Yesterday on the Fistful of Talent blog, Marisa Keegan wrote what I think should be the definitive, concluding statement on the age-old debate of whether it's best to hire for attitude or skills.

She writes,

[I]f you're like most companies out there who think you care about what your customers want, I'm challenging you to see your company through your customers' eyes.  Are you really giving them the service that will keep them coming back for more?  If not, it's time to re-evaluate your hiring practices and maybe it's time to ... start hiring for attitude instead of talent.

Does this seem counterintuitive to you?  You might be thinking, At a minimum I need to ensure a candidate can perform the responsibilities we've set that will help grow our business.  That means hiring for skills.

Obviously a candidate must be competent.  But it's much more important to find the person who will enhance the team building and culture of ownership you have in place.  This is why our Top Small Company Workplaces bring candidates in for so many interviews before making an offer – they want to make sure the person has the right attitude and fit for their workplace culture.

Mike Faith, one of our Best Bosses, explained this approach quite succinctly at a "60 ideas in 60 minutes" session at our 2007 annual conference:

We place attitude and personality over skills nearly all the time.  We can train skills, but changing personality is a pretty tough job.

Indeed.  And it's that better-fitting personality that improves not just internal metrics like absenteeism and presenteeism, but – more importantly for your bottom line – your ability to turn middle of the road and even dissatisfied customers into customer evangelists.  It's these evangelists that drive your repeat business and referrals.

Do you disagree that hiring for attitude and fit always trumps skills?  Let me know by commenting below.