Watching Minneapolis Public Schools struggle to hire a new superintendent reminded me of hiring decisions I was involved with when I was a human resources manager. We always tried to be rational and objective, but no matter what we tried, there was never an easy way to insure success.

Some jobs had set requirements like a license, a specific degree, or a testable competency. But for management jobs, the most important abilities were harder to identify. Experience in a similar position was invaluable. Certain previous accomplishments could be documented and analyzed. Managers and coworkers could be interviewed. But the final selection was still hopeful speculation.

On a larger scale, our country is making its most important hiring decision this year. What would happen if human resource managers had to vet the candidates for president? Since the only absolutes are age, residence, and that messy “natural-born citizen” requirement, just about anyone can apply. HR would start by reviewing the job description and identifying the important knowledge, skills, and abilities required for the job.

At the top of my list I’d put intelligence. For president, I want someone ridiculously smart and broadly educated in history, science, economics, sociology, law, political science, geography, and enough mathematics so they aren’t fooled by faulty statistics. Certainly, they can’t know it all, but they better be really, really smart.

The candidates would have to be great communicators. They need to inform, motivate, and, too often, console the American people. As the face of our country, they are our top diplomat. They need to be able to work with, and not offend, a world-wide range of egos and cultures both abroad and at home in our own Congress. In addition, they need the strength to responsibly act as the commander-in-chief of the world’s largest military.

After decades of political embarrassment-gates, we want someone of high moral character and trustworthiness. That is a quality beyond religion or professed positions on hot-button moral issues. In addition, we want these candidates to comprehend and care about the lives and the struggles of average Americans.

From an HR perspective, we could give the candidates an IQ test, and then add points for the depth and breadth of their education. To quantify their prior experience, they could earn points for holding positions on the city council or as mayor. Extra points would be awarded for military experience. Serving in government at the state and federal level would add more points to the total. But, as a legislator, did they actually get things done or were they an obstacle to the success of the group? As governor, how effective was their term of office? Being a governor offers only moderately similar experiences to being president. Although I realize it is not possible, the best candidates would be people who had experience running a small country before they apply to run this behemoth.

Beyond government, their other experience needs to be examined. Is it actually relevant? Did it require the same kinds of skills as those needed to be president? Were their successes earned by their own accomplishments, or basically inherited through wealth and influence? Have they done things to improve our entire society, or just to enrich themselves? In all these varied experiences, what was their style of leadership? What do their peers and coworkers think of them? Were there accusations of impropriety, cronyism, bullying, or other scandals?

Ideally, rather than debates, there should be a group interview where they would have to work together on a project to see how well they communicate and get things done with others. Real leadership often surfaces in that kind of exercise.

Instead, what do we have? Our initial screening criteria just demands that candidates are wealthy and/or have the ability to raise exorbitant amounts of money. Our subsequent politicking and debate process values quick barbs, witty comments, and combativeness instead of thoughtful discussion and problem solving. Each candidate spouts far-fetched campaign promises that are just as ridiculous as 1928’s, “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” And we cheer them for this. Instead of valuing tangible experience, some of the electorate proudly prefer an outsider with zero government experience to handle the toughest governing job on the planet. From an HR perspective, that is ludicrous.

I understand being fed up with the current system. We all are. Once I was very fed up with dentists. Two root canals on the same tooth, weeks of pain and infection, and then a cap that didn’t fit cost me thousands of dollars. So after all that, I found a new dentist. But I didn’t go to Larry the Cable Guy.

Which job is harder, superintendent of Minneapolis Public Schools or president of the United States? If I were the HR person screening superintendent applicants for the Minneapolis School Board and I offered them the list of current candidates for president, I fear they would be justified in telling me, “You’re fired!”