Category Archives: Hiring Talent

How to Interview for Interest and Passion (for the work) at S-I

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag-

Question:
You say in your book that there are four absolutes for success in a role, and that it doesn’t matter what discipline.

  • Capability for the level of work
  • Skill, both technical knowledge and practice
  • Interest, passion for the work
  • Required behaviors

How do you interview for interest and passion?

Response:
Interest, or passion (for the work) depends on the value we place on that work. If we place a high value on a type of work, we will likely be interested in or passionate about that work. If we place a low value on the work, it is likely we will NOT be interested or passionate about the work.

So, stratum by stratum level of work, let’s start with Stratum I (S-I).

Most S-I roles are production related, using real tools or machinery. The role could be clerical, mechanical or technical. Goals and objectives would be short term, one day, one week, one month, up to three months. Learning would mostly be learning-by-doing (kinesthetic). Problem solving would mostly be trial and error (and high S-I would be highly skilled at trial and error problem solving, rapid trial and error). Value-add to the organization is quality (product quality, service delivery).

I was talking to a finish carpenter. I asked him the difference between quality workmanship and shoddy workmanship?

“Do you see that piece of trim?” he asked. “Show me the nails that attach it to the wall.”

“I don’t see any nails,” I replied. “You’re the finish guy, where are they?”

“Exactly, you can’t see the nails because I made them invisible. We use a tiny nail with a tiny head. We tap in the nail almost flush, careful not to put hammer marks in the wood. Then we tap the nail head below the surface of the wood with this tap-it device. Smear a fingernail of plastic wood to cover the indention, brush a little stain or paint and you will never find the nail. I dare you to find a single nail in this entire room.”
This was just a casual conversation, but my carpenter friend was dead serious about the quality of his finish work. In an interview, this understanding would guide my questions.

  • I want to ask you about three projects. And, they have to be real projects. First project, you had a lot of time, there was plenty of budget and schedule to go slow and pay attention to detail. Second project, you had to keep up a reasonable pace with a firm deadline. Third project, you were under the gun to knock the project out and could take any reasonable shortcut you could muster.
  • First project, plenty of budget and schedule to go slow, take your time, pay attention to detail. What was the project?
  • What was your role on the project?
  • How long was the project?
  • How was the budget and schedule communicated to you for the project? How did you understand the schedule and detail required?
  • What details were most important on this project?
  • What additional preparation was required?
  • What special tools or techniques were involved?
  • How much extra time did it take?
  • What were the visible results, different from other projects?
  • How was this work inspected by your manager, or the customer?
  • On this project, what were you most proud of?

Note, these same questions could be asked about many different kinds of roles working on many different kinds of projects.

  • Second project, standard production pace, nothing special. What was the project?
  • What was your role on the project?
  • How long was the project?
  • How was the budget and schedule communicated to you for this project? How did you understand the schedule and detail required, different from the first project?
  • What details were required, what details were less important on this project?
  • What preparation was required, different from the preparation on the first project?
  • What special tools or techniques were involved, different from the first project?
  • How much time was saved by foregoing some of the detail?
  • What were the visible results, different from the first project?
  • How was this work inspected (reviewed) by your manager?
  • On this project, what decisions did you personally have to make related to pace and quality?

Decision making as S-I level of work typically revolves around pace and quality. As you ask about these decisions, you will see the candidate’s attitude about the work, the value the candidate places on the work.

  • Third project, one where time was of the essence. You still had to meet the quality spec, but you had to really hustle to meet the deadline. What was the project?
  • What was your role on the project?
  • How long was the project?
  • How was the budget and schedule communicated to you for this project? How did you understand the schedule and detail required, different from the first two projects?
  • What details were required to meet the minimum quality standard, what details were less important on this project?
  • What preparation was required, different from the preparation on the first two projects?
  • What special tools or techniques were involved, different from the first two projects?
  • How much time was saved by foregoing some of the detail?
  • What were the visible results of the allowed shortcuts, different from the first two projects?
  • How was this work inspected (reviewed) by your manager?
  • On this project, what decisions did you personally have to make related to pace and quality?

