Person-Job Fit Analysis for Key Roles Driving the Capabilities
The most difficult decisions are about those team members (or their respective team members) who are "tweeners" - incumbents who are neither underperformers nor star performers. They are performers who may be good, but are they good enough to meet the demands of their role in driving a key organizational capability? Are they a significant contributor to the executive team which is attempting to lead the necessary changes for performance improvement?
Depending on the challenges the business or functional area faces as a result of where it is in the business maturity life cycle, another consideration is the complementary composition of the team. Do we have enough entrepreneurs pushing the boundaries of organic growth, joint ventures or alliances, or growth through acquisition? How do we compose a team that brings more discipline to growth (Unbridled Growth) so we are not pursuing unprofitable sales? Or, how to we renew growth or improve profitable market share in a mature product line or brand (Resting on Past Laurels) where we may have evolved into a culture of valuing our own accomplishments of the past or being otherwise inwardly focused?
There are multiple tools that can be used to build role-specific competency models as a basis for a person-job fit analysis for key roles. These competency models can help structure a facilitated discussion of a candidate's current demonstrated capabilities and the probability that he or she can stretch to perform the full profile of required competencies that will distinguish fully effective performance of new job demands.
Changing Out a "Tweener"
In the face of the business downturn in the wake of the most recent global recession, a new division president was trying to understand why cost cutting initiatives and efforts to rationalize the inventory of product parts in related parts of the matrix organization were persistently resistant to change. The senior finance executive on her team was a long-tenured employee who had worked his way up the ranks and was viewed as a solid performer and loyal. She asked him to use his network of finance and accounting colleagues to determine what was behind the resistance to change. She was privately expecting an initial answer in one week.
After two weeks of no reports back from the finance executive, she asked him for a status report. His initial report seemed to accept the status quo. He reported that the departments had their hands tied by dealer expectations for part availability. Managers he spoke with expressed concern that headcount reductions would damage morale and would not allow them to have the experienced bench strength needed when business volumes improved. Etc.
The President concluded after several attempts to redirect the finance executive that he had been successful in the past implementing existing plans during prosperous times. He lacked the aggression and constructive conflict management skills necessary to be helpful to the President during difficult times. He was reassigned and replaced.