Barry Shamis wrote the book. Hiring 3.0 – New Rules for the New Economy.

Why You Should Care

If you follow this blog, you know I have extreeeemely strong bias for hiring strategy. You are well aware of my insistence on 50-80 written prepared questions going into the interview. You know about the most idiotic question ever asked in an interview. (Where do you plan to be five years from now?)

Barry Shamis is responsible for all that. And now he has captured it all in his newest book – Hiring 3.0.

Don’t take my word for it, just buy it. Best single book on the planet. It beats them all, including Top Grading. Here’s the link. Hiring 3.0.

It had taken six months to make the decision to spend $65,000 on a new machine. It was replacing another older machine that was finally being retired. There had been a committee conducting research about the new on-board technology. Another team of two had been shopping between leasing arrangements and term equipment loans. The transition team was hard at work to determine how work-in-process would be diverted during the installation and burn-in period. The training department was coordinating a technician training program with the manufacturer. This equipment purchase was going to be a real game breaker.

What I was most interested in was the Project Manager hired into the company two weeks ago. The salary was about the same, $65,000. Three people were involved in the interview process, but when I looked at the documentation from those interviews, it was mostly subjective nonsense:

• I think he has a good personality and will fit in well with our culture.
• In the next five years, he wants to excel in project management. That’s what we need him for.
• Demonstrated a great attitude the during the interview.

The job description was a photocopy of a similar position with some notes scratched on the bottom. The training program consisted of shadowing another project manager for two days.

Perhaps we should create a process that takes recruiting as serious as buying a piece of equipment. We would do well to treat our people as well as we do our machines.

“You may have hired the wrong person,” I said, “but you haven’t figured out exactly what’s wrong. You have a decision to make, with three alternatives.

• Live with the situation, and continue to complain about it.
• Terminate or reassign the person to a different role.
• Redefine the role within the capability of the person you hired.

“You know, I can’t live with it,” Stella replied. “I, personally, have to fill the gap for any underperformance. And I have my own responsibilities. Every minute I steal away to cover for my supervisor is a minute away from my own tasks. I don’t see any way around it. This job really requires someone with a nine month Time Span. Our new supervisor has only demonstrated capability at around two months. I cannot take her under my wing and hold her hand.”

“What are you going to do?”

Stella’s disbelief faded to reality. “You’re right. That’s what I did during my interview, here. I tried to steer the conversation to my best qualities. I mean, I answered their questions, truthfully, but, you know, they didn’t really ask that many. They spent most of the time describing the job, what they expected and how great the company was.”

“You probably got more out of the interview than they did,” I replied. “So, what can we do different?”

“Isn’t it a little late, we already hired the wrong person.”

Stella was surprised. “Well, I don’t think he lied to me, but I guess I didn’t get what I needed from the interview.”

“Don’t feel bad. Most of the people on your interview team didn’t do any better than you. It’s a combination of things,” I consoled. “First, candidates do much more preparation than you do. They re-write their resume customized to your job posting, have others review it, spend time with headhunters who coach them on what to say, and read interview books all designed for one specific thing. To beat you in the job interview.”

“What do you mean, evidence?” Stella asked. “It’s an interview. If someone says they are up to the task, that they are interested in the challenge, that they really want the responsibility, what more can you get? I mean, I asked those hard questions.”

“Exactly what were the questions you asked,” I wanted to know. “Let’s list out those hard questions.”

“Okay,” Stella started. “I asked if he really thought he was up to the task? I explained just how difficult the job would be and asked him if he would really be interested in the challenge? I asked him why he wanted that level of responsibility?”

“So, you asked him the perfect questions, so he could lie to you?” -TF

“Your new supervisor?” I asked.

“Yes,” Stella explained. “Everyone on the interview team agreed this was the best candidate, but she’s been in the role for two months now, plenty of time for adjustment and it’s just not working out.”

“And this candidate had worked at this level before?”

“Well, not really, but she said she was ready for it. That’s why she was leaving her old job, not enough challenge in it.”

“This is a supervisor position, what’s the time span?”

“Nine months,” Stella replied.

“Tell me, what is the longest task?” I pulled out a piece of paper to make some notes.

“It’s scheduling,” she continued. “Some of our equipment is very expensive, difficult to get and difficult to move from one job to the next. It can cost us $15,000 just for the riggers to relocate some of the pieces. So we schedule our logistics out six to nine months. And when we schedule it, we stick to plan. Too expensive to do otherwise.”

“And your candidate provided evidence of nine month time span work in the past?”

“Evidence? No, but she assured us she was up to the task.”

From the Ask Tom Mailbag –

Question:
Hey Tom, I want your opinion on something…Why do the wrong people end up in management/leadership positions? What are the first three reasons that come to mind?

Response:
While it’s fun to poke at dysfunction, especially in managerial positions (just read Dilbert, my favorite), there are shining examples of high performing managers in most organizations. But there are a few stinky ones out there.

Next-in-line – Most teams will eventually lose their manager, either to a promotion, to another company or to trout fishing in Montana. In many cases, that team will end up with the next-in-line. This person may have been a competent assistant, been on the team the longest or simply showed up for work early on the wrong day. Poof – you’re a manager.

Mis-selection – Companies recruiting from the outside often make a poor hiring decision. For the most part, they have no clue about what it takes to be an effective manager. Clueless, they fumble through a stack of resumes, ask the wrong questions during interviews and end up with an empty suit. Poof – you’re a manager.

Skill-set – Many people are perfectly capable to be effective in a managerial role, but have never been trained in specific skills. Being a manager has a great deal to do with “who” you are, yet there are several leadership skills (yes, trainable skills) that must be learned and practiced. Most companies don’t have internal capabilities to teach or coach those skills. Poof – you’re a manager. Good luck.

Monday, spent the day with a brilliant group in San Francisco, hosted by Lance Gimbal of Gimbal’s Fine Candies (Gourmet Jelly Beans). We spent the day talking about the research of Elliott Jaques and sipping cappuccino (pumpkin) in the conference room at Torani headquarters.

Question:
You talked about the role of the Manager Once Removed (MOR) in the recruiting process, that the MOR should play an active role in assembling a qualified candidate pool for the Hiring Manager to choose from. But what if the Hiring Manager doesn’t like any of the candidates assembled by the MOR, instead, insists on hiring a candidate that failed to pass muster by the MOR. Now aren’t we back to a spitting contest? How does the MOR press the Hiring Manager without escalating a power struggle?

Response:
It takes two people to have a power struggle. It is not the role of the MOR to overpower the Hiring Manager by virtue of pecking order. Rather it is the responsibility of the MOR to bring value to the decisions of the Hiring Manager. Working a candidate pool is not a casual conversation. It is not, “here, I talked to a bunch of people, pick one from these five candidates.”

The conversation between the MOR and Hiring Manager starts much earlier as, together, they draft the role description, discuss the hiring criteria, develop intelligent interview questions and create a decision grid.

This is not a power conversation, but the MOR guiding the Hiring Manager, bringing value to the decision process.

On to Seattle. Working with Tom Leonard’s Vistage groups Tuesday and Wednesday.

Overheard in an interview from a reporter related to the government’s job stimulus efforts.

Reporter – “Will the recent government hiring and job placement incentives cause you to hire more employees?”

Response – “You don’t understand, no employer creates a job in response to a government program or incentive. Employers ONLY create jobs when a role becomes necessary for them to meet market demand.”

Posted from Tucson AZ. Working with Gary Hirsch and his Vistage group on the research of Elliott Jaques.