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

Tyler thought for a minute. “If we did something wrong, then we have been doing it wrong for some time,” he observed. “That’s the way we have always hired people from the outside.”

“And how is that working out for you?” I asked.

“Ten percent of the time, we get lucky, most of the time we get someone who is okay, and ten percent of the time, we get stung.”

“As you look at your process, who is the first person to touch the resumes on their way to the Hiring Manager?”

“That’s easy,” Tyler replied. “HR.”

“And, you, you’re the Manager Once Removed. You’re the manager of the Hiring Manager. When do you finally see the resumes?”

“Well, right before the Hiring Manager extends the offer, I usually see the last three resumes. Often, I will bring back the strongest candidate for a final interview.”

“And, what would happen, if you turned your system upside down, so you were the first person to review the resumes, to put the slate together, for the Hiring Manager to select from?”

“Now, wait a minute,” Tyler stepped back. “I have enough to do without looking at dozens of resumes.”

“Tyler, what more important thing do you have to do than to focus on building the infrastructure of your team? In fact, the reason you are so busy, is because your hiring process is designed to produce exactly the people you end up with.”

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
After reading yesterday’s post, I have a question for you on using someone other than the MOR (Manager Once Removed) for the control of the hiring process.

What are your thoughts on using a truly professional “Human Development” person (much more than an H-R admin) for leading the whole process of determining the economic value of the open role, required capability, the relevant behavioral questions and screening candidates versus the agreed upon hiring criteria?

Several companies are now using a very high level (“C” level) and qualified person in this role. It seems better positioned to achieve the company’s culture alignment, finding and growing both new or existing persons to their full potentials.

Response:
Most HR roles suffer from the same dilemma I talked about in my last post. The biggest mistake most companies make is underestimating the Time Span capability required for success in the role. And I don’t think they are trying to be cheap in their approach. I truly believe they misjudge the value of the HR role.

Your question was carefully worded to include “C” level (Stratum IV capability). This person can bring a lot to the table in terms of resources, focused time and expertise.

Here is the problem. An internal HR professional is rarely in a position of accountability for the output of the team. One of the primary elements I hold a manager accountable for, is the composition of their team. Understanding the cascading goals which flow from one Stratum to the next, it is the Manager Once Removed who will have in line accountability for the output of the Hiring Manager (one Stratum below) and the output of the team (two Strata below).

The issues, related to accountability, lead us to role of the Manager Once Removed and the Hiring Manager as the drivers of this process. Internal HR professionals can be valid (individual) contributors, yet, an attempt to relieve the MOR and the Hiring Manager from culpability, muddies the water and creates ambiguity. Ambiguity kills accountability.

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
Can you clarify the role of the Manager Once Removed (MOR) in the hiring process. You describe that the MOR creates the candidate pool, the slate for the Hiring Manager to select from. Sounds a little dictatorial.

Response:
It may sound that way, but in practical terms, it is high touch with rich discussion.

First, there should be initial agreement that an open role actually exists. The Hiring Manager and the MOR should be in tight communication about the necessity of that role, its budget impact, its operational impact on team productivity and capacity. If there is agreement, they move to the next step.

Any open position is an opportunity to re-think that role. What is the work in that role, what will be the task assignments (what, by when)? Based on the task assignments, what is the Time Span capability required in the role? What skills are required?

Both the Hiring Manager and the MOR create the role description, establishing decision criteria and interview questions. Again, these are high touch discussions, both have a vested interest in a positive hire.

Yes, the MOR will drive this process. This may include resume screens and phone screens to make sure the talent pool contains qualified candidates and that unqualified candidates don’t make it to the Final Four.

The biggest mistake most companies make in the hiring process, is underestimating the Time Span required for success in the role. The participation of the MOR is to make sure we don’t make that mistake.

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
So, how do you interview for someone with the capability to think into the future?

Response:
Capability is like attitude. I cannot interview for attitude and I cannot interview for capability. I can only interview for behaviors connected to attitude and capability.

First, is the capability, to think into the future, a requirement for the role? Most supervisory and managerial roles require this capability, so this is a fair area for exploration.

My bias is to ask ONLY questions about the past. I do not want the candidate to speculate or make stuff up. No hypotheticals or theories. I have enough trouble deciphering real facts from the past.

• Tell me about a time when (my favorite opening question), you worked on a project that took some time to complete, one that required several steps with a number of moving parts?
• How long did the project take?
• What was the purpose of the project? The goal for the project?
• How many people were involved?
• Step me through the planning process?
• Was the plan written or just in your head?
• How was the plan shared with the project team?
• What was your role in preparing the plan?
• As the plan was executed, what factors pushed the plan off course?
• Tell me how the plan accounted for factors that pushed the plan off course?
• How did the project team respond to changes in the plan?
• How were decisions made in response to changes in the plan?
• How did those changes impact the budget for the plan?
• How did those changes impact the schedule for the plan?
• How did those changes impact the overall results of the plan?

The responses to these questions will give the interviewer insight into behaviors connected with capability to think into the future, not just think, but execute into the future? These responses are fact-based and do not require interpretation, yet provide for evidence, which can be verified in a cooperative reference check.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. All I have to do, as an interviewer, is to find out how the candidate behaved in the past. There is great likelihood the candidate will behave the same way when they come to work for you.

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

For the past week, it’s been all about Hiring Talent. Watch for our new online program coming in March. Hiring Talent.

Question:
So how do you ask a question where you want to know if this person has drive? ambition? can focus on a long-term goal? Usually, that question, (Where do you see yourself in five years?) shows me, depending on how quickly they answer it, if this has been something they have thought about. If they hesitate, then I know they are making up the answer. If they rattle something off, I DO NOT CARE WHAT IT WAS, simply that they think like that and that was the purpose of the question for me. Do I still drop the question? Or can you give me a question that will assist me in knowing if they think on a long-term basis?

