In my last post I offered to put up my some of my interviewing techniques. It is safe to do so now and I can afford to be a little critical as the last round did not lead to an offer.
The faults
Typically the interviewer(s) have in their hand several sheets of paper presumably to make notes. Once the initial pleasantries and introductions are made one of the interviewers will offer up comments on their approach. For example, "we have a few prepared questions and we will be taking notes," a pause, "I/we hope you do not mind."
My response is, "of course not, I will be taking notes also." I also pause then ask, "will there be time for my questions?" The answer or response varies, usually a hint of surprise that I might actually have questions or perhaps it is something else.
The questioners then proceed usually trading off queries. The questions are printed on the note sheets and the interviewer furiously scribbles their interpretation of the responses. They could be doodling for all I know as I never look towards those papers and make eye contact continuously except when making my own notations. As in this last interview (I survived the HR pre-screen call) I met with team leaders, and presumably the decision makers.
Each question was behavioral in nature, you know the kind; 'tell me about at time. . . ." The rest of the line is next filled in with 'when you', and then the punch line. Now the punch line is intended to be phrased to elicit a response from the candidate describing some event in which the candidate participated in a moment when they were successful at doing some 'thing' or failing to do some 'thing'. These 'things' can be tailored to fit just about any scenario, but remarkably the same punch line can be used to fit almost any job scenario. So, if the punch line is "were able to solve a problem when someone else (colleague, competitor, subordinate, or whatever) could not." My favorite is "you provided excellent service to a customer (fill in customer with any stakeholder as applicable)" and the converse "when you did not."
To date every interview contained these types of canned questions. Clearly methodology had not changed since the 1980's. That is when this type of interview technique replaced "So (fill in candidates name) tell me about yourself." The reason such broad scoped questions were discouraged and right thinking business went with a more structured approach was to limit discrimination in the hiring process. Even though the candidate may volunteer information which could bias the decision making and once it is out there it is out there. Creating structure, built by the constraints of law is intended to reduce the risk of accusation. Hopefully no one still opens an interview this way.
The Criticism
You learn nothing worthwhile about the candidates suitability for the job, or the fit within in the organization. Maybe you now know if the candidate can string together a coherent thought. If you will take a moment to ponder the use of these kinds of questions and their exclusive use, it will tell you absolutely zero about the candidates ability to do the job, help the organization achieve its goals, be a team player, or support the strategic plan. The content of these questions are not comparative. That is it would be difficult for me as an interviewer, if required to deploy a similar methodology, to compare responses to each question to another question. It seems each question should be phrased to illicit responses which can be compared to other responses. The interviewer then gains deeper insight.
JSC
Behavioral questions are best used in a pre-screen interview. The HR rep or designated screener can ask these generic questions to help learn about a candidates general suitability for the company, perhaps uncover some behaviors which are or are not beneficial to the position. They are fine for entry level positions where specific job knowledge may not be required or where structured and detailed training will illuminate the probability of the candidates on-going success.
Structuring and rehearsing the second interview is important, and I would suggest the behavioral question is not relevant. Questions now are structured to elicit suitability compared to the job description, clarifying the candidates support for unit and company strategic goals, and compatibility with the leadership and team members. This kind of depth of understanding demands the hiring manager/decision maker to be familiar with all elements of the position, detailed understanding for success in the position, and the personalities of the individual team members. The content of the question is structured to fit the circumstances:
"Tell me/us about a time when you were working on a project and you knew the deadline could not be made."
"Outline for us how you will structure your outside calling."
"What did you do when you disagreed with your supervisor (or colleague) on a procedure (substitute policy/plan/budget item/or whatever?)
Variations on will help the interviewer make comparisons by merely changing direction:
". . . .about a time when a deadline was made ahead of schedule."
And you can also drill deeper:
"How did you contribute to the success or failure of meeting that deadline?" Or (if failure) "what did you differently on the next project to insure success" or "duplicate success the next time if the deadline was made?"
Each question is worded to help the interviewer either assess the candidates suitability to the job (as outlined in the job description and compatibility to goals and team members. Of course the savvy interviewer may ask similar questions with different wording to solidify clarity and consistency. In addition you can drill down in each category getting more specific with each question. "How did you come in under budget? How many calls, follow ups, face to face visits were necessary to reach that sales goal? When the client asked for additional changes to the product/software/whatever how did you handle the changes? (documentation/contracts/communications etc.) What did you do when your manager closed the door on your concerns?"
There is some source information out there. Go to Amazon and type in Interviewing Techniques in books and you will find lots of reference to military/police/psychotherapy so change your search to Employee Interview and you will find some useful material. A Google search using the same parameter will take you to some sites for job searchers. A cursory look tells me these materials are compiled from the memory of the candidate of what was asked in the interview. I doubt there are any companies out there whose legal and/or HR department would look kindly on a hiring manager disclosing particular questions used in the interview process. Be that as it may you might find something useful in the content.
Good hunting.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Getting the Right People on the Bus
The title is from Execution, The Discipline of Getting Things Done by Larry Bossidy & Ram Charan and I have been a bit of disciple. Probably due to the self satisfaction of knowing my efforts in recruiting people in past employments centered on most of the principles outlined in this book. Fundamentally Mr. Bossidy insists to move the organization forward, achieve its goals, and to do so successfully requires having the right people "on the bus." Followership and leadership dovetail to support the efforts of the team in making the effort.
