In the interview they came across as bright, knowledgeable, enthusiastic, down-to-earth and said all the right things. I gave them the job and felt good about my decision. Yet months later (and usually just outside their probationary period) they would become a two-headed monster; not literally of course, but I know you've encountered the species.
"Where was that person in the interview?," I would ask myself and make a mental note to be more vigilant with my next interviewee. But how can you be more vigilant? How can you spot that second head? And is it even possible?
Well, I certainly don't think it's possible to get it right a 100% of the time but I do believe it's possible to improve your chances of choosing the right candidate. To be frank, I think that for many years of running my own ad agency I was rubbish at interviewing people. Why? Because I'm somewhat ashamed to say it came pretty low down in my priorities, which when you think about it, is bonkers. I would simply give their CV a cursary glance just before the interview and apply equally little thought to the process. I'd done loads of interviews and lulled myself in to the false sense of security of thinking I must be rather good at it.
I'd trot out those standard questions: "What are your key strengths and weaknesses?". "Where do you want to be in five years time?". "What would your current manager say about you?". "What do you do in your social time?". Job done. Interview over.
But then in the mid-90's I came across an article in the Harvard Business Review which made me appreciate that a little more effort was needed on my part. And if I applied lateral thought to my questions and made them a bit more insightful and disruptive I would find out a lot more out about the interviewee.
I tore that article out and kept it for many years but long ago misplaced it and have searched for it online, but as yet to no avail, however from a combination of that article and my own experience I developed five interview guidelines which you might find of some help. I recognise there is a big difference between interviewing for a creative director and a junior account exec but these principles can be moulded to different situations
1. We all like to think we have the ability to weigh someone up almost instantaneously and in my bad old days of interviewing, when I was busy building up the agency, I would make a snap judgement within the first few minutes about a candidate's lack of suitability, enabling me to get them out of there as fast as I could, so I could get on with what I perceived as far more important things. Just like the publisher who turned down Harry Potter, I remember in the early 90's turning down one particular candidate, about whom I'm made a snap assessment - they went on to have a stellar career in the industry. However, over time, I learnt to take my time. If I'd allocated an hour I would take the full hour and not allow the interviewee to feel rushed, and avoid making those damaging perfunctory judgements.
2. The standard interview questions I used to trot off must have originally been thought up by someone but I bet if you spent an hour of your time really thinking about it, you could come up with some much better ones, one's which would reveal far more about a person's character and what motivates them. The problem with the 'standard questions' is they illicit standard pre-prepared answers, which usually consist of what the interviewee thinks the interviewer wants to hear, rather than anything truly insightful. Let me give you an example of a different way of approaching it, instead of asking them,"Where they want to be in five years time?", ask them, "What don't you want to be doing in five years time?". The candidate won't have a prepared answer and it will require some genuine thought on their part and potentially a far more revealing answer. Here's another one, instead of asking them how their current manager/boss would rate them, ask them to rate themselves out of 10 on a number of relevant criteria. When they have finished, ask them, "How would your manager rate you on those same criteria?". You will get a far more interesting answer.
3. Putting someone at their ease is essential to a productive interview, especially if they are younger and less experienced. So it's worth taking the first few minutes of an interview asking them about their journey in, offering them a glass of water and exchanging social pleasantries. I'm sure you do this already but if you don't, give it a try as it will help you achieve greater rapport with the candidate and after all, if you can do that, you will get a greater insight in to their personality. In fact, if it's a more senior role you're interviewing for I would always go a step further and invite them to a social situation - drinks, dinner, an agency function. I remember doing this once for a potential senior candidate who had interviewed exceptionally well. He came along to an an agency drinks evening but proceeded to get plastered and offend just about everyone. He didn't get the job.
4. There is a great temptation for the interviewer to talk too much. I used to do it and would often come out of the interview feeling good about the candidate but actually what I was feeling good about was myself and in fact I had learnt very little about the interviewee. Then I read the HBR article which pointed out this was a common trait amongst businessmen when conducting interviews – as we know well many a businessman does indeed like to hear themselves boff-on and finds it hard to stop selling themselves to whoever it may be but all that boffing simply gets in the way of what you should be doing, and that's listening.
5. Before the end of the interview, I like to throw in a bombshell. Something which is disruptive and catches the candidate off guard. Why? Because business is disruptive and I'm sure like me you've been caught off guard by a client's request or comments in a meeting. I remember asking, "Why are you so posh?", "Would you change the toilet roll in the client's loo?", "What made you think a suit was necessary for today's interview?". They are not intended to be offensive in any way, simply designed to throw them a curve ball and illicit a spontaneous and revealing response.
So good luck with your interviewing and avoiding the two headed monsters. That HBR article all those years ago made me realise there is nothing more important than who you employ, and like most things in life, the more effort you put in the more you get out.
No comments:
Post a Comment