Organizations will often use assessments when they are unsure about an employee, a candidate, or a leadership team. They want to know if someone has the right behavior, motivation, judgment, or skills for a specific job.

‍

Certainly, that can be useful information. But it cannot answer the most fundamental question if the organization has never clearly defined the role.

‍

An assessment cannot show if someone fits a job when the job is just a mix of assumptions, old tasks, changing priorities, and unclear expectations. In this case, leaders might think they are being objective, but they are really comparing people to vague or even conflicting standards. Avoid falling into this trap.

‍

Define the Work First

‍

Before you assess the person, take a fresh look at the role itself.

‍

Begin by thinking about the results the role is meant to achieve. Don’t just look at the tasks someone does. Identify the main outcomes the role is responsible for. Remember, two people might do similar tasks but have very different levels of responsibility for the result.

‍

Next, make sure it is clear who owns each decision. Which decisions can the person make alone? Which ones need input from others? Which decisions must be escalated, and to whom?

‍

Many apparent performance problems may really be chalked up to decision-rights problems. People working in the role may hesitate because they do not know whether they have authority. Others move ahead and create conflict because their colleagues believe the decision belonged elsewhere.

‍

The role should also consider relationships and handoffs.  I think you will agree that most jobs do not work alone. The person might rely on sales for information, operations for resources, finance for analysis, or leaders for direction.

‍

Where must the role coordinate with others? What information needs to be shared between teams or functions?  Who owns the work when it crosses organizational boundaries? Even a capable person can still struggle when these connections remain vague.

‍

Identify What the Role Requires

‍

Only after defining the work should the organization identify the capabilities it requires.

‍

Does success in the role depend on analysis, persuasion, discipline, building relationships, technical skills, judgment, adaptability, or a mix of these? Which capabilities are essential on day one, and which can be developed over time?

‍

Without this distinction, leaders may select someone they like or admire rather than someone suited to the actual demands of the position.

‍

Finally, set clear standards for measuring success. Phrases like “good leadership,” “strong communication,” and “taking more initiative” sound reasonable, but they are too broad to create accountability.

‍

What do these qualities look like in this role? What should happen more often, faster, or with fewer mistakes? What proof would show the person is doing well?

‍

Then Assess the Person

‍

Once you have answered these questions, an objective assessment is much more useful.

‍

It helps leaders compare a person’s natural strengths, motivators, decision-making ability, and current skills with what the job really needs. It can show where things match, where there are risks, and what needs to be developed. It also helps tell the difference between a people issue and a problem with the role, process, authority, or management.

‍

This is important for hiring, but it is just as important when promoting someone, planning for succession, reorganizing teams, or dealing with poor performance.

‍

Too often, organizations only assess people after problems appear. By that time, the person might be responsible for a role that was never clearly defined for anyone to succeed.

‍

Objective assessments can replace guesses and undefined assumptions with insight. They cannot replace leadership’s responsibility to define the work.

‍

Before you ask if someone is right for a role, make sure everyone knows what the role should achieve, decide, coordinate, and be responsible for. Otherwise, the assessment might give an accurate view of the person but still lead to the wrong decision for the organization.

‍