I Don’t Care What the Candidate Knows

Leave a reply

“I don’t understand,” Rachel quizzed. “When I interviewed this candidate for the position, he knew all the technical angles of the job. Now that I hired him, it’s like he is clueless.”

“What do you think the problem is?” I asked.

“It’s the difference between talking a good game and actually playing the game,” she observed. “But when he talked about the job, he sounded like he had been doing this for years.”

“So, what do you think the problem is?” I repeated.

“Just knowing the job isn’t enough. You actually have to have done the job.”

“And your conclusion?” I nodded.

“Technical skill comes in two parts. One part is the technical knowledge. That is what I asked questions about. The other part of skill is practice. Execution takes practice. I didn’t ask interview questions about the practice part. How did the candidate practice the skill part? Frequency of practice? Depth of practice? Accuracy of practice? At the end of the day, I don’t care what the candidate knows, I care what the candidate can do.”

Everyone Liked the Candidate

Leave a reply

“It happened again,” Ted explained. “I told myself that the next time we needed to hire someone, I would be prepared for the interview.”

“And?” I asked.

“Scott came down the hallway. He said the candidate in the conference room had talked to four other people and everyone liked him. Heck, I didn’t even know we had interviews scheduled.

“He asked if I had fifteen minutes to talk to the candidate, just to see if I liked him, too.

“Funny, I liked him, too.”

“So, what’s the problem?” I pursued.

“Everyone liked him, but here we are, two months down the road and I find out he doesn’t have any experience in one of the most critical parts of the job. He just told me point blank that he has never done this before. Worst part, he tells me he doesn’t even see that as part of his job. If we need that done, he suggests we hire an expert or a consultant to help out.

“Just what I need, to hire another consultant because someone on the inside can’t do their job.”

The Head vs The Work

1 Reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
I just finished reading Hiring Talent – thank you for writing such an outstanding book! As an executive recruiter having recently discovered Requisite Organization, your application of Jaques’ work has been by far the most helpful I have found. Nevertheless, I noted with interest no mention in your book of his Mental Processing (declarative, cumulative, serial and parallel) in determining level of work, so reaching out to find out your view on this in assessing leadership potential.

Response:
You have indeed paid attention. Elliott was keenly aware of tools (training, experience, insight) that he would use vs those tools he would train others to use. Near the end of his life, he was quite sensitive to the training of industrial psychologists and HR professionals in the use of language analysis to determine potential capability according to the four levels of mental processing. His reservations were related to the potential for abuse, misdiagnosis and personal damage that could be the result of such efforts. Understand, that this perspective (RO) is very powerful and, misused, can be devastating to an individual.

This does not minimize the value of our understanding of mental processing, but will have an impact on the tools we might use.

In my presentations and workshops, I make a distinction between two diagnostic approaches –

  1. The head
  2. The work

Elliott was a psychotherapist and perfectly comfortable in the head. But he was also aware of the pitfalls in that approach, specifically for managers and supervisors.

I stay out of the head. In my conversations with Elliott’s widow, Kathryn Cason, I came to the conclusion that we serve ourselves well if we would only focus on the work. Elliott himself, admitted that the field of psychology, with its IQ tests and personality profiles, has no clear definition for the behavior called work. That is why most psychometric assessments (Meyers-Briggs, Profiles XT, Predictive Index, DISC) are inconsistent as a selection tool. They are statistically valid and repeatable instruments, but success related to work can be elusive.

The second approach, focus on the work, turns out to be a natural application of RO for hiring managers and managers-once-removed. Calibrating mental processing in the work yields more practical results than attempting to divine an individual’s potential capability. I coach my students not to play amateur psychologist, but play to their strengths as managers. They are experts in the work.

Hiring Talent provides the prescription, using the behavioral interview, to parse through the work. The four levels of mental processing are there, but embedded in descriptions of work. My definition of work is solving problems and making decisions. Most managers can describe, in detail, the level of problem-solving and level of decision-making required in a role. And that is the focus of Hiring Talent. If we have accurately described the problem-solving and decision-making in a role, then the evaluation becomes simple. Does the candidate have experience and is the candidate competent solving those problems and making those decisions?

This approach is powerful because of its underlying science combined with the power of the behavioral interview. It is accessible to any hiring manager without exposure to RO. Even more powerful for managers familiar with RO.