First I did not read the book until 2007, and most of my recruiting and hiring responsibilities pre-date that year. My philosophy of recruitment centered on how compatible is the candidate with the rest of the team, will they embrace the goals of the organization, is there buy in to the organizations strategy and tactics, what tools (skills and talents) do they bring to the table to support the team, are they learners? In the retail banking biz my colleagues often criticised my approach, insisting technical expertise was required first and foremost, and prior experience was required in a successful candidate. Although I understood their thinking my approach gave me the advantage of building a consistent quality customer service team which in turn created good growth in measured metrics, held down turnover, and generally created a happier work environment. There were trade offs of course, but that is another discussion. In subsequent jobs I deployed the same overall philosophy of hiring as the technical aspects of the positions were teachable so long as the candidate was coachable (another worthwhile trait.) As a result my interview techniques incorporated questions to illicit responses which would help me measure the candidates probable success against these expectations. Reflecting on my application of this particular set of tools, I feel I was successful more often than not in finding qualified candidates. In fact I was very very good at it.
The next step was continually coaching the new hire. Coaching has to be an honest dialogue and not mean spirited (page 63). Successfully coaching individuals and the team requires discipline and constant testing of the assumptions behind the organizations goals. (Here I am "reducing" the organization to the local team or unit.) Managers fundamentally understand the methods for successful coaching but the execution is poor in my experience. Once again I will brag that I was well above average as a coach. Bossidy and Charan include follow up steps for helping team members transition out if necessary, create effective reviews, linking strategy and operations, and linking people with strategy.
Over the last year I have had the opportunity to interview a few times for positions. In at least fifty percent of them, either the first or second interview was in front of the hiring manager. Now I like to interview as it gives me a chance to evaluate the interviewer and measure them against my own standards. Sure it's conceited, but this never shows through. It also helps me gain a glimmer of the inside of the organization. No recruiter can gain more than a small percentage of knowledge of the candidate. Social networking is changing the amount of knowledge available, but as most of the content is "self published" caution should be exercised. Thanks to the Web a candidate can gain a good deal of knowledge of a company. These glimmers, if examined in context, create insight on the infrastructure, leadership, and strategy of the organization. Of course I have experience and pedigree which provides an advantage in this speculation.
In each case the interviewer(s) employed a set of questions (they are remarkably similar in each interview) "intended to gain understanding of behaviors." The standard 'Tell me about a time. . .' usually led the rest of the text. (To clarify all of these interviews have been in some kind of business development role.) Now I am not going to criticise the content of the questions, but in a subsequent post I will provide some insight into my methods as a sort of compare and contrast for my two readers to see.
First I did not read the book until 2007, and most of my recruiting and hiring responsibilities pre-date that year. My philosophy of recruitment centered on how compatible is the candidate with the rest of the team, will they embrace the goals of the organization, is there buy in to the organizations strategy and tactics, what tools (skills and talents) do they bring to the table to support the team, are they learners? In the retail banking biz my colleagues often criticised my approach, insisting technical expertise was required first and foremost, and prior experience was required in a successful candidate. Although I understood their thinking my approach gave me the advantage of building a consistent quality customer service team which in turn created good growth in measured metrics, held down turnover, and generally created a happier work environment. There were trade offs of course, but that is another discussion. In subsequent jobs I deployed the same overall philosophy of hiring as the technical aspects of the positions were teachable so long as the candidate was coachable (another worthwhile trait.) As a result my interview techniques incorporated questions to illicit responses which would help me measure the candidates probable success against these expectations. Reflecting on my application of this particular set of tools, I feel I was successful more often than not in finding qualified candidates. In fact I was very very good at it.
The next step was continually coaching the new hire. Coaching has to be an honest dialogue and not mean spirited (page 63). Successfully coaching individuals and the team requires discipline and constant testing of the assumptions behind the organizations goals. (Here I am "reducing" the organization to the local team or unit.) Managers fundamentally understand the methods for successful coaching but the execution is poor in my experience. Once again I will brag that I was well above average as a coach. Bossidy and Charan include follow up steps for helping team members transition out if necessary, create effective reviews, linking strategy and operations, and linking people with strategy.
Over the last year I have had the opportunity to interview a few times for positions. In at least fifty percent of them, either the first or second interview was in front of the hiring manager. Now I like to interview as it gives me a chance to evaluate the interviewer and measure them against my own standards. Sure it's conceited, but this never shows through. It also helps me gain a glimmer of the inside of the organization. No recruiter can gain more than a small percentage of knowledge of the candidate. Social networking is changing the amount of knowledge available, but as most of the content is "self published" caution should be exercised. Thanks to the Web a candidate can gain a good deal of knowledge of a company. These glimmers, if examined in context, create insight on the infrastructure, leadership, and strategy of the organization. Of course I have experience and pedigree which provides an advantage in this speculation.
In each case the interviewer(s) employed a set of questions (they are remarkably similar in each interview) "intended to gain understanding of behaviors." The standard 'Tell me about a time. . .' usually led the rest of the text. (To clarify all of these interviews have been in some kind of business development role.) Now I am not going to criticise the content of the questions, but in a subsequent post I will provide some insight into my methods as a sort of compare and contrast for my two readers to see.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
