I just read 7 Top Traits of Star Employees on inc.com.
Hard to argue with these. But which is more important, that a candidate have them on interview day (assuming you can tell), or that an employee have them after a year working for you?
Every senior leader has beliefs about nature vs. nurture. If it’s nature, star employers hire stars. If it’s nurture, star employers develop them.
The author of the inc.com article writes as though it is more nature than nurture. Is Mr. Hendricks right?
Here’s a straightforward assignment for your HR people.
- Evaluate candidates for these traits.
- Evaluate employees for these traits after a month.
- Evaluate remaining employees for these traits after a year.
Here’s how to interpret the results:
|No change or increase in first month||Decrease in first month|
|No change from first month to first year||You win!. It’s nature, and you’re good at hiring!||You lose. It’s nature, and you’re seeing the traits when they’re not there.|
|Increase from first month to first year||You win!. It’s nurture, and you’re developing (or rescuing) stars!|
|Decrease from first month to first year||You lose. It’s nurture, and you’re dousing stars, even if you were hiring them to begin with.|