I'm picking well into this thread without having followed closely because
I was put off by the word 'attitude'. On reading more carefully I notice
that the word attitude seems to be being used to mean (at least this is
what it seems like to me) fits in, is in congruence with the culture, does
things that add to the organisation rather than diminish.
I believe that it is very important to recruit people who fit the culture.
In my work at Allied Dunbar (one of the most successful insurance
companies in the UK) a large part of the personnel departments role in
recruiting was to take a view on how well potential recruits would fit the
culture.
However I have a particular concern. There is a risk that this approach
leads to a narrowing of individual styles which over time will diminish
the culture. The end of the line is a bunch of clones. Unless the culture
explicitly seeks diversity and builds managing this successfully into its
culture (something that I don;t see very often) the potential benefits of
varied styles and personalities are lost.
I feel stuck on the horns of a dilemma. It is important to recruit people
who fit and how do I ensure that this does lead to a set of clones??
Ian
Ian Saunders
Transition Partnerships - Harnessing change for business advantage
tpians@cix.compulink.co.uk
--tpians@cix.compulink.co.uk (Ian Saunders)
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>