by Lou Adler | Feb 22, 2018 | Current Articles
Most technical managers find the interviewing skills of their recruiters woefully inaccurate. They contend this is largely due to their inability to accurately assess technical competency.
Most recruiters find the interviewing skills of their technical hiring managers equally inaccurate. They attribute this to a narrow focus on technical skills while missing the candidate's ability to successfully achieve consistent results doing the real tech work required including working collaboratively on project teams.
As a recruiter I found I could determine technical competency by understanding the recognition the person received as a result of his or her technical accomplishments. Due to the uncanny predictability of this approach, I was asked to speak to literally hundreds of various business groups describing the technique. A lawyer at one of these presentations suggested I must have borrowed the method directly from Sherlock Holmes. In fact, he mentioned he took a six-month course on how to conduct a deposition the same way that I explained in 15 minutes.
While the Sherlock connection was coincidental the metaphor is appropriate. The approach starts by rethinking how non-techie recruiters (or any non-technical person) can interview technical people for technical skills using the same approach Sherlock uses to gather evidence. (Here's a video lesson covering the process in step-by-step fashion.)
The investigative technique starts by asking the candidate to describe the projects he or she has been assigned 90-120 days after starting any new job. During the fact-finding I find out if it was a stretch project or an important project, who the person was working with and if the task was at or below the person's current skill level. This simple approach quickly reveals what the person's supervisor thinks of the candidate. I then ask what projects were assigned to the person as a result of his or her performance on the first project.
The degree of recognition on a technical project provides clues to the quality of the person's work and upside potential. Recognition could be in the form of a pat on the back, some special award or letter, a promotion or simply being asked to handle another critical task or being assigned to an important project team. Most often the tasks assigned reveal the person's dominant strengths or an area the candidate's manager wants to strengthen or leverage. Getting evidence like this for 3-4 jobs indicates if the person is in the top half or top quartile of his/her peer group. (Note: For customer-facing jobs, like sales, consulting or public accounting, ask about the clients the person was assigned to work with soon after joining the team. The best people in these roles are assigned to the most important and/or the most difficult clients to work with ahead of their peers.)
However, this is only half the solution. The other half is ensuring any technical interviewer, including the hiring manager, assesses the person properly. Too often these interviewers focus on depth of technical skills and the person's ability to cleverly answer some unrelated technical problem-solving question. This is how fully qualified candidates often get excluded due to improper interviewing. To address this huge problem, I use one of my favorite assessment techniques inspired by Charlie Rich's epic song, Behind Closed Doors.
How to Control the Interview Behind Closed Doors
To make sure the technical interviewer conducts a proper interview, have the candidate summarize in two or three paragraphs his or her most significant technical accomplishment most closely related to the requirements of the job.
Then have the hiring manager review the technical accomplishment for fifteen minutes at the start of the interview and reject the person outright if the accomplishment doesn't meet the requirements for technical competency. If it does, the hiring manager then needs to ask the candidate to describe one or two other major technical accomplishments related to real job needs. For example, "Now tell me about your biggest accomplishment related to achieving six sigma yield." Getting examples of major accomplishments most comparable to real job needs not only increases assessment accuracy but also minimizes the impact of first impression and the tech interviewer's natural tendency to box check skills and ask brain teasers. (In this Sherlock Holmes Interviewing lesson you'll find the ideal format for the write-up and the fact-finding approach the hiring manager needs to use to validate the information presented and the role the person played.)
When it comes to interviewing, it's important to ensure that what goes on Behind Closed Doors is an accurate and objective assessment of the person's technical ability to handle the actual requirements of the job. This starts by first understanding how the person will actually use his/her technical skills on the job and then finding out what recognition the person received for doing comparable work. Once you do this a few times you'll then want to thank Mr. Holmes for giving you a better approach for assessing any technical competency.
by Lou Adler | Feb 6, 2018 | Current Articles
I contend I’m the most objective person in the world despite the fact that I always use biased information to prove it.
The same holds true for just about everyone when interviewing candidates or discussing the problems with officiating at the Super Bowl or the pros and cons of the political hot potato involving the FISA warrants.
One interviewing example: I have a problem with technical people who, while seeming very objective and accurate when assessing candidates, use the wrong factors to make the assessment. So I suggest it’s better to first argue how to make a proper assessment before discussing the results of an assessment. This hiring survey proves the point about missing it.
One Super Bowl example: I can’t understand why the announcers were saying one Eagles’ touchdown wasn’t because it was an incomplete pass since the player dropped the ball after crossing the goal line. However the refs said by the time the player crossed the goal line he was technically a runner and no longer a receiver so dropping the ball didn’t matter. So the argument should be about whether the player was a runner or a receiver, not whether he dropped the ball or not.
