Would you hire ‘Fonzie’ or ‘Richie’?

For followers of the sitcom ‘Happy Days’, the Fonzie-Richie duo is legendary. As similar as chalk and cheese, Fonzie is rough around the edges—a greaser who defies convention, he has a mind of his own; he has been on the downside of luck and yet beaten the odds. On the other hand, Richie is clean-cut and straight as an arrow; he has been sheltered by his loving family and will predictably play by the book. Despite their contrasting personalities, not only are they best buddies, but they always come through.

Here’s a question—if you were hiring, would you pick Fonzie or Richie? Over the years, I have often seen candidates in the Richie mould enjoy an edge over those in the Fonzie mould. An oft-repeated argument is that a Fonzie won’t make a good team player; his personality—opinionated and willingness to challenge status-quo—makes him a bad team player. Conversely, a Richie who is conforming and easy-going is seen as a safer bet. Perhaps there is some merit in that argument. But is that always true, or is there more to it than meets the eye?

An unpleasant truth is that several managers dislike dissenting opinions. A contrasting view (from a subordinate) which may potentially benefit the organisation could be shot down, because the manager believes that his authority has been challenged. Insecurity of being upstaged by a junior stalks and in turn, influences the actions of many managers. Admittedly, the organisation’s culture is an aspect too—some workplaces thrive on a familial structure wherein honchos are deemed to know what is best and juniors are simply expected to toe the line. It should come as no surprise if such entities always pick a Richie over a Fonzie.

However, should that approach be universally adopted? In an ever-changing and increasingly complex business environment, is it prudent to raise an army of compliant yes-men? What happens when the organisation faces a downturn or say the competition comes snapping at its heels? When the going gets tough, traits such as being driven, out-of-the-box thinking, resilience and courage are worth their weight in gold. Someone who has rolled with the punches is the man for the job. That’s when a Fonzie is better equipped to deliver over a Richie. For those who believe that a skilled manager is all it takes, think again. Even the best of plans (made by a manager) can be rendered useless due to poor execution (by subordinates who can’t rise to the occasion).

Like most things in life, I don’t think there is an unambiguous, ‘one-size-fits-all’ answer to the Fonzie versus Richie debate. But it is patently ridiculous that biases and insecurities result in organisations and managers inflicting damage on themselves. There has rarely been a greater need for a blinkers-off approach while hiring. As in ‘Happy Days’ itself, perhaps there is a case for Fonzies and Richies co-existing and driving the organisation’s success. To quote Fonzie—Ayyy!