Each of these questions asks for a specific piece of data about the candidate. And though we are trying to find out about an attitude or feeling, the questions are still laser focused on the work.

Next time, we will take a look at interest and passion (value for the work) at S-II. -Tom

Who Should Be on the Hiring Team?

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
It sounds like you favor hiring teams, but I can’t tell if you recommend team interviews. How many people in the room?

Response:
Yes, I recommend hiring teams. Not an ad-hoc team, but a purposeful team, a reason for each person on the team. First is the hiring manager. The quarterback of the team, is the hiring manager’s manager, the manager-once-removed from the open role. That’s two people on the team, so far. I like a technical person, someone who knows the skill part of the job. I like a culture person, someone who understands, models and can explain the company culture. Each person on the hiring team will listen for things that others will miss.

I like hiring teams, but not in the room at the same time. Too many people make the candidate nervous. I don’t need nervous candidates. I need candidates who can calmly describe what they have done in specific situations in the past, related to the critical requirements of the role.

In addition to the candidate, no more than two people in the room. And one of those should not talk, only observe. The purpose of the interview is to collect organized data about the candidate and their past experience. Disconnected questions disrupt the continuity of details we need. And, yes, we need details. -Tom

Trapped by First Impressions

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
Our hiring team debriefed a candidate yesterday. Everybody liked her but me. As we went around the table, I was shocked. Every single member of the hiring team said they made their decision in the first three minutes of the interview. They were proud they could make a positive hiring decision that fast. I was the lone dissent. The candidate will never work out. But I got outvoted, she starts on Monday.

Response:
Many hiring managers report they make the decision in the first three minutes of the interview. You are correct. It is a problem, but one that is easily fixed.

During the first few minutes of the interview, the interviewer receives a variety of potent non-verbal data about the candidate. We observe the clothes, the polished shoes, the haircut, posture, tone of voice, pace of speech. Our perceptions are unconscious, but very powerful. During the first three minutes, the interviewer is awash in first impressions.

The problem is, those first impressions have little to do with the qualifications of the candidate. The interviewer has to get beyond initial impressions and collect more data. But most hiring managers attend the interview ill prepared. They have no written questions, or only a handful at best. “Tell me a little about yourself” is NOT a diagnostic question. Your hiring team fell into the same trap. They sat in the interview room without preparation.

If the interviewer asks few questions related to the work in the role, the only criteria on which to judge the candidate is those powerful initial impressions. It’s that simple. Your team made their decision three minutes from the start of the interview, because they collected no additional data to counter first impressions.

The fix is simple. It’s all about preparation. Most roles have 5-8 key areas of responsibility. Preparation consists of identifying the work in each key area and crafting ten questions. Simple. Five key areas, ten questions each, fifty total written questions.

I can feel the push-back from here. Fifty questions seems like a lot of work, but you have a hiring team. Five people on the team nets out at ten questions each. Spread the work, but don’t let them into the interview room without a list of 50 questions. First impressions will still occur, but your team will collect all kinds of data to balance out those first impressions. -Tom

Necessity Checklist Before the Hire

1 Reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
You talk in your workshop about necessity. You say the manager-once-removed and the hiring manager should discuss the necessity of the role before hiring someone. I find that the answer is too easy to say yes. What should we consider when we think about necessity for the role.

Response:
If your company is going to purchase an expensive piece of machinery, would you buy it if it wasn’t necessary? The answer is no. If your company is going to hire a person, would you make the hire if the role wasn’t necessary?

I use a multi-step process to determine necessity.

  • Eliminate
  • Simplify
  • Consolidate
  • Outsource
  • Automate
  • Hire

Eliminate. Is there any way to eliminate the role? Is the work performed in this role necessary? What would happen if the work in this role was never performed again?

Simplify. Is there a way to simplify the work process for this role, that would change the level of work in the role?

Consolidate. Can the work performed by this role be modified, shortened, simplified, so that it becomes part-time and can it be consolidated with another role?