The FISA example: It seems like one side is arguing about the political motivation behind the evidence used to get the warrant rather than the validity of the evidence subsequently gathered. Both are valid points, but since it’s too late to do anything about it, to me the first (and separate) argument should now be about whether the evidence proves the person was a Russian puppet or not. Or, you can argue the point that the points shouldn't be separated, but agreeing to the point is the point of this post.
Missing the Point Misses the Point
The general principle in all this is that we often violently argue about a point without agreeing on the point being argued.
Let me offer another interviewing situation to prove how “missing the point” approach prevents progress thousands of times per day. It relates to a recent disagreement I had with a CEO about a few candidates for a C-level position we both interviewed.
Simply stated I liked candidate A more than candidate B because it was clear that A could obviously handle the job based on successful performance handling projects comparable in scope and size to those needed for the open role. The hiring manager liked candidate B because she had stronger team skills, was technically very smart and got along better in the interview than A.
Based on our different assessment approaches, we were both right. However, to agree on which candidate was actually stronger we first had to agree on the assessment approach. To demonstrate this I put the following assessment criteria on a whiteboard.
The Factors Best Predicting On-the-Job Performance
- Ability to do the work required based on having a track record of doing comparable work. In this case comparable relates to the size of the organization and the scope, scale and complexity of the business.
- Raw talent and ability to grow and learn. This combines motivation, intellect and focus with the objective to determine how lack of direct experience can be offset by potential.
- Problem-solving and thinking skills. This is determined by asking candidates how they would solve realistic job-related problems and getting evidence that they’ve successfully solved similar problems.
- Organization and management skills to ensure the required work is accomplished on time and on budget. This covers the necessary project management and team development skills to successfully handle projects of similar size, scope and scale.
- Sufficient team skills to work with, persuade, motivate and influence people. This can be determined by examining the makeup of the teams the person has been on, their success and the person’s role.
- All of the Fit Factors including job fit, managerial fit and environmental and cultural fit. Hiring a competent person is not enough. The person has to mesh with the hiring manager’s style, the work itself, the pace of the organization, the resources available and the company’s politics, value systems and way of doing business.
While we agreed all of the factors were important, it was clear that I considered the ability to do the work and the fit factors as most important, whereas the CEO valued raw talent and team skills. As important as the priority of the factors, we also disagreed on how they were measured, especially team skills. I did not believe that the way the CEO was evaluating team skills was appropriate. In my mind it’s not likability in the interview since this could be faked. More important is having a track record of successfully working with similar groups. Of course, I did not change the CEO’s mind other than having him recognize there was a bigger risk moving forward with his preferred candidate over mine.
The conclusion we reached was the important one though. In this case it was first understanding how we both came to different, but still objective, conclusions. Agreeing on the point of disagreement is relatively easy when it comes to interviewing candidates and making most types of business decisions. It’s almost impossible though when it comes to sports or politics.
by Lou Adler | Feb 1, 2018 | Current Articles
It's pretty clear that people who write laws prohibiting discussions about salary history don't know anything about hiring. If they did, they would write a law preventing companies from box-checking skills, experience, academics, and salary history, too. The reason: Asking these questions prevents companies from considering anyone with a different mix of skills and experiences from even being considered. This includes diverse talent, top-tier talent, military vets, non-traditional candidates, and high potential candidates who learn quickly.
As a general recruiting rule, it's always better to first discover if the person is competent and motivated before discussing salary. This way, you find out how talented the person is and if the open job meets the company's and the person's needs before discussing compensation. If the compensation doesn't match but the person is talented, the company will make the job bigger or find another job for the person, either now or in the future.
From a negotiating standpoint, if the job represents a true career opportunity, the salary range will become less important. For example, I just spoke with a "C-level" officer who was more than willing to take a 25 percent cut to get a job that didn't require her to be on the road 60 percent of the time. She also gave me referrals for two director level positions we were filling. These discussions would never have been possible if I asked about salary history first. When I was a full-time recruiter (for over 25 years), these types of discussions were daily occurrences.
So, while filtering on salary is both naïve and unnecessary, so is filtering on the "must-haves" criteria, either before meeting the person or in the first phone call. It doesn't take a lot of logic to convince smart hiring managers if you can prove a candidate can do the work and is motivated to do it, he/she has exactly the amount of skills, experiences, competencies, and education required.
This table provides the factors we've seen best predict on-the-job success. You can quickly validate these factors by completing this survey for a few people your company has recently hired. Then ask these two questions to assess each of the strong and essential factors shown in the table.
