Team Building (part deux); The Apartment Developer's Dilemma

In the first installment of Team Building, we discussed the three key predictors of a developer’s success; the Get It Factor, Communication Skills and a History of Success. For those of us who are used to trying to isolate more tangible items in an interview, this concept can seem a bit too touchy-feely.  But truth be told, it is the touchy-feely items that are actually critical for success in a strategic role.

You have to agree that we cannot attribute the success of Donald Trump, Mack Pogue, Trammel Crow, Jorge Perez, Robert Tishman, etc. to their abilities at running excel spreadsheets. Equally clear is the fact that the ability to generate pivot tables has had virtually no effect on your career’s trajectory either. So then why is it that we use this as an entry requirement into our profession?

Sadly, the most obvious answer is also the most truthful- we do it because we are lazy.

If we, as the leaders of our organizations, would simply accept the notion that the role of developer was ALWAYS a strategic role, then it would be inconceivable for us to rely on tactical skills in the hiring process. We must begin to respect and understand the entirety of the candidates’ potential, if we want to choose folks who can grow into developers that we want to have on our teams.

Each of us has a couple of components that make up our potential (I call this potential our ‘toolbox’). The toolbox is comprised of personality and intelligence. And it is the combination of these two which create our capacity. So our toolbox is just our unique individual container which we fill over time with a series of- you guessed it- tools. I divide these tools into two distinct typologies; hard tools and soft tools. The difference between a hard tool is that it can be taught and a soft tool is one that can be honed.

Hard tools are generally straight-forward and logical. Some of these include; creating or manipulating a proforma, managing a budget, or following the prescriptions of a development cycle. Languages, methodologies and processes are hard-skills.

Soft tools on the other hand, are embedded in the DNA or formed at a very young age. These include; being a compelling or inspirational speaker, having an intuitive sense of proportion, mental dexterity, the ability to simultaneously view the world from a ten foot and ten thousand foot perspectives. Charisma is a prime example of a soft tool.

I would argue that our first job in a strategic hire is to ascertain the size of the toolbox (intelligence and personality). We need to understand the candidate’s capacity before we worry about what tools they have or need to develop. Sadly, this concept is revolutionary. Fortunately they are easily testable. For intelligence there is I.Q. and for personality there are a multitude of tests from which to choose. My favorite remains Myers Briggs [I’m an INTJ by the way (low I, high T, low J)] but there are many options based on your organizations needs.

Hopefully at this point, you agree that understanding a future employee’s toolbox before the hire is better than a revelation that comes after. That said we still need to dial-in the skills that they bring to the table initially. My belief is that between the two, soft-skills remain the most critical (because we can’t just teach them). The next installment will dive into what those critical soft-skills are and why.

So how would your organization be different if the hiring practices were toolbox focused? What have you learned from more traditional hard-skill hiring?