Response:
Whoa, pardner. You have packed a ton of questions all in the same place. So let me take them completely out of order.

“If they hesitate, then I know they are making up the answer.” STOP. You are making an interpretation. STOP interpreting. You didn’t go to school for it, you don’t have a degree in it, you are not certified to interpret. Don’t play amateur psychologist. You suck at it.

“If they rattle something off, I DO NOT CARE WHAT IT WAS, simply that they think like that.” WHAT? You are making an interpretation, again. I could, as easily, assume this person is a good bullshit artist, easily talks off the top of their head, a real empty suit. Wait, I am making an interpretation. STOP.

Let’s go back to the characteristics you are looking for. Drive, ambition, ability to focus on a long-term goal. And let’s make the assumption that these are game breakers.

I cannot interview for Drive. It is something inside a person that I cannot interview for. I can only interview for behavior. So all I have to do is ask myself the question. How does a person with Drive, behave? If I can make a short list of behaviors associated with Drive, now I can make some headway. All I have to do is interview for those behaviors.

• Takes on a challenging project, that no one else would take.
• Pushes a project forward in spite of adversity.
• Takes action, self-initiates action without being told. Executes appropriately without supervision.

You see, I can interview for those behaviors. I am looking for cold, hard evidence. Evidence that would stand up under a reference check, verifiable. And most importantly, I don’t have to interpret the response.

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
You think the question is idiotic. But I find it useful. “Where do you want to be in five years?” might tell me how far the person thinks into the future. It might give me an idea about their Time Span. I can find out about their long range planning.

Response:
Idiotic still. In the interview, I am looking for specific data points. Let’s look at the three you described AND let’s also stipulate they are important, necessary in the role.

• How far does the candidate think into the future
• What is the Time Span capability of the candidate?
• What are the long range planning skills of the candidate?

If these are the data points, what are the best questions I can ask to help me make a hiring decision.

Now, I’m not a psychologist, so I am not going to ask ANY question that requires me to make an interpretation. I will only ask direct questions that give me verifiable facts. And there is only one time frame that can give me those facts, and that is the past.

• Tell me about a time when, you had to plan a large project?
• Was this the largest, longest project you ever worked on?
• How long was the project?
• Tell me about the planning process you used on this project?
• Was this a written plan, or did you keep it in your head?
• How did you communicate the plan to the team members?
• How did you involve customers and vendors into the design of the plan
• What went wrong with the plan?
• What corrective action did you take to get the plan back on track?

These are much better questions, which get me REAL facts, verifiable facts that I don’t have to interpret. You see, I am not very good at all this psychology stuff, but if I play to my strengths, as a manager, I can make a better hiring decision.

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
For me it depends. “Where do you want to be in five years” is probably bordering on useless, but it might be helpful combined with some other questions to find out how the candidate has met their personal career goals in the past.

Response:
Here is the problem with asking a question that does not provide useful data. The problem is the candidate’s response.

• I want to be president of the company.
• I want to be a contributing member of the team, in the exact role you are hiring for.
• I want to have your job.
• I want to retire.

Here’s the thing. I don’t know what any of these responses mean. And they don’t have anything to do with the accountabilities or the skill set of the role. So, I have to figure out what these responses mean. As the interviewer, I now have to make an interpretation. As the interviewer, as soon as I start to interpret, as soon as I begin to play amateur psychologist, I am in trouble.

Let’s see. What does it mean that the candidate wants to be president of our company in five years?

I DON’T KNOW. But the candidate said it, so I have to put it somewhere in my head, and it’s not even a data point. It’s an unverifiable statement with an interpretation. I, now, have this junk rattling around in my brain that doesn’t make any sense.

And I have other junk rattling around in there as well.

• First impressions
• Stereotypes
• The way the candidate dressed
• That the candidate was nervous
• That their resume had a time gap in it
• That the candidate only worked six months in their last job

And these are elements that I cannot help but think about. As the interviewer, I cannot help that I carry stereotypes in my head. We all do. That’s why I have to have 50-80 written questions and ask two drill down questions for every written question, so I have 150 other data points to balance off my stereotype.

As the interviewer, I have enough junk in my head, so why would I ask an idiotic question to add to it?

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:
I have only been reading your blog for a couple months so bear with me for the inane question. I was curious when I read today’s post why you consider the question “Where do you want to be in 5 years?” the most idiotic question you could ask in an interview. I have been in quite a few interviews and have heard (and asked) some idiotic questions in an attempt to learn how to identify good talent and a good fit to my team so I would love to get your take on this interview question.

Response:
I have a very strong bias in the interview stage of recruiting (and I have to give Barry Shamis the credit). First, I believe that preparation is the key to gaining enough information to make a better hiring decision. But it’s not enough to gain a higher quantity of data. The quality of the data is as important.

So, what data is helpful and what data is NOT helpful, even damaging.

Helpful

• Real facts.
• Verifiable facts.
• Real, verifiable facts about past performance.
• Real, verifiable facts that demonstrate the translation of technical knowledge into applied performance (behavior).
• Real, verifiable facts that demonstrate the translation of attitude and emotion into applied performance (behavior).

Not Helpful

• Stuff that got made up.
• Stuff that got exaggerated.
• Stuff that came from a textbook, but was never actually applied in past performance (behavior).
• Conjecture.
• Opinion.
• Stuff that is not verifiable.
• Stuff that exists only in the mind of the candidate, with NO basis in reality.

So, look at this question, “Where do you want to be in five years?” Which bucket does it fall into? Helpful? Not Helpful?