I have always maintained that an executive recruiter who uses the methodology outlined in Hiring Talent will be head and shoulders above its competition in qualifying candidates for its client base.

Not Enough Time

2 Replies

“I gotta get something off my plate,” Adrian shook his head. “I am so busy, I just don’t have time to get everything done.”

“Busy?” I asked. For me, busy is a code word, a clue, that there is a mis-match in level of work.

“Yes. Busy. I get here early to catch things up from yesterday, make some headway on one of my projects, but about 7:30, the chaos begins.”

“Chaos?” I asked. For me, chaos is a code word, a clue, that there is a mis-match in level of work.

“Yes. Chaos,” Adrian replied. “Unsolved problems from yesterday. Yesterday’s decisions delayed until today. It hits my email, it hits my text messages, it hits my phone, it walks through my office door.”

“So, you think you have a problem?” I clarified. “And, if you could get something off your plate, you would have more time? And if you had more time, you wouldn’t be so busy? And if you weren’t so busy, there would be less chaos?”

“That’s it,” Adrian agreed.

“Then, why did you start coming to work so early?” I probed.

“Because I was too busy during the day. There was too much chaos during the day. I couldn’t get anything done,” Adrian was frustrated with his circular problem.

“So, you came to work early to get more time, but you are still too busy and there is still too much chaos? Do you think not-enough-time is really the problem.”

The Connection Between Time Span and Outcomes

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
Thank you for your presentation to our group. I enjoyed it very much. It strikes me that while I like the concept of time span, generally, the concept of time is relative and it’s really about being able to see down the road of potential outcomes regardless of the time-frame.

Response:
Your thinking is on the right track and you have made the connection between time span (time-frame) and potential outcomes. Let’s take it a bit further.

In a short time span project, there may be several outcomes, but the characteristics of those outcomes are concrete and tangible. In a longer time span project, the possible outcomes multiply in number with less defined characteristics.

If an audio-visual contractor bids on a contract for a audio-visual setup, 65 inch hole in the wall, with a project deadline in three months time, what goes in the hole?

  • The technology is certain – plasma, LCD, LED-LCD, OLED, QDLED
  • The display is certain – CRT, flat screen, front projection, rear projection
  • The display surface is certain – reflective surface, flat surface, curved surface
  • The manufacturer is certain – Sony, Mitsubishi, JVC, Samsung, LG, Panasonic

There are a number of possible outcomes.

If an audio-visual contractor bids on a contract for an audio-visual setup, 65 inch hole in the wall, with a project deadline in five years time (a commercial project still in the design phase, hasn’t broken ground), what goes in the hole?

  • What will be the display technology in five years time?
  • What will be the surface technology in five years time, will there even be a surface, holographic?
  • Who will be the manufacturers in five years time?

There are a number of possible outcomes, but the characteristics are more uncertain. There is ambiguity and uncertainty. So, here is the question –

Given the ambiguity and uncertainty in this project, should the audio-visual contractor accept the contract with a deadline in five years time?

Some contractors would pass, saying there is too much uncertainty, no way to say what the project will look like. Some contractors, comfortable with ambiguity and with the internal capability to adapt to emerging technologies would gladly accept the project. What is the difference in the thinking? What is the difference in the organizations?

Who Will Happen?

Leave a reply

“Who will our company leaders be in twenty years?” I asked. “Who will our company leaders be in five years?”

There were puzzled faces around the room. “Well, it’s going to be whoever steps up,” said a voice from the back of the room.

“What if that person is not currently employed here, and you have to promote someone without the capability to be effective in those roles?”

“I guess we will have to go to the outside and recruit,” came another voice.

“And, when will you know you need to do that?” I pressed.

“Maybe, we should get a committee together in a couple of years to look into our succession planning,” said someone from the front.

“Not good enough,” I nodded. “I want to see a personnel plan from every manager, every year. A rolling plan one year out, three years out and five years out. Do we need new roles on the team, do we need to take some roles away? Which personnel are operating effectively, who needs a new challenge, who needs to be liberated to industry? What roles will be replaced by technology? What growth or contraction do we expect?

“You see, succession happens all over the organization. It’s not just top leadership. Your technicians become team leaders, your team leaders become supervisors, your supervisors become managers, your managers become executive managers. Succession happens at each level of work over time.

“Planning for what will happen is not nearly as important as planning for who will happen.”

How to Plan More Than One Year Out?

