the United States with a history of more than half a century. Because the cycle of real estate projects is very long, which usually takes about five years, it is difficult for talent teams to replicate and expand as quickly as other industries such as manufacturing. While meeting its own talent demand, Vanke has objectively become the "Whampoa Military Academy" of its peers. What makes Vanke stand out in such a high-speed development?
To put it simply, Vanke's secret may be summed up in two numbers: "50" and "500".
Every year, under the leadership of the Group's Human Resources Department, Vanke selects and pulls out a group of management reserve teams with rising potential from first-line companies according to the performance of employees, the recommendation of superiors and the audit of the Human Resources Department. This team probably consists of two parts, one is the rising potential team from the grass-roots to the middle-level managers, with about 500 people, and the other is the rising potential team from the middle-level to the high-level with about 50 people.
For 500 people, Vanke will adopt questionnaire evaluation and feedback (Vanke Human Resources Department designed a 270-degree evaluation questionnaire called gap) and career development dialogue. It is necessary to have a certain understanding of employees' abilities and make targeted development plans, such as job rotation and two-way communication.
For 50 people, Vanke not only learned about the abilities of managers, but also developed their abilities through 360-degree interviews, leadership development centers (evaluation centers are used for training) and other training methods. During the implementation of the Leadership Development Center, the general manager of the company and the deputy general manager in charge of human resources will go to the site to inspect the characteristics, abilities and areas that need improvement of these managers.
More importantly, before these potential personnel are promoted to higher positions, the company has more time to inspect them and employees can get a lot of practical opportunities. Therefore, when a company employs people, it is easy to find out those candidates who have always performed well and really have management ability and appoint them. Through the continuous rolling of "50" and "500", Vanke has realized the continuation and expansion of the echelon of management talents.
Not only GM and Vanke, but also many excellent companies, such as Procter & Gamble, whose president meets a mysterious guest in his back garden every weekend. This guest is the head of human resources in the company, and they will discuss the global manager team in detail. Another example is Huawei, which has established a mechanism to accelerate the growth of employees, so that the industry can follow suit; Haier's mechanism that "horse racing is not like a horse, everyone is a talent" is also widely circulated in the industry. This mechanism of training all managers gives Haier an unparalleled talent advantage; Lenovo's Liu Chuanzhi likes to examine their critical thinking ability and depth of understanding of problems by debating with the company's top (organized) topics, to see what problems they care about and why, and also put forward the "horse racing theory"-that is, to see his performance in practical work and whether he has done his job well, which is how Lenovo's later generals were selected; In a business department of Midea, where the author is responsible for consulting, this method has also been accepted and started to be fully promoted.
This method has also stood the test of thousands of years' history in China.
In the ancient history of China, because most national rulers were hereditary, it was rare to have two rulers in succession, and the special case only occurred in the abdication period before the hereditary system. According to legend, when Emperor Yao was the leader of a tribal alliance, he asked the tribal leader to recommend a successor, and everyone recommended Shun. Shun was born among the people. In order to investigate Shun, Yao married his two daughters and observed how he managed the family. Let several sons live with Shun, observe how he treats people, and finally let Shun manage state affairs. After trying Shun for three years, Yao was very satisfied. After Yao's death, it was passed on to Shun. Make every effort to govern the country, and the whole country presents a thriving scene.
After shunlao, Yu was chosen in the same way. After the test of water control, Yu was the heir.
The way Yao Emperor inspected Shun and the way Shun inspected Yu are both ways to inspect people in practice. Therefore, the successors selected by this way of investigation are indeed having both ability and political integrity, and they have managed the world in an orderly and prosperous way.
Back to the question mentioned earlier, the biggest doubt about selecting talents is how accurate it is. Now, we have found the most reliable way, as mentioned in the above case, that is, to find and train future managers in practice. This method, like GM, is directly responsible by the top leaders, spending a lot of time (Si Long spends most of his time on personnel issues) and taking pains to discuss it until he finds the most suitable candidate; Or like Vanke's way: from the initial broad choice, to the middle training, testing in practice, and finally to the precise appointment of performance and ability. These methods may not need to be as quick as job interviews, and there is no ingenious pen. On the contrary, they need long-term, sustained, stable and arduous efforts, but because they rely on consistent performance and reliable behavior, they are the most trustworthy.
The biggest problem in talent selection lies in the contradiction between performance and ability. When a company needs to recruit managers, it obviously needs talents who can fight hard, as many job advertisements require: "Large foreign-funded enterprises have worked in the same position for more than X years". The implied meaning of large foreign-funded enterprises here is well known, that is, the candidate's original company is bigger than the company he applied for and its management is more advanced. The emphasis on work experience means that candidates must also have sufficient direct experience and proof of performance. This is actually the wishful thinking of the recruiter. If the candidate's company is bigger, more experienced and more successful than yours, why should others come to you to compete for the same position? On the other hand, if the candidate's original position is lower than the position to be applied for, or comes from a smaller company than the company to be applied for, then the recruiter can only value his ability (in this case, there is no "direct experience and performance"), which is contradictory to the need to be able to fight in the future. Judging from the compromise in reality, recruiters generally have to choose the latter, that is, give up the requirement of "sufficient direct experience and performance" and focus on ability instead. However, this increases the risk of personnel, because whether the ability will definitely be transformed into performance, after all, contains more uncertain factors. The "preferred method" mentioned here not only solves this contradiction, but also makes the talent echelon enter a virtuous circle.
It should be noted that any company needs to recruit airborne troops in a specific period to meet the current needs and improve the organizational structure. Similarly, any fast-growing company needs to have a considerable number of managers in the long term to meet the demand of human resources for business growth. The two go hand in hand in the company's development. Therefore, the ability to accurately identify people in recruitment and the way to inspect people in practice are actually indispensable. However, any enterprise, from the perspective of obtaining the long-term competitive advantage of talents, obviously the latter is more important. Well-known companies, such as GE and Procter & Gamble, mainly adopt this method, while those companies that are often in turmoil have neglected the succession of senior personnel or are too superstitious about airborne troops (although appropriate airborne troops are necessary).
Graded selection and training mode
It is a training mode of selecting outstanding candidates at different levels, developing and cultivating them, and stepping onto higher management positions in enterprises.
1. In the process of grading selection, employees with strong working ability and high efficiency have equal opportunities for promotion and salary increase, and employees with poor ability are eliminated. This selection method fully mobilizes the enthusiasm of all employees, so that employees will always have a sense of freshness, value, pressure and challenge, and work creatively for the enterprise.
2. In the layer-by-layer selection, layer-by-layer training runs through, organically combining the selection and training of managers with work practice. This kind of training not only selected useful talents in the company, but also improved the knowledge and skills of managers. This is an effective incentive training.
3. In the grading selection, the company specially arranged specific management knowledge training and assessment for managers at all levels, and the training provided the right medicine. In this way, it not only improves the judgment and decision-making ability, commander-in-chief ability and management ability of top managers, but also improves the economic management knowledge, professional knowledge and technical ability of middle managers, and also improves the production front-line command ability and the ability to deal with production technical problems of grass-roots managers. Training is step by step, which accords with people's cognitive law.