Steve Boese has a great article up right now about the business side of talent management.
Essentially, he points out that sometimes firms make the decision to hire merely adequate candidates as opposed to seeking out the best talent.
Put another way: Why pay big money for superstar talent if you don’t need superstar performance to get the job done?
Most people understand this intuitively if not explicitly, but for me this begs another question:
Is it ever a good idea to over hire?
Two instances in which over-hiring is a good idea come to mind for me:
1. You’re back-filling a position that you expect will come open soon (in which case you’re really hiring the employee for a bigger job and just want time to train them).
2. You expect the complexity and/or span of control of the job you’re filling to grow over time (in which case it makes sense to have someone in the job that will be able to complete the additional responsibilities once the role expands).
Am I forgetting to touch on any instances in which over-hiring is not a waste of talent and money?
Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.
If you have questions about something you’ve read here (or simply want to connect) you can reach me at any of the following addresses:
SomethingDifferentHR@gmail.com OR firstname.lastname@example.org