Interviews Are a Marketing Tool: Five “P’s” for Success

Recently, I conducted a poll asking people about their worst interview experience. What surprised me the most was that the majority of respondents did not talk about sweaty palms, or not knowing how to answer a question, or getting lost on the way to the interview. The majority of respondents told horror stories that demonstrated time and again that the interviewer (and sometimes the company) did not appreciate how impactful their behavior in the interview actually was.

We’ve all heard that an unhappy customer will tell twenty people about their experience. So too will candidates who feel mistreated tell people—and they may tell the very people you want to hire. After all, individuals in transition tend to drift together and share war stories. And when those people share a common industry or functional skill, the stories run more quickly than you can possibly imagine.

Since ultimately the best position for a hiring company to be in is one where they have the choice of several fantastic candidates for each position, it is incumbent upon hiring managers to remember that the interview is a two-way conversation. Not only are you evaluating the candidate for placement in the company, the candidate is evaluating you and the organization to determine if this is the right environment for them.

1. Be Prepared.  Time and time again I heard candidates say the interviewer hadn’t read their resume, hadn’t cleared their schedule sufficiently for the interview, hadn’t thought through the interview questions.  “I think they are trying to show me how busy they are,” said one respondent. “But really, it just comes across as uncaring and unprepared. Why would I want to work for someone who is so thoughtless?”
2. Be Polite. Another common theme in the stories of terrible interview experiences was of interviewers who were rude to candidates.  “Why would anyone want to join the Navy?” asked on interviewer in a rather condescending tone. Another interviewer spent the time pointing out areas to correct on the candidate’s resume.
3. Be Politic.  Amazingly, I also heard stories of inappropriate and illegal questions or comments. And not just of the “Do you plan to have children and leave?” variety. One candidate was asked to provide a client list from the company she currently worked for. When she refused, the owner of the company where she was interviewing had the gall to ask, “How badly do you want the job?” (Not badly enough to give the client list!)
4. Be Participatory. More than one respondent told of interviewers who spoke non-stop.  “I could hardly get a word in edgewise!” I was told. “How can they know whether or not to hire me if they never asked a single question or listened when I spoke?” inquired on person. “It was ridiculous.”
5. Be Positive. Just as you would not think highly of a candidate who spoke disparagingly of managers or coworkers, so candidates do not think highly of interviewers who are disparaging about their company or department.

Who Else Wants to Know How to Hire the Right Person? Three tips for getting it right the first time

Hiring the wrong person is incredibly costly for any company.  Once you figure in the wasted costs involved in hiring (interview time, background checks, pre-employment testing, recruiting fees, advertising costs), on the job costs (training, payroll, benefits), and intangibles (low productivity, lost sales, negative impact on clients, team stress, other employees needing to cover the open role), the costs are staggering.  Then add in the need to do it all over again!

The trick of course is to hire the right person for the job the first time rather than go through the torturous process repeatedly. Here are three tips for getting it right the first time.

1. Clearly define the role. For most hiring managers, writing a job description is deadly dull and difficult—a task best left to human resources professionals. Unfortunately, your HR support team does not know the position as well as you do—particularly if it is a newly created role or a unique position. Therefore, most job descriptions are vague using lots of jargon to make up for the lack of specificity.
2. Clearly define the way the tasks must be performed. Understanding your conative (doing) style and the style the job requires goes a long way toward ensuring you’ll identify the proper candidate. Think hard about how important the processes involved are—is the methodology what is critical or is the end result more important (by the way, that is not a trick question—either answer can be appropriate). Are you (the hiring manager) comfortable allowing team members to solve problems in ways that are uncomfortable for you?
3. Structure the interview to help move you through the process. Too often managers think the best way to evaluate a candidate is just to have a conversation. This is a lovely way to determine whether you want to have lunch with someone; it is not a reliable way to predict whether someone will be successful in a given position.  This approach relies entirely on personality to evaluate the candidate and generally has about a  14% success rate in determining the candidate’s potential for success. (If I haven’t convinced you, think of it this way: if all you do is focus on conversation and personality, you will have been much more productive to choose a candidate by flipping a coin—at least then you’ll have been right in 50% of the cases and you’ll have saved yourself a lot of time.)

