Staff Person Should Not Need Lots of Attention

 A candidate for an HR director position learned that the President/CEO of a large retail chain talks to the director for several hours each day with the outcome being a "new" task list. That's an indication that one of these good things is happening:

• the business is growing and needs lots of new executives. They're growing by opening more locations or acquisitions. (But they haven't significantly added more stores this year.)
• the CEO values the HR Director's input on many strategic issues. (But this wouldn't lead to new action items daily.)

Or the daily talks are an indication of one of these unfortunate circumstances:

• there are a lot of significant personnel issues that require the CEO's attention and can't be handled at a director's or area manager's level; maybe there are a lot of employment law suits (and if so, then the HR Director is not providing the right recommendations to avoid them or the CEO is not heeding the advice).
• the HR Director is really a personal assistant. (Because of any of the other reasons)
• the HR Director isn't understanding the job and needs daily coaching and this is a waste of the CEO's time and a distraction from more important corporate issues.
• the CEO can't let go and micromanages everything (but can hardly expect to talk to each staff person extensively each day...but might be an indication if they're not growing).
• they're significantly overhauling the HR processes and policies (but probably wouldn't require daily conversations but weekly updates and review of drafts).

There may be a few more reasons. What ones have you seen or experienced?

The candidate wisely withdrew from consideration because more likely than not, this was a bad position from the aspect of having to discuss matters with the CEO everyday. 

Maybe You Don’t Want to Hire the Prostitute

 Okay, I got your attention. But here’s the “rub”: if an employee candidate is only interested in the wages and benefits, including hiring bonus, etc., maybe you don’t want to hire them. They will leave you for the next higher bidder. 

You hate it when customers reduce the negotiations to price “only”. They’re not interested in quality, technology, delivery, service, effortlesssness, etc. They just want the lower price. If that’s the only dimension in play against your competitors, you want to walk away. If the customer can’t appreciate the extra value (hence willing to pay more) on the other dimensions, then you should fire them.

If you take this principle for hiring, you shouldn’t hire people who only ask about the “price” you’re willing to pay for their labor. You want candidates who will recognize your value of providing choice (some autonomy), content (tailored job to fit their strengths and passions) and collaboration (working with other engaged—i.e. enthusiastic and committed—employees) and managers who help them make progress each day/week (the #1 method of increasing motivation). We know that money is a good incentive only for routine work. If that’s what you’re hiring then, like a commodity, you might have to compete on price. But if you’re trying to derive business success by tapping into people’s creativity, innovation, performance and process improvement, then you want to offer more than financial incentive.

So compete for the candidates who recognize that value. Certainly, it will take longer to fill the spot. But won’t you be better off than hiring a warm body to fulfill a need?

Additionally, since 80+% of people don’t like where they are currently working—and a significant portion is due to burnout, stress, management style, etc.—offering an employment experience that can counter some of that is also a plus.