Thank you for introducing this important factor to the discussion. I agree that if we should consider promoting from within in order to avoid having to make decisions on poor information when promoting from without, then we should at least make better use of the greater information we have!

I especially like your observation that the best candidate for promotion is by no means necessarily the one who is best at the job he or she is currently in - that’s a terrific insight. It is also a fascinating one because while many will immediately see the truth in it, others will not - and even some of those who do will be concerned about how one can justify and document the judgment that candidate A will be a better manager in the higher position than candidate B, even though B is perhaps clearly the better performer in the job they both hold now. How will such a decision be defended, and what effect will it have on morale?

On the other hand, if, due to fears such as this, that decision is not taken and the easier road is followed - what effect will that have on productivity and morale?

This is great - thanks for it, and thanks also for your visit!

You’ve provided some excellent material, here, that will be used to discuss your terrific points and examples in the next couple of days or so - thanks very much for this!

“The question remains, though, if we risk missing out on such great talent through a formulaic reliance on an MBA, what can we replace it with to help us have better luck in identifying and capturing them.”

I agree that this is the critical question. Truthfully, I don’t know if I have any comprehensive answers, but I have at least a little anecdotal tidbits that might be helpful. I’ve observed three strategies that are applicable:

Strategy #1: Know the skill sets that you are hiring for and screen applicants for those skill sets regardless of the credentials.

In my business, illustration ability of a particular style is an indicator of a good fit. The portfolio, not the resume, is the tool of the trade in terms of interviewing. Even there, because I’m an artist myself and have a good understanding of the skill sets that will make a person successful in the business, I don’t evaluate applicants based on how well their portfolio is put together, (whether it’s leather bound etc.) I’m looking for solid fundamentals, like an understanding of anatomy, perspective, etc. No amount of polish on the resume, or smoke and mirrors with regard to presentation will hide the fact if an applicant is weak in these areas.

One of my best hires was an artist that was working as a welder whose mom saw the ad in the paper. I interviewed him over the phone and found out enough to realize he was a good candidate for the job. Since he really wasn’t looking for work he didn’t have a good portfolio or resume put together. I told him not to worry about it and that as long as he had a few sketches to show me, I would be able to evaluate his potential to contribute to the business. He stopped by with a sketchpad and saw enough to hire him. He has proven himself to be a fantastic employee and has raised the bar of the products we produced.

Since the employee was not skilled in the job search dance that is typically played out, I feel that a typical human resources person not trained in art would not have been able see past the surface. Understanding what would make a person successful in a job is essential. Fixating on the presentation of the resume, impressive credentials and the like can distract an employer from the skills that really matter. Look for the attributes that matter and ignore all the rest.

Strategy # 2: Don’t hire your managers as managers - at least not initially.

When best selling author and marketing guru Seth Godin put together his team for Squidoo, he started it as an intern program. Many people applied and he selected a handful of individuals to get the project going. The person who eventually ended up as the COO of Squidoo was Corey Brown, who had less than year of college under his belt. I worked for Corey several years ago and I am completely not surprised by Seth’s selection of Corey. He has a dizzying understanding of the world-wide web, Internet marketing, project management, and getting the best out of a team.

It’s important to note that Corey did not get hired as the COO based on his resume. My understanding is that Corey’s resume got him in the door due to his knowledge of cascading style sheets and design. Once he was in the door his abilities had a chance to shine and his selection as COO came from actual performance on the job. In Seth’s book “The Dip,” he lists Corey as the best in the world at what he does.

To Seth’s credit, he selected his manager based on performance and not resume. He deferred the decision of who to make the COO until he could see his team in action and a COO emerged. He was also free of any MBA bias, even though he holds and MBA himself from Stanford.

Stragegy # 3: Hire entry-level people and develop them.

Good ol’ division of labor makes this possible. I’m convinced that even the most complex job can have a piece of it broken off so that someone can be hired to do it with little or no training. In my business, that’s the job of coloring designs for T-shirts. Even though it would take years to develop the ability to illustrate T-shirts at this level, we can train a candidate color designs in a few weeks. The criteria for this position shifts away from skill sets, to merely a desire to do the work. Enthusiasm for the job seems to be the key indicator for success. One candidate showed up who never used any of the software we use, didn’t own a computer, never worked in screen printing, and never even took a single art class. He wanted to do the job so badly though, that he kept showing up even when we didn’t have a position. He kept expressing how much he wanted to work in the company. He was hired on a part-time trial basis and has worked his tail off to become as skilled as possible. He is now an expert with the software and has a better command of this industry than any of the college students and graduates I’ve interviewed in the last two years. If I’m out of the office, I know I can rest easy because he is capable of handling almost any situation that my arise while I’m away. He does not do entry-level work anymore, but without creating an entry-level position, I would have missed out on him.

I’m sure there are other strategies to select great people regardless of how they became great. I am very interested in hearing any other ideas that you might have on the subject.

Thank you for stopping in with this thoughtful and even-handed assessment. You note that “Perhaps it’s a question of what to look for instead of where to look.”

That is precisely the question for hiring/promoting firms - and also, as you introduce into the topic, for candidates for hire/promotion. The problem is that the answer to that question is so commonly - sometimes even exclusively - considered to be possession of an MBA. This makes it tough on managers who disagree, but are trying to build their careers in an environment where that belief holds such sway.

Your tour of American history’s great non-MBAs (or equivalents for their time) is a perfect pointer to the folly of thoughtless, automatic answers to sensitive problems - an ongoing instinct which plagues much of management, well beyond the issue at hand.

The question remains, though, if we risk missing out on such great talent through a formulaic reliance on an MBA, what can we replace it with to help us have better luck in identifying and capturing them - bearing in mind that it would still be nice to have some sort of pattern matching method to help us screen the waves of resumes we get?

Well, to begin with, as you say, companies have to be open to new concepts, encompassing broader, more mature, and more sensitive approaches to finding - as you also say - “the best talent, not just the best talent that schools produce.”

And, actually, there are a number that are open to this, and that have developed intriguing approaches to this issue - and with many of your concerns expressed here specifically in mind. Perhaps some of these may turn out to be more widely applicable solutions to the problem. Maybe we’ll look at that, soon.

Thanks again, Gannon, for such a great, thought-provoking comment!

I don’t think looking at MBA programs for managers is necessarily bad. I do think, as you have suggested, that there are other methods to find good leaders. Perhaps it’s a question of what to look for instead of where to look. It seems to me that expertise attracts opportunity; therefore, the challenge for the job applicant is to find ways of developing and producing evidence of expertise.

The challenge of an organization doing the hiring is to look for evidence of expertise and not limit the search only to academia. To do so would limit the pool of talent available to meet the needs of the organization - the caliber of which includes people like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Mark Twain, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, the Wright brothers, Walt Disney, Ted Turner, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Michael Dell. These Americans did not even achieve a four-year degree so any search for applicants limited to the halls of academia excludes some of the best talent, historically speaking. Given the chance, I would rather hire talent like this than compete with it.

The pendulum shouldn’t swing too far the other way. I’m sure there are MBAs that are also great leaders so the search for great leaders should not exclude MBA programs. Be it MBA programs, mustang programs, or simply with non-exclusionary hiring practices, there isn’t one best way to find great people, but rather a myriad of ways and places. Companies that are open to this concept will have access to the best talent, not just the best talent that schools produce.