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

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.