How Job Seekers Can Avoid the Compensation Trap
Sometimes candidates ask about the salary before they even know if the job represents a significant career opportunity. As a recruiter, when candidates ask me this question, I say the compensation doesn't matter if the job doesn't represent a true career move. Then I suggest we first determine if it does, and then we'll see if the compensation is a fit. Too many candidates miss the chance to have a career conversation by using some silly filter to even decide if the conversation is worthy.
On the flip side, when candidates are asked by the interviewer about their compensation requirements too soon, I urge them to say, "The compensation is less important than the career opportunity. Let's first see if it's a career opportunity, then we'll see if the compensation fits." Then ask the interviewer to describe real jobs and reverse engineer the two questions mentioned above.
No one needs to filter candidates on salary history or by a laundry list of skills and experiences. Prohibiting all of these factors would be a better law, since it would open up the talent pool to the truly qualified. You won't even need to filter out the unqualified since they'll self-select out if you simply ask interested candidates to write up a few paragraphs about what they've accomplished that best fits the performance requirements of the job.
While this is a different approach, I asked a top labor attorney from Littler (one of the top labor law firms in the U.S.) to validate it as part of my book, The Essential Guide for Hiring & Getting Hired. Here's a copy of his whitepaper, but his summary comments pretty much say it all:
By creating compelling job descriptions that are focused on key performance objectives, using advanced marketing and networking concepts to find top people, by adopting evidence-based interviewing techniques, and by integrating recruiting into the interviewing process, companies can attract better candidates and make better hiring decisions.
Because the Performance-based Hiring system does differ from traditional recruiting and hiring processes, questions arise as to whether employers can adopt Performance-based Hiring and still comply with the complex array of statutes, regulations, and common law principles that regulate the workplace. The answer is yes.
by Lou Adler | Feb 1, 2018 | Current Articles
Skills-based job descriptions are the lazy person’s way to hire the wrong person. The right way to hire the right person is to define a job as a series of 5-6 performance objectives and screen candidates based on that. This doesn’t only make the job attractive to people who are open to changing roles, it also opens the talent pool to more diverse, high-potential and older people who are fully competent and highly motivated to do the work.
For example, a major objective might be, “Lead the effort with design and operations to prepare a two-year product roadmap for the new widget line.” This is a lot better than defining the job as, “Must have an MBA, a technical degree, 6-8 years industry experience in widget design and a results-oriented attitude.” A subtask might be, “Within 60 days, review the current product roadmap and identify the major technical bottlenecks.” You can use a performance-based interviewing process that requires the candidates to provide detailed examples of comparable accomplishments.
One way to develop performance objectives is by using a “Work Type” Analysis. This approach classifies work into four categories that map directly to the classic product life cycle. This is shown in the graphic and described below.
When opening up a new job requisition, ask the hiring manager to develop 2-3 performance objectives for each Work Type. When completed, put the objectives in priority order. One or two Work Types will typically stand out and this should be reflected in your job descriptions (see below for examples of how this could look for each Work Type).
When it comes time to interview, ask candidates to describe their major accomplishments and assign these to Work Types. This is a great way to ensure a strong match between your job and the person’s intrinsic motivators.
The four basic Work Types that that you should use to define your roles
1. Thinkers
These people are the idea generators, strategists, and creative types. They’re at the front end of the growth curve, and their work covers new products, new business ideas, and different ways of doing everyday things. Sometimes they get in the way once the company or projects begin to grow.
An example of a performance objective for the Thinker could be, “Develop a workaround to the technical bottleneck to ensure the launch date is met.”
2. Builders
These people take ideas from the Thinker and convert them into reality. Entrepreneurs, project managers and turnaround executives are typical jobs that emphasize the Builder component. They thrive in rapid change situations, make decisions with incomplete information and can create some level of order out of chaos. They feel strangled in bigger organizations.
“Rebuild the entire product management department in 90 days to support the global launch,” would be an example of a Builder performance objective.
3. Improvers
These are the people who take an existing project, process or team, organize it and make it better. In a moderately growing company they are charged with upgrading a new system, converting an outdated process or rebuilding a department. In a mature company they’re the ones that need to implement major and minor change despite heavy resistance. They are typically underappreciated yet have an enormous impact on a company’s long-term success.
Here’s an example of an Improver performance objective: “Develop a detailed plan for upgrading the international reporting system over the next 18 months.”
4. Producers
Technical skills dominate the Producer Work Type. A true Producer is someone who successfully executes a repeatable process on a regular basis. More often, the Producer Work Type is a component of the job, for example, combining problem-solving (the Thinker) with some technical process to implement a solution.
