Character lies at the heart of performance, and high-performing people in any profession are those people who, in addition to other traits, are by and large trustworthy, energetic, goal-driven, optimistic, self-reliant, inspiring to others, and compelled by a desire to prove their worth.

One of the common complaints that employers give is that many of their candidates seem to have an “entitlement” complex. What they are talking about is candidates who seem to think the company owes them more than they owe the company—even before they get the job.

Here are a few examples of such complaints I have run across in the workplace.

Not too long ago, I was standing on the trading floor of one of the largest financial firms in the world, accompanied by two of my colleagues. We were discussing the firm’s interest in being able to more successfully hire people fresh out of college who lacked a sense of entitlement.

“Funny you should mention that,” my colleague said. “Because what we have noticed in the financial recruiting industry is this: For every 2,000 people you source as potential interview candidates for these types of jobs, you will get approximately 1,995 people who want a gold Lexus, a $175,000-a-year starting salary, every perk known to man, and a three-week vacation just to consider taking their first job. Then, you will find about five people who actually want to come in here, prove themselves, work hard, and show you what they can do.”

Standing on the trading floor of that large, famous institution whose name is a household word in the financial community, surrounded by a sea of faces, with hundreds of young employees sitting shoulder to shoulder, peering at computer screens and talking on the phone in a football-field-sized space, the manager of recruiting of the firm’s largest division became silent for a moment and nodded his head. Then he looked us right in the eye and spoke a few simple words. Here they are, verbatim:

“Could you, for the love of God, help us find those five people?”

Around the same time, I was talking with a training specialist for one of the branches of the armed forces, located in the Pentagon. I mentioned the same issue of entitlement that we had been discussing with the financial services firm. “Very interesting,” the training specialist remarked. “We have the same problem in recruiting ourselves. As a matter of fact, it is our number-one problem—entitlement. The what’s in it for me factor. Always putting yourself first. We are studying this intensely and we wish we knew how to screen for it, but it still eludes us. But we have been studying this problem in depth and have seen that it is creating a gigantic problem for us from boot camp on.”

“What’s the problem?” I asked.

“The number-one problem with entitlement, and it is a huge problem, is this,” he said. “We have found that people who have this sense of entitlement you are speaking of have a complete and utter inability to work together in teams.”

Two of the main things we look for in order to screen for entitlement are simple things:

Character is different from personality. Personality may be likened to flavor—and on this earth pretty much everyone comes in a slightly different flavor. Personality, in its largest sense, is a complex description of one’s individual nature, and may include measures of introversion vs. extraversion, shyness vs. friendliness, degree of baseline positive vs. negative feelings (mood), and attitude. Personality may also include the appearance of individual values, such as artistic sensibility, or the need for control. Taken to its logical conclusion (if we make personality synonymous with personhood), then personality might also include sexual orientation, favorite color, belief system, religious views, musical preferences, favorite foods, and political opinions.

Character, on the other hand (and we are taking the liberty of creating our own definition here somewhat, because a commonly agreed upon definition does not exist), is distinct from personality in that it is defined not so much by feelings and attitudes as by actions.

Personality tests that get at work-related competencies, behaviors, motivators, and attitudes can be a useful addition to the tools used in helping you and candidates decide if they are really right for the job—if they will put their hearts into it. But behavioral style preferences, aptitudes, and attitudes only describe a potential fit. In order to get the clearest picture of the best fit, candidates’ potential has to be scrutinized in connection with the actions or character they have displayed in making the most of that potential so far. This is why the process of selecting champions has to involve both science and professional wisdom.

Jeff West is president of VantagePoint, Inc., an assessment and selection firm based in Omaha. VantagePoint has helped numerous clients build hiring and selection processes that are based on best practices and tools. Jeff believes that successful hiring is an art and a science. The science comes with the use of online assessment tools that have been validated to predict success in specific jobs and use carefully tested industry benchmarks. The art comes with applying those tools as part of a process that helps us to talk to candidates about the things that truly matter with regard to career history, accomplishments, character, and motivation.

