Cam, that’s one of my favorite of his quotes for use in management - I used it as a chapter lead-in in my book.

Gannon, there is a wide range of practice in larger organizations, but the greater part of it probably involves credential-based screening by HR departments before hiring managers even see the candidate. That gives those managers little leeway for using whatever authority in that regard they may have with those candidates that make it to them past the culling.

Thanks again for this terrific dialogue!

That sounds right to me. The two most important messages go out to two different groups of people. I talk about the first one on my blog a lot so I can slip into that discourse pretty easily with little prompting.

Message 1 (to applicants): An education qualification, and an education credential are not the same thing. Concentrate on developing and educating yourself regardless of whether or not you have access to the university system. There are opportunities out there for those with great knowledge and experience.

The second message, I haven’t paid as much attention to on my blog, but I’m thankful for your bringing it up on your blog. It’s made me think about it more deliberately.

Message 2 (to hiring managers): Limit yourself to the halls of academia at your own risk. Historically, in our free market, companies without degree bias been among the most competitive.

These are the two main points I’ve taken from the discussion so far.

I’m curious; in large organizations, how much leeway do hiring managers have with regard to education credentials?

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

While they all do, this presidential election year seems to be offering a particularly interesting venue for evaluating that advice.

Jim - You summarized my point precisely. I was describing the historical case, not the normative one. I agree with you completely.

Gannon - I also agree with you, though I’m now less convinced you know that you agree with me.

I’ve tried to look carefully at both of these responses, and it seems to me that both of you are right, while you may be emphasizing different facets of the problem.

If I understand you, Cam, correctly, you are arguing that the right approach is to take the time and trouble to look past superficial credentials to make sure you have a good personal match for your corporate goals and culture. This has a cost in time, effort, and money.

But you suggest that my pointing out that the simple credential-check approach has costs also may not be persuasive to many, because it is manifestly the easiest and quickest way to go. It also may be the safest for the hiring manager, because however things work out he or she can always point to concrete “evidence” to defend the hiring/promotion decision.

My reference to the costs in this approach, though (as I think you also agree) is in the organizational energy absorbed and momentum lost by the likely greater number of credential-only candidates that either don’t work out, or that take an inordinate amount of resources to get on track.

And Gannon, if I have this right, you are emphasizing that it is the steak - not the sizzle - that employers should look for. Your reference to how the companies you site may have done well not despite - but precisely because of - the absence of a degree bias is a winner.

It still seems to me that you are both arguing for investing up front in order to earn rewards later, rather than chancing the organization’s fortunes on the inscrutable promise of a degree.

Is that right?

If a hire doesn’t work out because the person was fundamentally incompetent, the hiring manager can always point to the resume and say, ‘Don’t blame me. He had an MBA. How was I to know?’”

Cam, you may be right, but it seems to me that limiting the search for people only to academia hurts the company more than it does the job applicant. Companies like Apple, Microsoft, Dell, Disney, and GE were all started by men without degrees. They also hire a lot of people with degrees, but not exclusively. Guy Kawasaki in “Art of the Start” talks about how half the people working on the Macintosh project didn’t have degrees. Dell talks about being “committed to meritocracy.” Thomas Edison would accept talent wherever he found it degreeless or not. These founders and their companies did pretty well without degree bias, or more probably because of its absence. The companies willing to evaluate the largest pool of talent tend to do well in the marketplace — a fact that hiring managers would do well to heed.

It is aligned with the Jim Collins adage, “First who, then what.”

If we locate, hire, and/or partner with people whom we can trust, who have exhibited some intangible qualities that cannot be easily put on or measured by a resume, who share the same goals and values as we do, we will find some way to be successful.

No approach is cost-free, but I think it was you that pointed out before, it’s the easy way. People do it because they’re essentially lazy or lack the confidence in their own discernment or their boss’s tolerance for mistakes.

If a hire doesn’t work out because the person was fundamentally incompetent, the hiring manager can always point to the resume and say, “Don’t blame me. He had an MBA. How was I to know?”