My Talent Assessment Framework

How I Define Performance

In this context, performance is multi-factorial, encompassing several things. The most obvious criterion is how they will perform in the role they’re being interviewed for. That’s most important.

Some performance elements can lead to what effectively amounts to bonus points.

Does the candidate have a specific skill set or experience that could elevate the team or organization?

Do they have a track record of innovative thinking and execution?

Do they thrive in ambiguity or need specific instruction?

As I said, there are a lot of things that can result in someone becoming a high performer. I’m trying to objectively assess their ceiling for both the role and, in some cases, their future development toward other roles.

How I Define Risk

Similarly, risk has many components, and few are related to competence.

Fair or not, one element of risk is lack of experience in Medical Affairs. This is especially true for field-based roles with a travel requirement. While I believe Medical Affairs is one of the best career paths that exist, it’s simply not for everyone - and travel can be a big reason. While it can be frustrating if you’re someone without experience, understand there’s a reason those requirements exist. Managers and companies are looking to minimize risk, and one of the easiest ways is to ensure candidates know what they’re in for.

More commonly, risk comes from disruptive behaviors independent of one’s ability to perform.

It’s worth noting that, as a manager, my willingness to tolerate and potentially coach through some of these issues will somewhat depend on the rest of my team. If I have a junior team that might be more impressionable, I will be reluctant to add someone with any history of negativity.

Candidates who jump from organization to organization or job to job can be perceived as risky. This isn’t always the case, and I allow people to explain. Sometimes, the narrative makes complete sense and becomes a positive for the candidate.

In summary, there are lots of potential risks that candidates can introduce. As we’ll discuss, sometimes those risks are not necessarily to themselves or their performance but to others.

Risk from a Candidate Perspective

If you’re a candidate, how can you minimize the real or perceived risk to a hiring manager or organization?

1. Eliminate Unknowns - As I mentioned earlier, it's natural to overestimate risk for candidates I’m not familiar with. The larger your network of advocates, the less speculation comes into play, as you’ll have people to vouch for you.

2. Tackle Risk Head-On - Find ways to address risks head-on during the interview process. Admittedly, this assumes you know what risks you might have from the hiring manager's perspective. If you do, subtly weave them into your responses to address their potential concern.

3. Double Down on Performance - I’m sharing my framework, which isn’t how everyone views the world. If you’re a high performer, you should focus on that using objective examples. This is another way of saying focus on your strengths.

So, Who Should I Hire?

Fair question. A couple of things should be obvious.

If the candidate is a D - I want them on my team or within the organization. I’m constantly trying to identify these people, even if there isn’t a position for them now. I want to invest in them and convince others to do the same. While a team of all Ds might be problematic (lack of opportunities, etc.), that’s a solvable problem.

If the candidate is a C - There’s almost no situation I’d advocate hiring them.

Again, those are pretty straightforward. And, in my experience, talent is normally distributed - With Cs and Ds representing the tails.

So, the majority of candidates are likely As or Bs. Both are potentially hirable, but one might be preferred depending on the situation.

If I have a well-established team with tenure operating effectively, an A can be a solid addition to the team. They’re unlikely to disrupt things. They also have advantages if there’s a need to expedite the onboarding timeline for whatever reason. Essentially, a low-risk, plug-and-play option. It might not be ideal to have an entire team of As, but given the distribution curve and alternatives, they are prevalent in large Medical Affairs organizations.

The most difficult hiring decisions are Bs. They are potentially high performers but come with higher relative risk. Ultimately, the willingness to hire these candidates comes down to what drives their risk.

Suppose I’m building a new team from scratch that doesn’t have a traditional remit or existing ways of working. Assuming I could find an ambitious person who I was sure was bought into the vision, I would overlook a few risks. This might be the ideal role for someone who thrives in ambiguity and has a bias toward action, which might rub some people the wrong way. The candidate might also give signals they view the role as a stepping stone to their next role, but assuming they can meaningfully contribute and help establish the team, that might be a perfect fit.

As a hiring manager, I think it’s important to recognize risks you can tolerate and coach through. Often, risks are situational and get mitigated or amplified based on the circumstances and environment. It’s your responsibility to identify this.

Hire Cs, and you’ll quickly ruin your team or organization. Hire Bs and put them in a less-than-ideal situation, and you’ll also ruin your team or organization. Finally, even Ds pose a risk to the overall team you’re leading. Which is not to say you shouldn’t hire them. You should. But understand, it’s unlikely their peers will universally appreciate their success - many will see it as threatening. While that’s on them, it’s up to you to recognize and manage (being a people leader is really hard, a subject for another day).