Campaigns, Dartboards, and Workplaces

Examining the way voters select a political candidate reveals two approaches that also can be seen in the workplace.

In the first approach, the voter uses a set of criteria that are believed to be job-related and picks a candidate based on how well he or she matches those items. This approach is designed to prevent the process from being swayed by a charismatic candidate or by the voter's own bias.

In the second approach, the voter picks the candidate based on the individual's personality and style, then fashions the selection criteria to match that choice. It is akin to throwing the darts and then drawing the dartboard. When this practice is present, it is not unusual to find voters who have an eclectic array of first and second choices. A memorable example of this was in the primary campaigns of 1968 when a sizable number of the voters who favored Alabama Governor George Wallace, a social conservative (and bigot) who favored escalation in Vietnam, also said their second choice was New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy, a social liberal and civil rights supporter who favored withdrawal from Vietnam. Both men, however, were perceived as forceful outsiders who were challenging the establishment. To the Wallace/RFK voters, personality was more important than positions.

Similar odd matches are found in the workplace. The first approach is the declared favorite. There is much talk of outreach, behavioral interviewing, structured questions, weighting, validation of criteria, and the like, but given the nature of political selections, how often is that workplace policy simply a cover story for the second approach? How frequently do cosmic vibrations trump experience or a record of achievement?

My guess is that despite all of the talk, in many a workplace, the dartboard is being drawn after the darts are thrown.