Outsource. Is the work performed by this role something that can be more effectively outsourced, to fix our cost structure associated with this work? Is the work performed by this role subject to seasonal or economic fluctuations which are easier to control if the role is contracted to an outside resource?

Automate. Can the work performed by this role be automated through a software system or automatic device? Is the cost for the automation less expensive and more reliable than a person in this role?

Hire. Does this role require judgment, in decision making and problem solving that is better performed by a person than any other resource? Is this work necessary?

Sounds like a very interesting discussion between the manager-once-removed and the hiring manager. -Tom

How to Interview for Values

1 Reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
I get it. Interest and passion come from value for the work. So, just exactly how do you interview for that? Any question I come up with, sounds stupid or leads the candidate.

  • Are you passionate about the work we do here?
  • Tell me about your interest in the work we do here?

These questions just leave me open for the candidate to fabricate something they think I want to hear.

Response:
You are correct, those are lousy questions. First, they are hypothetical and without definition for “the work we do here.” The first fix is to ask about the candidate’s real prior experience, not a hypothetical comparison.

Next, it is impossible to interview for values. I can’t do it. You can’t do it. We can only interview for behaviors connected to values. What are some descriptive words connected to value for the work?

  • Significant
  • Important
  • Accomplishment
  • Pride

Embed these words into a series of questions, focused on connected behaviors.

  • Tell me about a time when you worked on a project of significance?
  • What was the project?
  • How long was the project?
  • What was your role on the project?
  • Describe your work on the project?
  • What problems did you have to solve?
  • What decisions did you have to make?
  • What made that project significant?
  • What characteristics about the project made it important?
  • In the eyes of the team, what was accomplished?
  • In that project, what were you most proud of?

In the interview, as you listen to the candidate’s response, do the values described match up with the values necessary for the work in the role?

Before you spring this on a real candidate interview, try this with your existing team. Valuable practice. -Tom

Will I Even Show Up?

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
In your workshop on Time Span, you mention interest and passion as a critical role requirement. That sounds nice, but what does it mean?

Response:
Indeed, interest and passion have a kumbaya appearance in the midst of more tangible candidate characteristics. So, what is it, related to work, that we have interest in and passion for? You know me well enough, this is not a casual metaphorical discussion.

We have interest in, and passion for, work on which we place a high value. If we place a high value on the work, it is likely we will have interest and passion for it.

If we place a low value on the work, it is likely we will not be interested. Low value means we will not bring our highest level of capability. We will most likely only do what is minimally necessary.

My wife places a high value on a type of work called “back yard gardening.” You can imagine that my home in Florida is a veritable jungle of exotic plants and butterflies. Why? Because she place a high value on that type of work.

I, on the other hand, place a low value on a type of work called “back yard gardening.” So, if I am ever summoned to the back yard to complete a task assignment, will I even show up? Of course, I will show up, I am married, but I will only do what is minimally necessary and then I disappear.

So, think about the work in the roles you have for your team. Think about the work you have for yourself. What are the problems that have to be solved? What are the decisions that have to be made? Interest and passion come from value for the work.

Why They Don’t Want to Help

Leave a reply

“But how can you hold the regional manager accountable for a hiring decision made by the supervisor?” Regina complained. “That’s what my regional managers will say. That’s why they don’t want to help. Helping gets their fingerprints on the hire. If it’s a poor hire, they get dragged into mess.”

S-III – Regional Manager
——————————————-
S-II – Hiring Supervisor
——————————————-
S-I – Technician Role (open)

“Exactly!” I replied. “Except, I don’t want to simply drag the regional manager into the mess. The regional manager is accountable to drive the whole process. Just as the supervisor will be accountable for the output of the technician, I hold the regional manager accountable for the output of the supervisor. If the regional manager is accountable for the quality of the decision made by the hiring supervisor, what changes?”

Hiring As a Matter of Opinion

Leave a reply

“I still don’t think this is going to work,” Regina pushed back. “My regional managers don’t see this as a priority for them. They think the supervisor should be able to handle their own recruiting.”

“What do your statistics tell you?” I asked.

