From the Ask Tom Mailbag:

Question:
In yesterday’s post on hiring, you said, “Candidates, when they come to work for you, are most likely to repeat their behaviors from the past. Even when, in the past, those behaviors were not successful.” If some behavior (technique, approach) was not successful, wouldn’t the person learn and NOT repeat the behavior? Especially in a new role?

Response:
Alas. We are slow learners. That’s why, in an interview, I listen carefully for textbook answers and watch out for hypothetical explanations. They are useless. I am ONLY interested in actual past behavior.

We can understand and even agree with stuff beyond our capability. Just because we understand it and agree with it, does not mean we can actually do it. For example, I can clearly explain how a piston engine works, including the role of fuel, oxygen and combustion. I can explain why rings and bearings wear out. But the last thing you want me to do, is tear down and rebuild your engine. I have never actually done that.

In managerial tasks, I may understand and agree with a coaching process, a delegation process, a planning process. I may even be able to explain those things (according to the textbook), but until I have integrated those processes into my habits and practiced them day after day, I am just a candidate who tells a good story.
____
We are closing registrations (last day – Friday, June 3) for our next online program, Hiring Talent. You can find out more information about the program, here. It starts next Monday, June 6, 2011.

From the Ask Tom Mailbag:

Question:
This new hire has me perplexed. In the interview, we described the exact problems this candidate would face and the response was quite good. The candidate’s prescription for solving those problems was right on point. Five weeks later, none of those problems are getting solved and we are way behind schedule. The customer just called. You get the picture.

Response:
And the candidate got your picture. Look, candidates do their homework. They visit your website. They read your trade magazines. You asked hypothetical questions and got textbook answers.

Don’t ask, “What would you do if?”

Ask, “What DID you do when?” Then go for details.

Candidates, when they come to work for you, are most likely to repeat their behaviors from the past. Even when, in the past, those behaviors were not successful.
____
We are currently taking registrations for our next online program, Hiring Talent. You can find out more information about the program, here.

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
Here we are again. I thought this was the best candidate, but, now only three weeks into the job, I might have made a mistake. It turns out, I misinterpreted things that were discussed in the interview.

Response:
Why do interviewers constantly misinterpret candidate responses? Simple reason. Interviewers misinterpret because they are asking questions that require interpretation. Any question that requires the response to be interpreted is a poor question. Worse yet, now the interviewer has to do something with that interpretation.

“Tell me, how important was planning in your last company?”

Terrible question. Any response to this question requires the interviewer to make an interpretation, an assumption or a leap of faith. Do we depend on the person to be telling the truth, or do we take it with a grain of salt? None of this is helpful.

Here is a better set of questions.

• Tell me about a time when it was important for you to create a plan for a project you were working on?
• What was the project?
• What was the purpose of the project?
• How long was the project?
• Tell me about the plan?

____
We are currently taking registrations for our next online program, Hiring Talent. You can find out more information about the program, here.

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
I thought I had a pretty good strategy going into the interview with the candidate. But I am only one of five people on our interview team. It seems the other four weren’t prepared and came out of their interviews with completely different observations. One said the candidate reminded him of his college drinking buddy. Another was impressed with the candidate’s technical background, from the resume. I think this is a bad decision, but now I have to argue with the opinions of the rest of the interview team.

Response:
This is not unusual. Most interview teams are loosely banded together without any coherent approach. The good news, since you have an approach, you have the power of influence on the behavior of the rest of the team.

The trick is to start early. Get the interview team together to review the role description way before the job posting. The team can be very helpful crafting interview questions together, based on the role description. If you remember, my bias is 60 written prepared questions. If you have five people on your interview team, that’s barely more than 10 questions each, piece of cake.

The next step is a decision matrix with the decision criteria listed across the top and each candidate down the left side. Each member of the interview team should prepare the matrix after their candidate interviews and bring it to the debrief meeting. Now, the conversation is totally changed. It’s no longer opinion, but a true discussion of the facts uncovered during the interviews.
____
We are currently taking registrations for our next online program, Hiring Talent. You can find out more information about the program, here.