In looking at the steps of creating a solid hiring process, these are the key questions Jeff recommends that every employer ask:

The three most basic components of the hiring process that will allow you to accomplish these goals could be broken down as follows:

One of Jeff’s most important observations is that the selection process, if it is to be successful, must contain a “Realistic Job Preview.” Only by giving candidates an in-depth view of the job can you hope to give them a fair chance to determine if they are right for the job. A Realistic Job Preview (RJP) is any part of the selection process that gives applicants a clear idea of what it will be like to work at the job if they are hired. The preview should happen early in the selection process. As West states, “The purpose of the RJP is to give the candidate[s] as much information about the job as possible so that they can make an informed decision about their suitability for the job. In order for the RJP to be successful, it must objectively outline not only the positive aspects of the job, but also the potentially negative or unique aspects of the job as well.”

For example, it should include information regarding shift work, special characteristics of the job, hours, specific requirements, or a typical day on the job.

As part of the process of weaving character analysis into an overall process that includes these basic elements—candidate attraction, science-based screening, and multiphased assessment—we will turn our attention to the first item on the list: candidate attraction.

One of the biggest mistakes employers and hiring managers make is not giving enough time and attention to the composition of the job descriptions and advertisements used to solicit potential candidates. This is a deadly mistake for many reasons. Here are a few of them:

Deadly Hiring Danger #1: If you don’t zero in on the compelling and necessary character traits and competencies required of the job, you could end up attracting no one special—or even worse, everyone under the sun. The time and internal cost to then screen, assess, and interview hundreds of mediocre candidates will be astronomical, and the results will be endlessly confusing. You are better off narrowing the applicant pool as much as possible to begin with by letting your candidates know how demanding the job will be and what your expectations are.

Deadly Hiring Danger #2: High performers, as we have stated before, want to work for organizations they respect, and for people with whom they identify. In other words, they want to work in jobs where their heart can be in it. What are the realistic facts and messages that would lead a champion to believe he or she was joining an exemplary institution with a noble, worthy, and vital cause? What makes your organization a noble organization with which champions would be proud to be associated? Has this been put into words? Are these words present in the messages to prospective candidates?

Introductory messages to the kind of candidates you want to attract should reach the head and the heart at the same time. But how can you write such job descriptions and advertisements if you have not described what you would define as the “heart” of the job? So, starting at the beginning, the first step in finding super achievers is to write the kind of character-centered and heart-centered job descriptions that will attract them in the first place.

Here are a few critical questions you should ask yourself, before you write the job descriptions and advertisements that will attract the kind of candidates you would like to have in your pool for screening and assessment. These questions will help you construct that short list that gets to the heart of the job.

(Note on worksheets: In this book I made a judgment call to include the worksheets in the context of the chapter content, as opposed to putting them in an appendix where they would never be read. These worksheets are optional; if you do not want to use them, simply skip them. But I have found them useful. They describe the diagnostic format I use in working with my own clients.)

Answering such questions before the hire (making sure job expectations are clearly defined in the first place, and then communicated to everyone who interviews for the job) gives you your best chance of success in narrowing your field of candidates to a select group of individuals who do not look confused when you discuss the expectations and accountabilities in the interview. In the best of all possible worlds, you want candidates who can explain in detail how they met similar expectations and accountabilities in previous jobs, how they went beyond the call of duty, and how they are prepared to do the same for you.

While I was in the process of writing this book, I had the opportunity to talk about hiring and recruiting challenges with a group of Marine Corp recruiters serving the East Coast. The recruiters made a few humorous comments about the mindset of some of the young people the Marines are dealing with these days, and I think the challenges of the Marine Corps recruiters will hit home with everyone.

“We have a name for a certain group of young people today,” one of the Marines said:

So what is it exactly that the Marines are looking for?

It seems that what the Marines are looking for is what everyone is looking for: a group of people who have an innate desire to prove themselves—people who do not feel that they deserve this and that, but people who would like to have the opportunity to demonstrate their worth. Such candidates, as any employer will tell you, are increasingly in the minority.

When the Marine Corp recruiters reviewed the list of “A Few Fundamental Character Traits of High-Performing People” listed in the frontispiece of this book, they indicated that these traits were very similar to the kind of character traits that the Marines are looking for in their own recruits.

