David:

As we discussed on a previous question about interviewing, many managers are sorely lacking when it comes to asking good, tough questions. There's also ample research to show that the so-called average interviewer makes a decision based on intuition and prejudice in less than two minutes.

Sounds like your client needs to learn how to ask better questions, among other things. Structured interviews that focus on matching candidates to the real job requirements are more valuable. Still, even the best interviews are far from perfect predictors of success.

I'll email you some materials that will help you coach your client a bit.

Cheers,
Art

Art

The approach many interviewers take reminds me of a quote I saw years ago. Some asked Dizzy Gillespie what the defintion of jazz was, and Dizzy comment, "Man, if you don't know, I can't tell you." Unfortunately, that the way many managers treat interviewing -- they can't really explain what they need or want, but they think they'll know it when they see it.

posted April 30, 2008

Hi David,

The story you tell here is soemthing I have had direct experience with recently. Last year I was in the market and interviewed with a number of companies for the senior role in either the UK or EMEA as a whole. range of companies from computer software to professional services and consulting.... universally I met with the CEO of the hiring organisation and on a significant number of occasions came away with one of three different views:

1. The job description and desire of the CEO didn't meet the business need they were trying to fill - typcially recruiting for an SVP when the real need is a sales ground breaker or sales director
2. Your story above - one example was attending a day of interviews with the senior team (8 hours of interview with no breaks or refreshments!) getting feedback from all that I was the right fit and then in the final interview with the CEo being asked a bunch of stupid questions and being fobbed off with a "I think you are a great fit but the board says we now need to take a broder look at the market with a different agency!" and not allowing a direct conversation with the board
3. A complete lack of strategy for the market they were hiring for without acknowledging that they were looking for someone to set strategy - ie we have a startegy, can't tell you what it is but oince you get here you will execute it. That was a special one for me, the more questions I asked the more it became obvious that the interviewer had no plan and was out of his depth!

In some of these cases there was extensive and very expensive psychometric and intelligence testing and profiling, seeking professional outside help that they then simply ignored. My conclusion on every occasion was - don't join this company. Thank fully I finally met up with Paul O'Callaghan of Jacada. he had (and has) a clear strategy, defined his understanding of the issues and challenges and dug hard and deep into my background to make sure I was the right choice.... surpirsingly the other processes had taken several months of conversations but with Paul we had 3 meetings over 4 weeks and the job was done

Cheers Guy

posted April 30, 2008

David hi,

I feel with you completely, since I have been exposed to interviews where I was interviewed by people like the committee you described – half-a$$ dilettantes.

I should perhaps post this as a different question, but reached my monthly limit, so I hope you don’t mind I put it here.

My question really is – how in the world such people got themselves into positions they are in the first place?

I mean, one would think that if a person is a SVP, EVP, etc… they must’ve been doing something darn good, right? Well, I guess…NOT.

So, what’d be your view on this?

P.s.: To answer your question about what hope business innovation has – little to none.

Cheers,
Goran

posted April 30, 2008

Bare in mind that many "leaders" in an organization are not looking for a leader to join their ranks. Rather they are looking for someone that will come on-board their little boat, take an assigned seat and row mindlessly to the designated destination. The "leaders"would be threatened by a new thought, a new way of rowing or worse, a destination not of their choosing. And should they hire a stronger or more cunning leader than they themselves, they could be pitched over-board - a hideous situation that want no part of. And so, the better qualified is dispatched and instead the more supple and pliable downgraded version is selected, which also makes the "leaders" look very smart.

As for innovation? That will die over-time. Over time the organization will engage in the exogenic exploration of multiple acquisitions to enhance their revenue streams, both nothing much comes from innovation. It is forbidden by default, precluded in their hiring and promotion schemes.

posted April 30, 2008

Fearful executives value the certain preservation of their status over any option that jeopardizes it.

Making decisions to preserve their status is self serving. Any decision that might jeopardize their status would be reckless and irresponsible for a fearful, self serving executive.

If the business has inertia, the impact of a hiring decision that preserves the status quo won't show up immediately. It might not show up on upper management's radar screen at all -- if they refuse to study and learn from their past decisions.

If the business has lost inertia, the impact of a hiring decision that preserves the status quo is available immediately for those who want to see it. Many will cover their eyes. For those that have their eyes open, they see that the status quo isn't disrupted. It's a continuation of insanity -- doing things the same way and expecting different results.

