Almost two years ago, I laid the foundational framework for my extensive, countercultural checklist for rating and improving the moral, social, and economic health of organizations of all types and sizes. While this project is still very much in the R&D phase, one standard has remained consistent through testing so far: my three-factor model for hiring. I claim that the three critical factors by which to rate candidates are merit, competence, and character. In this article, I will define each of these factors and show why, while they’re all important, an employer should look to prioritize good character above all (especially merit) in hiring… not despite, but because of how convenient it is to do otherwise!
Merit is more or less how shiny one’s resume looks. It is argued to be the most tangible factor of these three because it is an empirical marker, based on experience and “proof” from the past. This is often the starting point of the vetting process for hiring, and that is fair enough in most cases. A company will have its list of minimal qualifications that may indicate a bare minimum ability to fulfill the duties of the job near immediately. With the overbearing cultural demand for convenience and expediency, it is all too tempting to feed such standards into your search criteria algorithm so that every single candidate who does not meet them is automatically filtered out. There is the distinct possibility that if that’s your approach, you’ll be missing out on considering candidates who have slightly less merit but far more potential. There is also the philosophical error in this approach, encapsulated by David Hume’s “problem of induction”.
Inductive reasoning is that scientific way of drawing conclusions exclusively from past, observed data. Indeed, this is why scientific understanding can never tell us the full truth, but rather indicates which direction to look. It is not on the basis that we have observed the sun rise everyday in history, that it will again tomorrow, just like a tree falling in the forest when no one is around to hear it. Likewise, just because someone’s resume points to experience relevant to this position, it is not guaranteed that they will prove just as effective now. It may also be the case that the content of their resume only reflects how a person’s competence appears, when in essence, they may struggle deeply with transitions, with the new team, or with any number of factors that will differ from their previous positions. A resume can also be fraudulent, which is why references are important. It is not enough to say “I had that job for such-and-such a time and did the work”, especially in light of how hesitant employers are to fire workers no matter how bad they are at a job. How were they in the job, can they work as part of a team, what difficulties did they face/create, etc.? The more broadly we can view the context surrounding a candidate’s merit, the more accurately we can judge whether they’re the right fit. This context is covered by the next two criteria.
Competence is the criterion that can be tested in real time and partly correct for that which merit risks missing. While merit might be an indicator of competence, it can never equate to it. Competence not only accounts for what someone can do now, but what they can potentially do – e.g. how skilled are they at learning new skills or improving further on that which they already excel? One can test developed skills through assessments and provide queries to get a sense for one’s psychometric profile, revealing their areas of interest and natural, cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Such testing may not tell the whole story, of course, or it may not even be necessary if you’re a good enough interviewer. I’ll come back to this soon! Competence here refers to one’s ability to work effectively at a particular task, and given the variance of ways that nearly any task can be done, this takes time to cultivate. The longer you give anyone to learn any task, the better at it they will be even if they don’t have pro-tential, and the more original and creative their approach will be. Pairing time with sustained interest, the more someone can make a task their own, no matter how mundane, the more purpose they will find in it. This is an invaluable asset that employers should cherish and nourish once it is found. It respects the autonomy and agency of the individual who is being of service. The sooner you can identify this, the longer you’re likely to keep them around versus an overqualified, highly competent candidate who will do the task with immediate perfection and almost just as immediately move on to the next job opportunity. There still seems to be a vast middle ground between the hard worker and the genius. Ideal candidacy still depends on something greater, not excluding the duration of time for which you’ll need their services. If you just need someone temporarily, by all means hire the overqualified, underachieving gifted kid on a contract basis!
Assuming we’re in it for the long-term, however…
Character can be loosely defined as the conscious state of a person’s overall demeanor. One’s willingness to be trained, their attitude toward work and life, and the alignment of their values with what the job provides them and vise versa, all fall under this crucial category. A good character has a level of self-awareness that allows the person to observe their own behavior and consider moral variables, such as the awareness and consideration of others, in every decision they make. A good character will not enter into a business transaction with motives other than to be open, honest, and potentially provide a quality product or service, and they don’t let circumstances define them.
For example, a good character and poor character can be equally desperate for money as part of their circumstances. The difference is that a poor character will seek approval from you in the interview process and make promises he can’t keep while hiding his motivations to leave (or worse) as soon as he gets what he wants. A good character in this case will look you in the eye and say “I honestly really need money right now, and I see this job as an outlet for that; but I promise to do my best while working toward a more suitable, longer term career, and I’ll give you due notice when it’s time.” That might not be what you’re looking for, and that is fine too as long as you also make your intention known.
If a candidate you’re considering for hire demonstrates willful, integrous trainability, then they are demonstrating something much greater than mere merit can provide – willingness to learn and maintain mutual respect. This is a combined competence/character trait that will prove invaluable if you plan on keeping the person around for longer than a year or two considering their life context, or, at the very least, it will make the inevitable parting pleasant, respectful, and beneficial to the growth of your network. The negative impact of an employee with poor character cannot be overstated, especially if they are highly competent and merited! Someone who is fully capable with no moral concern can run your resources completely dry, ruin your reputation, and force you into a career change overnight. It has been said by many wise men before: An intelligent man with unearned power will cause far more damage than a weak and ignorant one.
Ultimately, you are responsible for vetting who you join forces with, and perhaps an inability to read someone else character suggests that your own is weak and defenseless, which in itself is a particular form of poor character and, unfortunately, very common.
So, how do you know who you’re dealing with in an interview? How can you tell if you’re going to get played? I do believe there are procedures for vetting this, and perhaps I’ll explore that at another time, but for now, I’m going to take the intuitive, classic approach.
Essentially, if you are a business owner or are in charge of hiring for someone else’s business, you should never finalize a hiring decision without an extended, character-focused, in-person interview, concluding with a handshake, eye contact, and an internal, intuitive “yes” from the depths of your being. This is a very simple, old school step that has been routinely omitted for the ever popular “fully remote” business platform as well as for those which have transitioned to more remote work in recent years.
It does seem that a slow transition, in spite of cultural demand, is the intelligent approach. The demand for convenience has had a large impact on workplace efficiency as well as social connectivity, in far more adverse ways than was intended by creators of the technology that drives this shift. Most people want to clock their hours from wherever they desire to be, whenever it is convenient for them (even though only one third of people are actually equally or more productive working from home), and wait for their direct deposit to show up in their bank account without delay. The same principles of truth, trust, and success still stand in spite of all of this, however. Just like in any other area of life, for employers to uphold divine principles at every level of operation will make all of the difference as to whether their company succeeds through whatever waves that the tide of cultural fluctuation bring next. This is precisely what my organizational health system is designed to ensure.
The resurgence of ancient philosophy such as stoicism, zen, and the Vedas in the contemporary West – although many are misinterpreted and misapplied – provide a basis for accessing these core principles. It has served as a much needed offsetting of the consumer addict epidemic fueled by social media. Even if a candidate for hire takes a little too much interest in such mechanisms, as we all do (and hey, they can be extremely useful for business!), the level of character underneath that culturally altered demeanor will determine whether that candidate is not only a good fit for the work itself but, more importantly, a good person to have around while you’re striving for success.
Overthought Consulting 