But one of the most challenging aspects of their recruiting process is this: What the Marines are selling to their recruits is an intangible. In fact, it is what we as employers might refer to as the great intangible.

The Marines aren’t selling things. They are selling a feeling. Therefore, people who are perfect for the Marines will possess certain motivations and attitudes that cause them to gravitate toward this great intangible, according to Marine recruiters.

The key message for any employer who recognizes the drive associated with such dream candidates is this: You cannot possibly attract a “Marine-quality” candidate unless you have something in common with the Marines. In other words, if you want people who have such admirable character traits, motivation, and drive, then you, as an employer, have to have the traits this type of rare individual is looking for. Does your company have a reputation for honor? Is it a place such people would be proud to work? Is there a chance to make a difference in the world? Is there a chance for people to move up through the ranks if they prove themselves in a series of honorable challenges? Will they feel a sense of belonging with other great people?

These questions must be answered by every company, no matter how large or small, before anyone sets out to attract high performers.

Describe in as few words as possible what your company stands for and makes it an important place to be a part of:

In other words, what makes your organization a noble organization with which champions would be proud to be associated? Are these words present in the messages and advertisements to prospective candidates?

At Headway Corporate Resources, the company motto is “Character, Commitment, and Passion.” This phrase seems to resonate powerfully with the company’s team members, and also allows us to be straightforward with candidates about our culture and expectations. Your cultural motto can be the springboard for very simple questions that help you get at the issue of alignment. Using the “Character, Commitment, and Passion” motto as only one example, here are simple questions about cultural alignment that would be useful questions for any candidate:

Do you see any value in asking those questions of your own candidates? What other questions concerning character, drawn from your own mission and values statements, would you ask that might elicit meaningful answers?

Here’s a short list of initial questions that need to be answered in the beginning stages of mapping out the job. As we will cover in more detail later, it is good to get your top-performing employees to help you answer these types of questions.

These questions should help you write the kind of job descriptions and advertisements that will help you select a higher quality pool of candidates. If you remember to tell your candidates how much you expect, and what you want them to prove to you on the job, you stand a better chance of finding and choosing those types of individuals who are actually looking for someone to whom to prove something.

One of the components of success-oriented character is continuous forward momentum, or the perpetual desire to set and accomplish higher goals. But, of course, what the candidate needs to prove to himself or herself next should resonate with the goals of the job you may be asking him or her to fill, and you should be reasonably sure that he or she will be able to prove what you want him or her to prove.

One key strategy for making sure that the candidate you are about to hire for an important role will live up to all of your expectations is to carefully analyze the processes you used when you hired the last “great candidate” you thought would work out—but didn’t. This initial analysis, up front, may help you with two goals:

As part of this strategy, you will analyze what went wrong in the hiring process of your last hire who didn’t work out in a specific role, and compare it with what went right in your last best hire.

Here is a helpful series of questions you can ask as you are refining success criteria for candidates.

The analysis of these questions will prove helpful in examining the areas of your selection process that have been ultimately most useful in identifying top performers so far. By analyzing the components and success history of your hiring practices to date, you will be more able to see the forest for the trees in terms of simplifying and streamlining your approach to the hiring process.

The following are a few other strategies that are useful in the beginning stages of analyzing the job and creating clear expectations you can share with the candidate.

Often, it is useful to ask your top performers to help you create the list of desirable traits that you should search for in candidates applying for identical or similar roles. After all, these top-performing employees are on the front lines. They know what skills and attributes have enabled them to win client satisfaction and loyalty.

This will also help guard against bias in the development of a success model. (As we will discuss later, additional layers of accuracy can be added by using validated competency models that can be customized for your job by a consultant who has experience in your industry.) But as one of your first steps, I highly recommend asking your top performers to help you design a simple model of success for the job. Getting their input will not only make the job easier for you, but it will also significantly strengthen your job definition model. Perhaps most important, getting this input from your current champions will help you to anticipate and be prepared for future performance needs.

This is what we will discuss in the next chapter.