“Well, out of a workforce of 500 technicians, this past year, we had 176 leave, 83 percent left on a voluntary basis.”

“And your regional managers think your supervisors are capable of driving their own recruiting effectively?”

“Yes,” Regina politely replied.

“I think they are mistaken. The biggest mistake most companies make is, they underestimate the level of work in the task assignment. Underestimate the level of work in the task, and you will select the wrong person every time. In this case, your supervisor is appropriate to be the hiring supervisor, but the supervisor’s manager (the regional manager) is the manager-once-removed from the open position.

S-III – Regional Manager (Manager Once Removed)
—————–
S-II – Supervisor (Hiring Manager)
—————–
S-I – Technician Role (open)

“It is the regional manager who is the quarterback. The Regional Manager is accountable for the output of the Supervisor. That includes the quality of the hiring decision. Only when you make it necessary, will you get the attention of the regional manager.” -Tom

Hiring is Not Necessary

1 Reply

“We have our supervisors do the hiring for their own team of technicians. We laid out how they are supposed to recruit candidates and how to conduct the interview,” Regina explained.

“So, how do they do?” I asked.

“Not very well. I don’t think they like to recruit new players, so they get one technician short, then another. Now, they are willing to settle for any candidate that can fog a mirror. They don’t have enough people and more service calls than they can handle. The supervisor ends up on-site doing technician work.”

“Does the supervisor have a manager?”

“Yes, the supervisor has a regional manager. Each regional manager covers seven or eight supervisors,” Regina replied.

“And does the regional manager get involved in the hiring process?”

“They are supposed to give guidance and direction to the supervisor, help them out. But, you know, people get busy. I don’t think much of that is happening.”

“Why not?” I asked.

“It’s like the regional manager doesn’t want the responsibility if the supervisor makes a bad hire. If their fingerprints aren’t on process, they can’t be held accountable.”

“But, you said, part of the role of the regional manager was to give guidance and direction to the supervisor?” I pressed.

“You know how it goes. I think it rarely happens.”

“It rarely happens because you haven’t made it necessary. In life, people only do two things. They do the easy thing and they do those things that are necessary. Hiring is not easy. Your regional manager is allowing your hiring supervisor to twist in the wind, without guidance and direction. Your regional manager gets away with it because you haven’t made it necessary for them to be involved.” I stopped.

Regina’s eyes opened wide, so I continued. “Your regional manager is the quarterback of your recruiting process. It’s the regional manager who should be driving the candidate sourcing. It’s the regional manager who manages the screening process and puts people into the qualified candidate pool. The hiring supervisor gets to make the final selection, but from a qualified talent pool created by the regional manager.”

“But they don’t have time to do that,” Regina defended. “They have more important things to do as a regional manager. I can’t have them get bogged down in the hiring process. I mean, they can give guidance, but it sounds like you want them much more involved.”

“What more important thing does your regional manager have to do, than to build the infrastructure of your technician teams? In fact, the reason they are so busy, with management issues and motivation issues, is they did a lousy job of this in the first place. You do this job well, your life as a manager will be wonderful. You do this job poorly, and your life as a manager will be miserable and for a very long time.” -Tom

Results Can Be Misleading

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
In hiring, you caution against the myopia of results-based-performance. We may naively “assume that a company’s results were created by the candidate’s performance, when there are a hundred other things that contribute – reputation, price point, product superiority, terms, another supplier that failed to deliver.”

I would think that a track record of consistent results over an extended period of time would hold a tremendous amount of value. So the question is, are you minimizing the use of results even when there is a proven track record of results over an extended period of time? Or is it just in situations where the “results” are much more limited where it would be difficult to verify that they really are the result of the individual’s actions?

Response:
Yes, results for short sampling periods are always suspect, and, yes, I also have my red flags up, even with a longer term statistical track record of positive results. I am more interested in the behaviors that created the result than in the result. Especially during an interview, I am not in a great position to judge the cause and effect relationships that ended in a positive result. I may be encouraged with positive results, but I will still focus on behaviors.