Choosing Between Two Excellent Candidates: 50UC or 42UC

[bluemoongrl]

Hi everyone!

My question for this great group is if you had to choose between 50UC or 42UC, what would you do? I'd just love your insights. Here's the background: I have a very fun and fortuitous decision to make. I lead a nonprofit arts organization and I'm hiring a new Director of Development (the person who raises money for the organization). Historically this is a difficult job to hire for, but this time around I have the great fortune of having two amazing candidates. I'm torn which to choose as they both have fantastic skill sets and experience and I would love to work with them both. So I asked the iching the same question for both candidates: What will the development department look like at my organization in the next year with [enter candidate name] leading it?

Here comes the fun part.

For Candidate A I received 50UC

For Candidate B I received 42UC

Both seem to be very good readings to me. 50UC maybe showing more of putting together a stable base to do really amazing work for the organization. 42UC maybe showing less of a stable foundation and a more dynamic approach of taking advantage of whatever comes her way, which is a good thing in development as a lot of the job is seeing and running with opportunity.

I'd just love to hear what you would do. If you had to decide between 50UC and 42UC, which would you choose?

 

[marybluesky]

Hello;

Obviously both hexagrams are beautiful. I'd say 50uc shows a situation that needs to cook, while 42uc indicates a more instant benefit.

 

[dfreed]

What will the development department look like at my organization in the next year with one of these people leading it?

Candidate A - 50UC

Candidate B - 42UC

It looks to me that you have no bad choices here, only different ones.

Candidate A (50uc) may be more thoughtful in their decision-making, perhaps taking more time to consider the long-term security of your organization. This person may not make decisions or raise money that quickly, but what they do will feel more secure and more like a long-term investment. They may also be inclined to look towards the happiness of their employees, and believe in the goals and philosophy of your organization. (Perhaps some 'downsides' here are they may get too much into the details (in the weeds); or they might tend to look to much to past problems or mistakes, and these things could stop them or slow them down in moving forward.)

Candidate B (42uc) may be more action-oriented. They understand that they need to act and make decisions, but they too will be considering the long-term impacts of their actions. Underneath their 'just do it!' approach is perhaps a conservative or even 'old-fashioned' attitude ('conservative' here means to conserve, to rely upon past experiences; it is not about a political position). They can be very down-to-earth in how they approach things, very good at furthering the organization's goals, and in dealing with challenges and difficult decisions. (Perhaps some 'downsides' here might be a tendency to act too quickly or to be a bit too dictatorial (dictator-like) in their management style)

If it were me deciding, I'd look at some of the specific needs and 'gaps' of your organization: has there been strife or unhappiness among the employees that you need to be concerned about; do things seem fairly stable right now, or are there some really big problems that need to be dealt with before you're organization can move ahead? That sort of thing ....

Best, D

 

[Topher]

50 will lead to transformation, sometimes transformation probably a good candidate for a long term . 42 will increase something sometimes 42 isnt always about benefiting there is 42.6.. but there is also a 42.3 and 42.2 it would be easier if you evaluated them rather on their current abilities if that's what you need. if you cant just wait for Candidate A to adapt and improve and be like B, perhaps it you would go with B it will get you instant results but probably who knows if it is going to benefit the organization at long term

 

[bluemoongrl]

Thanks for these thoughts. All your comments are really on target I think.

Candidate A is an older, more experienced candidate. This candidate has been in this type of role before. I believe Candidate A would have a very strategic approach, but perhaps not be as fast at "charging up hills." They strikes me as more thoughtful in their approach. I think they will work using tried-and-true methods of organizational development.

Candidate B is also experienced, but a bit earlier in their career. This would be the first time the candidate led an organization as the development director. Candidate B has a lot of great ideas--lots! Things I've never considered. They obviously look at situations from a lot of different angles and come up with an idea to move on. I think with Candidate B there will be a lot of "charging up hills," experimenting, seeing what works and what doesn't. Candidate B is at a point where they are still proving themselves a little bit.

So the things you all are saying really makes sense given their backgrounds. It's actually helped me a lot to think through the two candidates with you all--so thank you!!