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
We are three weeks into a new hire that showed all the promise of a superstar. This new hire was an impeccable interviewer. He had done research on our website, knew all about our company. He had done significant research on our industry, was familiar with specific challenges our company faces. He established immediate rapport with every person on the interview team. He looked wonderful. But here we are, three weeks later and I can already tell, this guy doesn’t have a clue. Everything in his department, which was relatively stable, has started to go haywire.

Response:
If you had interviewed me for the role, I guarantee that you would have hired me as well. Candidates are coached to do exactly what you described. I would have scoured your website, specifically your About Us page, so I would be able to identify all the players in your company by name. I would have spent an hour or two on industry websites to figure out what your challenges are. I would have concocted a couple of brilliant stories (with enough verifiable truth) to WOW an interview team.

Here’s the bad news. I have never worked in your industry, have never done what you need done, never worked with, much less managed a staff like yours. Three weeks into the role, you would notice me failing. PREDICTABLY FAILING.

Predictably failing, if you had asked the right questions. Your entire interview team was derailed from the facts of my experience. They were hi-jacked by my specific knowledge about your teammates. The only qualifications demonstrated were those of a researcher.
____
We are currently taking registrations for our next online program, Hiring Talent. You can find out more information about the program, here.

After observing a ton of hiring interviews, I have created a list of the top things that go wrong in the conversation. Here is a big one:

The interviewer fails to find out important information about the candidate’s experience, skills and behaviors relative to the job profile.

Interesting, since this is the primary purpose of the interview, what causes this failure? Most often, time and again, the interviewer is not prepared to ask the right questions and pursue the details of the candidate’s experience. Manager’s think they can wing it.

“Just give me the guy’s resume. I’ll spend a few minutes with him and tell you what I think.”

Quite frankly, I am not interested in the opinion of the interviewer. I am interested in how much hard information is collected, that has a direct bearing on the person’s probability for success in the role we are trying to fill.
____
We are currently taking registrations for our next online program, Hiring Talent. You can find out more information about the program, here.

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
I am the HR Director for a large company. Part of my role, is assisting managers in the hiring process. Very frustrating. Most times, these guys will make a hiring decision in the first 30 seconds of the interview. Our revolving door can barely keep track of the spin-outs. How can I get my managers to slow down, to make a decision only after they have asked some better questions?

Response:
Your description is typical of most hiring decisions that I see.

“There is a candidate down the hall interviewing for the supervisor’s decision. Everyone else likes him. Can you go see if you like him, too?”

So, here we are, 30 seconds into the interview and the candidate reminds me of my best drinking buddy from college. I had a half dozen questions that I scribbled on a yellow pad, but couldn’t find the pad before the interview started. I can always tell the candidate about this “great place to work.” If he looks interested, maybe he will take the job.

Can we stop our initial reactions (first impressions) in the interview? NO!!

We are people and cannot stop those first impressions. But first impressions are not sufficient to make a sound hiring decision. The reason most managers rely on those first impressions is that they are totally unprepared to enter the interview room. Most have only a sketchy intuitive understanding of the role and rarely more than six or seven prepared questions.

As an HR professional, part of your role, is to insist on a discipline in the hiring process. The first discipline is the creation of a coherent role description, where the tasks and activities are organized into 5-8 Key Result Areas. The second discipline is the preparation of ten questions for each Key Result Area. Now the Hiring Manager is ready, with 50-80 written prepared questions. For every written question, it is likely the manager will ask two drill-down questions, meaning, during the course of the interview, there will be 150-240 questions asked.

Now, we can have all the first impressions we want, but that first impression will be balanced by 150 pieces of data, specifically related to the role. The quality of your hiring decisions will rise dramatically.
____
We are currently taking registrations for our next online program, Hiring Talent. You can find out more information about the program, here.

Wes was turning inward, thinking about his role. “I never really thought about the people system that I’m responsible for. I always thought of recruiting as a necessary evil. We never plan for it. Conducting interviews is always inconvenient. I fill a position as quick as I can, so I can get back to my real work as a manager.”

“And what real work is that?” I asked.

“You know, motivation issues, management issues,” Wes replied.

“Did you ever think that if you focused more on the selection side in your recruiting process, that your issues related to motivation and management might disappear?”
______
Next week, we will begin registration for our new online program, Hiring Talent. This interactive program is eight weeks in length and is designed for Hiring Managers, Managers Once Removed and Human Resource Managers. More details next week. -TF