Leave a reply

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
We just completed our strategic planning session, the output, a set of goals. And, as you predicted, all of our goals have a time frame of less than six months. How do we get our thinking out more than one year? How do we get our thinking out more than three or four years?

Response:
It’s a problem. Most companies are so results oriented, focused on tangible, concrete results, that thinking out four to five years is difficult.

It is actually a different language, one we are not accustomed to. One CEO friend of mine constantly poo-poos the idea of planning beyond six months. Here is the dynamic and why strategic thinking is so difficult.

In the near term, things, people, technology are all known elements, we can call them by name. They are concrete and tangible. The further we travel into the future, in our imaginations, the less distinct, the more ambiguous things become. If we travel far enough into the future, precise definition gives way to conceptual elements.

We no longer know who the customers will be in five years, but we will likely have customers. We do not know the exact features of our products in five years, but we will likely have a product offering. The market may not have the same requirements five years from now, but there will, indeed, be market needs.

The discussion turns from a tangible, concrete discussion to a conceptual discussion. And we do not practice conceptual talking (thinking) very often. Talking conceptually is awkward. It might even appear pointless. That is because we do not practice.

Thinking out twenty years is a useful step. Thinking out twenty years gives us permission to abandon our current thinking. So, take the year 2035. To ground this thinking, how old will you be? Now, simply imagine. What will transportation be like? What will communication be like? What will travel be like? What will food be like? What will agriculture be like? What will medicine be like? What will your industry be like? What will your products be like? What will your service be like? Who will be your company leaders in twenty years? Are they in your company or outside of your company? How old are they now?

Thinking out twenty years gives you permission to think differently. Thinking out twenty years gives you permission to think out five years in a new way.

Don’t Need a Personnel Plan

Leave a reply

“I don’t need a personnel plan for next year,” Sean pushed back. “I have four managers who report to me, all are doing a good job, don’t see any need to replace any of them.”

“You need a personnel plan because life happens.” I said. “What if your top performer gets picked off by another company? Who do you have in reserve? Who is ready to step up? Who has the potential to fill that position?”

“I don’t know. But all my guys are pretty solid. I think they are all happy here. I don’t think they would leave even if they were offered more money,” Sean denied.

“They don’t have to leave. They might get promoted inside the company. Either way, you’d still need another manager on your team. What kind of depth do you have on any of those teams a level below? Is there anyone in the wings with the potential to move up?”

“I don’t know. I work directly with the managers on my team. I only hear about the problem people on their teams.”

“So, if one of the guys on your team gets tapped to lead a new project in another division, what would you do?”

“Guess, I would have to start from scratch,” Sean shrugged.

“So, what could you do now, to prevent having to start from scratch?”

How Many Interview Questions Should You Create?

2 Replies

“I don’t understand,” Ben defended. “For the entire time that I have been responsible for hiring people, I have always used the resume to ask my questions.”

“That’s because you didn’t have any other questions to ask,” I replied. “Here is the biggest problem in most interviews. Without an extensive bank of prepared questions, the judgment about the candidate defaults to how good the resume looks, first impressions and gut reactions.”

“Okay, okay. How many questions are we talking about?” Ben relented.

“You divided the tasks into different Key Result Areas (KRAs). How many KRAs do you have?”

“Let’s say six,” Ben bit his lip.

“Ten questions for each KRA, six KRAs, that means sixty written prepared questions.”

“Sixty questions, are you out of your mind. Who has that kind of time?” Ben said, pushing back.

“You can spend the time, creating questions on the front end, or you can spend the time managing behavior on the back end. The choice is up to you.”

You’re Holding the Wrong Piece of Paper

Leave a reply

“I don’t understand,” Ben quizzed. “In the interview, I generally use the candidate’s resume to construct my questions. Aren’t I trying to find out more about them and their experience?”

“I am only interested in a candidate’s experience as it relates to the critical role requirements,” I replied. “Imagine you are sitting in an interview, candidate across the table, you have a pen in your hand to take notes. What piece of paper do you have in your hand?”

“Well, the resume, of course,” Ben looked confused.

“That’s exactly the piece of paper the candidate wants you to look at. It was handcrafted on expensive stationery, contains the voice of experience and authority, expertly written. Put it down. The resume does not answer this question. Does the candidate have the capability, skills, interest and behaviors to do the work in the role? Your job, as the interviewer is to make that decision. There is a lot of data you need to collect and it’s not going to come off of the resume.”