對于管理者來說，區分好哪些條件是你期望求職者至少應該具備的，而哪些條件是你希望求職者盡可能多具備的，這一點非常重要。

多數情況下，一份工作對于技術能力有最低標準要求。例如，審計員職位的候選人，是否了解毛利潤和營業現金流的區別？

幸運的是，現在有一些客觀的測試，可用來確定求職者是否具備職位所需的技能。制定合理的達到“充足”條件的門檻，進行測試，然后在達到或超出標準的候選人當中，繼續遴選程序。

此后，招聘最看重的應該是兩個方面：潛力和契合度。

我并不關心出身，而是看中求職者所表現出來的接受挑戰和成長的意愿。我喜歡詢問求職者他們進行過嘗試但結果并不理想的事情。通過這些問題，你便會清楚誰在流程和實現結果的過程中發揮了主導作用，而不是成為機器上的一個齒輪，誰愿意證明自己愿意承擔風險，勇于接受失敗，并善于從以往經驗中學習。

這些人會發自內心地愿意承擔額外的責任，幫助公司發展，而不是每天只專注于完成待辦清單里的任務。如果還有疑問，選擇那些有抱負并且愿意為實現這一抱負而努力的求職者。領導者的任務就是找出這種潛在的能量，并駕馭這種能量，幫助企業發展。

這樣做的關鍵在于，領導者能否駕馭求職者的抱負，利用它來促進企業成長——他或她將成為一個有凝聚力團隊的一份子，而不是一匹獨狼。這便涉及到了契合度：與團隊共同取得成功的抱負是偉大的；但以團隊為墊腳石取得個人成功的抱負卻并不偉大。契合度是極其主觀的，很難量化，也很難評估。

最好的作法是，確保讓盡可能多的團隊成員參與面試過程。我特別重視讓團隊的初級成員在面試過程中發揮關鍵作用。這樣做不僅可以放權，而且在評估求職者契合度時，他們的意見往往是最關鍵的。

這種做法假設求職者都來自開放的招聘平臺。但有時候，這種尋找求職者的方法，效果難免會不夠理想。為了盡可能做出最佳的選擇，雇主希望盡可能多地了解與求職者有關的歷史數據和信息。沒有什么能比一個人的歷史行為更準確地預測其未來行為。據我觀察，我聘用的一些最佳員工，都是在當前職位上“達到峰頂”的人——他們有能力并且有興趣做更多工作，但卻苦于沒有機會。

這些才是團隊所需要的人：他們愿意為所在的團隊做出貢獻——愿意為一項高于自身利益的使命而努力。理想情況下，首先，你可以在不同環境下觀察求職者的行為，但如果不可行，那些在以往表現出團隊意識的求職者可以作為優選對象。再結合求職者對你所在行業或工作的興趣，你肯定可以得到一個必勝組合。

當然，這并不是說每一次招聘決定都能成功。因為意外總是會發生。一旦出現意外，一定要迅速行動起來，解決問題。有時候可以通過指導來解決問題，否則最好迅速換人。這對員工更為公平，更關鍵的是，這也有益于團隊其他成員。由于領導者愿意容忍慢慢侵蝕團隊績效和影響同事士氣的員工，結果毀掉了團隊為建立強大戰斗力所付出的努力，這樣的例子不勝枚舉。

同時，也要反思一下公司的招聘程序。不良結果并不總意味著招聘程序存在問題。招聘程序的結果顯然是不確定的，但如果你能在招聘程序中融入更多要素，使其在未來變得更加完善，自然是更好的。不能總結歷史經驗教訓的人，注定要重復犯錯。

本文作者Tom Schryver是康奈爾大學約翰遜管理研究院創業與創新協會執行理事

譯者：劉進龍/汪皓

It’s important to draw a distinction between the things you need at least a minimum amount of and the things you want as much as possible of.

In the majority of cases, there’s a minimum amount of technical skill required for the job. Does a candidate for a controller job understand the difference between gross profit and cash flow from operations?

Fortunately, there are objective tests that you can easily administer to determine whether or not a candidate has the skills to do the job. Set a reasonable bar for what “enough” is, test to that, and continue the selection process with all of the candidates who meet or exceed that standard.

From there, hire to maximize two things: potential and fit.

I care less about pedigree than a demonstrated willingness to take on challenges and grow. I love asking candidates about things they tried that didn’t go well. When you do that, you can understand who took ownership for a process and outcome rather than serving as a cog in a machine, and who is willing to show that they’re willing to take a risk, fail, and learn from the experience.

These tend to be people who will be willing to take on additional responsibility and help grow your organization from within, rather than those focused on managing their daily to-do list to zero. When in doubt, choose the candidate with ambition and a demonstrated willingness to pursue that ambition. Your job as a leader is to find this potential energy and harness it to help grow your enterprise.

The key component of this is whether the candidate’s ambition can be harnessed to grow the enterprise—that he or she will serve as part of a cohesive group rather than a lone wolf. This is where fit comes in: Ambition to succeed with the team is great; ambition to succeed over the team is not. Fit is extremely subjective, hard to quantify, and hard to assess.

A best practice is to ensure that as many members of the team as possible participate in the interview process. I emphasize having junior members of the team as key members of the interview process. Not only does it empower them, but their insights are often the most critical in assessing candidate fit.

This presumes that the candidate pool is coming from an open job posting. While sometimes unavoidable, this method of sourcing candidates is highly suboptimal. To make the best choice possible, you want as much prior exposure and data on the candidate as you can get. There is no better predictor of someone’s future behavior than his or her past behavior. Some of the best hires I’ve made have been of people I’ve observed as being “capped out” in current roles— capable and interested in doing much more, but limited in opportunity to contribute.

These are people you want on your team: those with a desire to contribute to a group to whom they belong—to a purpose greater than themselves. Ideally, this is behavior you can observe in a different context first, but if that’s not possible, lean toward people who have shown that sense of community belonging in their history. Combine this with a genuine interest in your industry or line of work and you have a winning combination.

Of course, that’s not to say that every hiring decision works out. There are often surprises. When this happens, act quickly to address the problem. Sometimes coaching can work, but if it doesn’t, better to move on quickly. It’s fairer to the employee, and, more vitally, it’s better for the rest of the team. Too often, leaders’ willingness to tolerate people who slowly erode the performance and morale of those around them ruins their efforts to build a strong team.

Think about your hiring process, too. A bad outcome does not necessarily mean your process was flawed. Hiring processes are by definition uncertain in their outcome, but if there are things you can incorporate into your process to improve in the future, all the better. Those who don’t learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.