Innovation disrupts the status quo. It can be initiated from anywhere in the organization. But if upper management stifle it by making decisions to preserve the status quo, business will slow down.

I suggest that people who advise executives on the hiring process, work with the individuals to work through their fear of losing status. It's tricky work, but its potential impact on the business is huge.

When the businesses inertia is completely gone -- the financial reports look horrible -- the people who want to preserve their own status are forcibly ejected. Hopefully, that happens before the business has lost the core people who are the innovation engine that drives the business. And those people are all over the organization rather than just in upper management.

posted April 30, 2008

I have a summation of your experience that I've seen before in companies I've worked for -

People are afraid to hire someone smarter than them.

Most execs I've dealt with try to show themselves off as being "down to earth." They won't hire someone with a stuffy attitude but great intelligence and experience for fear of being outsmarted (for lack of a better term). Then they drop this under the guise of "lacking cultural fit."

The opposite experience is when a small company or company with a small town HQ gets swindled by a big city banker into hiring him into a VP role (yes this happened to a company I worked for. The banker hired me). The they let him hire his own group for a project, and sure enough, he makes solid hires, hiring people who know what they are doing, and they move him out of the company due to his lack of experience.

Gotta love corp america!

posted April 30, 2008

Why is a team of 3 top executives needed to do the interview?! Speaks volumes! Indecisive nincompoops!

These spineless "under-qualified-and-they-know-it" twits do not deserve to succeed.

You should always hire people who are "at the same level or above" where you are. Surround yourself with people better-qualified than yourself.

The 44-year-old candidate is lucky he was interviewed by these twirps, and found out how bad they are. Better then than after being hired.

posted May 1, 2008

If they had offered the best guy the job, should he have accepted it?
Here is a little parable:
In my experience there are three keys to the door, behind which lies Success. To get to Success, you need all three, and then some Push.
I call these keys Capability, Mandate and Motivation. Capability is part natural ability, part experience and training. You either have it, or you know where to find someone who does. Mandate which covers Authority and Resources, you are given (loaned) the use of. Each time. You never get to keep it.
Motivation is the key you bring in your pocket. You can take it out and use it here, or take it with you elsewhere. Providing you don't lose it altogether.
If you don't want to do something you are the wrong one for the job.
Smart people don't want to work with fools, let alone for them.

posted May 2, 2008

David,
I understand your frustration. I have been in similar situations. On both sides.
Most recently, I interviewed for a position that was a perfect fit. Their requirements mirrored my resume to a "T". I did my homework and found a great deal of negative publicity on the company. At the end of the interview, when asked if I had any questions, I stated that it was important for me to work for an organization that is well-respected and has integrity, and asked how the company handles the negative claims. I received a positive, satisfactory response, but never received the promised call for a follow-up interview.
So, my question is, do organizations really want the qualified candidates, who have ethics and can think for themselves, or are they looking for puppets who don't rock the boat?
I, for one, would rather hire someone who stirs things up a little, rather than a "yes" person.

posted May 2, 2008

Hi David

Way of the world I'm affraid. Who hasn't been stuck working with a clown because of who they know rather than what they know. I would think you'll find that most business consultants become such because of a directly similar experience to that which you describe, or having to deal with the repurcussions of such a situation.

You'll find that these people tend to be the type to create reports to show what their doing while doing nothing but creating reports, or shouting loudly about how profitable their function is, while causing such havoc in the rest of the supply chain that the business looses double whatever the individual in question claims to have gained

I'm sorry I was trying hard not to spit poison as the memories came flooding back.....I'm not sure I succeeded.

Best regards
John

posted May 3, 2008

David, may I ask you which nationality the company has? I am trying to stay away from discriminating anyone, but certain (company) cultures have this "stay within the family and you'll do fine, no matter how little you know of what you're doing". I have some personal experiences to share if interested. Is the company making money at all? It sounds like it's hanging on to luck until the first drawback appears.

posted April 30, 2008

The dumb ones are easier to control. Take the obvious yes person, the one somewhat intimidated by it all.

Your question says a lot about the corporate culture you work in.

posted May 1, 2008

Could their decision have been a money issue? Seems like a more qualified candidate would demand a greater salary/bonus/compensation package than a lesser qualified candidate.

posted May 1, 2008