Keeping It Simple
When generating a Target (Results Expected + Competencies) there are several questions that you can use to clarify what is essential for the role.
For Results Expected, you can ask questions like: “Imagine this person is a star in 6-12 months. What data would you rely on to make this case?” And of course you can invert the question: “Imagine that someone didn’t work out—they were mediocre or worse in the role, and you had to let them go. What data would you point to to make this decision?”
For Competencies, it’s usually about helping people break out of cliched language (“team player”, “great communicator”, etc.) and start being crisp and honest about the company’s culture. So a great question is: “What is true about your company that is not true about your competitors?” Also: “What’s an example of someone who would do well at a generic high-growth company but would wash out here?” These can help you start articulating your cultural edge.
There is another lens that you can use to start the brainstorming process, and you’ve probably heard of it: Hungry, Humble, and Smart.
This framework will not apply to all companies and roles, but I find it to be a highly generative—and fairly unifying—way to think about what people generally want in their future teammates. Each trait has several sub-traits that may be more or less relevant in a given scenario.
Hungry: Work ethic, grit, determined, ownership mentality, legitimate desire to work on this mission/company, etc.
Humble: High EQ, low friction with teammates/customers, low ego, high self-awareness, growth mindset, willing to hear feedback, doesn’t let pride get in the way of making the best decision for customers and the company, etc.
Smart: Strong problem solving, great judgment, nose for value, highly analytical, high general horsepower, relevant subject matter expertise, etc.
There tends to be a pretty clear path from these traits to the what (Results Expected) you want accomplished in a given role, and how (Competencies) you want them accomplished. Obviously, there will still be some work to be done to map them over to your company’s exact business and cultural context.
But it can still be a helpful starting point, especially when you are feeling stuck. Most results are accomplished by someone who is sufficiently intelligent/knowledgable, with a strong work ethic, and who is able to work effectively with others to achieve the objective. And culturally, most high-performing teammates want exactly those traits in their teammates: smart, hard-working people who are enjoyable to be around.
It’s also interesting to consider each of the archetypes that emerge when you are missing one of these traits:
Hungry and Humble, but not Smart: Hard-working and enjoyable to be around, but not up for the task intellectually, lacking the domain expertise, or otherwise constantly marching in the wrong direction.
Humble and Smart, but not Hungry: The enjoyable professor where it’s nice to have a stimulating conversation but things do not move at a fast enough pace. Or the person is unwilling to push through pain and be gritty and get the job done. Either way, things aren’t actually getting done, and the company suffers as a result.
Hungry and Smart, but not Humble. The reason the “no assholes” rule become popular. This person is extremely capable as an individual contributor but their ego (or lack of EQ) makes them struggle as a leader and even in an IC role they may still generate so much friction that they become a net negative to your company.
Obviously people possessing just 1 of the 3 traits would be even more obvious “no hires”.
The next time you’re feeling stuck—whether in generating a Target—or in mapping your interview data onto a scoring rubric, take a step back and consider this framework.
Happy Hiring!