Here’s an example of a pure Producer performance objective, “Handle 6-7 inbound calls per day at a 90% resolution rate.”
The product life cycle can be considered a fractal for most types of work. A fractal is something that looks the same regardless of scale. Work is like this, too. It could be figuring out a simple problem and implementing a solution to launching a new business or turning around a failing organization. Regardless of the size or scale, most work requires a mix of different thinking, project management, process improvement and executing skills. Getting the scale, scope and mix right is essential for hiring the right person.
Some types of work are more at the front end of the cycle, some bulge in the middle, some are heavily weighted towards process implementation and some are balanced throughout. Regardless, knowing how a job is weighted by these Work Types allows a company to write clearer job descriptions and better match people with the roles they’re being hired for, rather than hoping there is a good fit.
by Lou Adler | Jan 23, 2018 | Current Articles
While some people are concerned about how the “No Salary History” law will affect hiring, the truth is that asking or not asking about salary really shouldn’t make a difference. It’s not going to make or break your recruiting process. In my opinion, there should be a law preventing companies from box-checking skills, experience, academics and salary history, too.
The reason: Asking these questions prevents companies from hiring diverse talent, top tier talent, highly motivated people and high potential people. None of these “must-have” factors matter. What matters is if the person is competent and motivated to do the work required and, if so, will do it for the salary being offered.
As a general recruiting rule, it’s always better to discover if the person is competent and motivated before discussing salary. This way you find out how talented the person is and if the open job matches before discussing his/her compensation needs. If the compensation doesn’t match but the person is talented, you’ll find another job for the person. Since you’ve done some relationship building with the person, you’ll also be able to connect on LinkedIn and proactively ask for referrals.
From a negotiating standpoint, if the job represents a true career opportunity, the salary range will become less important. For example, I just spoke with a “C-level” officer who was more than willing to take a 25% cut to get a job that didn’t require her to be on the road 60% of the time. She also gave me referrals for two director-level positions we were filling. These discussions would never have been possible if I asked about salary history first. When I was a full-time recruiter (for over 25 years), these types of discussions were daily occurrences.
So while filtering on salary is both naïve and unnecessary, so is filtering on the “must-haves” criteria, either before meeting the person or in the first phone call. It doesn’t take a lot of logic or persuasion to convince all but the naïve that if you can prove a candidate can do the work and is motivated to do it, he/she has exactly the amount of skills, experiences, competencies and education required. And if the person sees the job as a career move, the salary being offered is exactly what it needs to be.
This table provides the factors we’ve seen best predict on-the-job success:
You’ll be able to assess most of them by digging deep into the person’s accomplishments related to the performance requirements of the position. This short video lesson describes how to score the candidate on these factors. This post describes the two questions you need to ask to prove the candidate is both competent and motivated to do the work.
Sometimes candidates ask about the salary before they even know if the job represents a significant career opportunity. This also makes no sense. Even if the job initially being discussed is not a fit on salary and opportunity, there might be something else available that is.
So when candidates ask me this question, I say the compensation doesn’t matter if the job doesn’t represent a true career move. Then I suggest we first determine if it does and then we’ll see if the compensation is a fit. The recruiting principle underlying this approach is to shift compensation from a filter to a negotiating factor by first determining if the person is performance qualified – meaning he/she can do the work – and, if so, if the job represents a career move.
When I find candidates who meet this dual criteria, I just ask about their salary needs. If they see the job offering as a better career move than their current position or others they’re considering, their requirements are typically pretty reasonable. If they’re too high, I ask if they’d be open to consider it with a much more modest increase if it was offset by a more significant job with more growth and more satisfaction. Few people opt-out at this point.
No one needs to filter candidates on salary history or by a laundry list of skills and experiences. Prohibiting all of these factors would be a better law since it would open up the talent pool to the truly qualified. You won’t even need to filter out the unqualified since they’ll self-select out by simply asking interested candidates to write up a few paragraphs about what they’ve accomplished that best fits the performance requirements of the job.
While this is a different approach, I asked a top labor attorney from Littler (one of the top labor law firms in the U.S.) to validate it as part of my book, The Essential Guide for Hiring & Getting Hired. Here’s a copy of his whitepaper, but his summary comments pretty much say it all:
By creating compelling job descriptions that are focused on key performance objectives, using advanced marketing and networking concepts to find top people, by adopting evidence-based interviewing techniques, and by integrating recruiting into the interviewing process, companies can attract better candidates and make better hiring decisions.
Because the Performance-based Hiring system does differ from traditional recruiting and hiring processes, questions arise as to whether employers can adopt Performance-based Hiring and still comply with the complex array of statutes, regulations, and common law principals that regulate the workplace. The answer is yes.
