by Lou Adler, CEO and founder of The Adler Group
At a recent Performance-based Hiring training session for hiring managers I was bombarded with questions on how to hire people who were willing to work long hours. When I asked them what they were now doing, I was dumbstruck.
They wouldn’t even talk with people who wouldn’t agree to put in the extra time.
“You’ve got it backwards,” I told them. “Instead of filtering for people who say they’ll work long hours, find people who have already proven they will – because they couldn’t help themselves.”
The Flow State Principle
The fundamental insight here is that exceptional performance rarely comes from forced overtime. It emerges naturally when people are engaged in work that aligns with their intrinsic motivations – when they’re in what psychologists call a “flow state.” These are the times when professionals lose track of time, stay late without being asked, and wake up thinking about solutions to work challenges.
Rather than asking candidates to promise future dedication, we need to identify where they’ve already demonstrated this level of engagement. The key is understanding what type of work naturally draws out their best effort.
Building the Foundation: Performance-based Job Descriptions
Our first step was to transform their traditional job descriptions into performance-based profiles. Instead of listing requirements like “5+ years of project management experience” or “PMP certification preferred,” we focused on defining 6-8 Key Performance Objectives (KPOs) that would constitute success in the role.
For these technical project manager positions, examples included:
- “Lead the migration of three legacy systems to the new cloud infrastructure within 6 months while maintaining 99.9% uptime”
- “Develop and implement a resource optimisation strategy that reduces project delivery time by 30% across the engineering team”
- “Build cross-functional alignment between engineering, product, and operations teams to launch two major product features per quarter”
The Four Work Types Framework
To better understand both the roles and the candidates, we applied the Four Work Types framework show in the diagram.
This model recognises that all work can be categorised into four distinct types, each requiring different motivations and strengths:
Thinkers are the strategists and innovators who thrive on generating new ideas and solving complex, undefined problems. They excel at the conceptual front-end of projects, developing creative solutions and envisioning what’s possible.
Builders transform ideas into reality. They’re energised by creating something from nothing, thriving in ambiguous, fast-paced environments where they must make decisions with incomplete information. Builders love the challenge of bringing order to chaos.
Improvers take existing systems, processes, or teams and optimise them. They find satisfaction in making things better, more efficient, and more scalable. Improvers excel at creating systematic approaches to recurring challenges.
Producers execute defined processes with precision and reliability. They take pride in consistent, high-quality output and find satisfaction in mastering technical skills and delivering predictable results.
Matching Work Types to Role Requirements
When we analysed the performance objectives for these project manager roles through the Work Type lens, an interesting pattern emerged. The company actually needed two distinct types of project managers:
- New Initiative Project Managers – These roles were heavily weighted toward the Builder work type. They needed people who could launch new products, establish processes from scratch, and navigate the ambiguity of undefined territories.
- Optimisation Project Managers – These positions required more of the Improver mindset. The focus was on taking existing systems and teams and making them more efficient, scalable, and reliable.
Both roles demanded significant time and energy investment, but for very different reasons. The Builder roles required extra effort because of the constant pivoting and problem-solving in uncharted territory. The Improver roles demanded dedication to understand complex existing systems and carefully implement changes without disrupting ongoing operations.
The Interview Strategy: Finding Natural Dedication
Armed with this understanding, we revolutionised their interview approach. Instead of asking, “Are you willing to work long hours?” we asked candidates to describe their most significant career accomplishments in detail. Specifically, we probed for:
- Times when they went above and beyond without being asked
- Projects where they lost track of time because they were so engaged
- Situations where they voluntarily took on extra responsibility
- Instances where they persisted through challenges when others might have given up
We then mapped these accomplishments to our Work Type framework. When candidates described staying late to perfect a system optimisation, we recognised the Improver mindset. When they talked about working weekends to launch a startup or rescue a failing project, we saw the Builder mentality.
Avoid Frustration and Burnout with Proper Work Type Matching
Through our discussions, we identified a critical insight: while a talented Builder could function in an Improver role (and vice versa) for short periods, this mismatch would eventually lead to burnout and dissatisfaction.
Builders placed in Improver roles would grow frustrated with the pace of change and the need to work within existing constraints. They’d feel stifled by the requirement to document everything and follow established procedures.
Improvers thrust into Builder roles would feel overwhelmed by the lack of structure and the constant need to make decisions without complete information. They’d be stressed by the expectation to “figure it out as you go.”
The Hiring Formula for Success
The formula for success became clear:
- Match candidates to roles based on the rate of change and available resources
- Ensure alignment between the work type requirements and the candidate’s natural preferences
- Look for evidence of voluntary extra effort in similar situations
By focusing on situational fit rather than generic willingness to work hard, we could identify candidates who would naturally invest extra time and energy – not because they had to, but because they wanted to.
Key Takeaways
The lesson for any organisation hiring for demanding roles is clear: don’t filter for people who say they’ll work hard. Instead:
- Define what success looks like through performance-based job descriptions
- Understand the Work Type requirements of your roles
- Look for evidence of natural dedication in similar past situations
- Match candidates to roles that align with their intrinsic motivations
When you find the right match between a person’s natural work preferences and a role’s requirements, the question of “willingness to work long hours” becomes irrelevant. People will invest the time and energy needed not because they have to, but because they’re doing work that energises rather than drains them.
And in today’s competitive talent market, the companies that understand this distinction will be the ones that build truly exceptional teams.
Permission has been granted from The Adler Group and Lou Adler, author of Hire With Your Head and The Essential Guide to Hiring & Getting Hired, to reprint this article.
About the author
Lou Adler is the CEO and founder of The Adler Group – a training and search firm helping companies implement Performance-based Hiring℠. Adler is the author of the Amazon top-10 best-seller, Hire With Your Head (John Wiley & Sons, 3rd Edition, 2007). His most recent book has just been published, The Essential Guide for Hiring & Getting Hired (Workbench, 2013). He is also the author of the award-winning Nightingale-Conant audio program, Talent Rules! Using Performance-based Hiring to Build Great Teams (2007). Adler holds an MBA from the University of California in Los Angeles and a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Clarkson University in New York.