I am in charge of my own happiness

I am in charge of my own happiness. And I have plenty to spare if you need additional happiness in your life.

I am in charge of my own happiness but Puppy is in charge of licking my feet.  

I am in charge of my own happiness.  Under no circumstances am I in charge of housecleaning.

I am in charge of my own happiness. Which is why my children have learned to close the doors to their rooms!

I am in charge of my own happiness. My paycheck does not define my joy or my reason for living. It is, however, a nice plus.

I am in charge of my own happiness. Smiles from friends, relatives, and affectionate children only add to my happiness.

I am in charge of my own happiness. Not the color of my hair which I pay someone else to be in charge of.

I am in charge of my own happiness. I am not in charge of all the diets in the world because if I had my way there wouldn’t be any calories in chocolate.

I am in charge of my own happiness. I am not in charge of my mother-in-law. I’m sure she would agree.

I am in charge of my own happiness. My editor is in charge of capitalization and spelling.

I am in charge of my own happiness. I am not in charge of the weather (although since I am your mother I am in charge of what you wear in the weather).

I am in charge of my own happiness. And the remote control. Definitely the remote control.

I am in charge of my own happiness. And my own jewelry. Except the paying for it part. Someone else can be in charge of that. Any volunteers?

I am in charge of my own happiness. And my husband’s. When Mama’s happy, everyone else is more likely to be happy.

I am in charge of my own happiness. Hence, my frequent shopper cards at places like DSW and Macy’s.

I am in charge of my own happiness. Having wonderful friends around makes it that much easier to be happy. Guess why you’re important to me?

I am in charge of my own happiness. Comments on my blog do not define my happiness. But they certainly don’t hurt (feel free to add your comments below).

I am in charge of my own happiness. What about you?

Who Says You Can’t Teach an Old Dog New Tricks?

You Can’t Teach an Old Dog New Tricks.

This is one cliché that makes my teeth hurt.  Not only is it untrue, it is anti-canine and ageist, and I don’t support either.

Our dog—referred to as Puppy in all public communication—is not really a puppy anywhere but in my heart. He is somewhere between 5 and 6 years old (being a rescue dog, we can’t pinpoint it any closer than that).  Don’t worry—we celebrate his birthday on the day we adopted him, so he (and the children) don’t miss out on a birthday celebration.

The point is that while he is no longer quite as youthful as he once was, he is still quite adept at learning. Puppy learns all kinds of new things.  Recently, he learned the sound of a banana being ripped off the bunch. Puppy LOVES bananas and now never misses an opportunity to share a bit of the fruit.  Especially if I’m the one with the banana, since I’m the one Most Likely to Share with Puppy. He knows. If Hubby gets a banana, it might warrant opening an eye to determine whether any hits the floor.  If I pull a banana off the bunch, four legs fight to see who can propel his long body to me first.

“But learning to love sweets is not what we’re talking about,” I hear you say. No problem.  Puppy has also learned to clean up his toys (he’s much neater than the kids), clear his dishes after he eats (ditto), and most recently how to “high-five.” I frequently teach him new tricks and behaviors precisely because I think it’s important for him to continue to learn throughout his life. Besides, it’s really cute.

“You still don’t get it, Judi,” you continue undaunted. “The point is about people learning new tricks. Dogs are merely a metaphor. Think Aesop.”

Fine. I still don’t buy the cliché.

After they retired, my formerly unathletic parents began all kinds of adventures. They learned to snow shoe, to handle sea kayaks, and hike on a quasi regular basis. I know other people who at retirement age have learned to type Braille, speak another language, or begin an entirely new career.

Other people venture into new technology. Cathy loved her job in customer service. For years, she had been happy to let the computer generation pass her by, seeing no need for her to learn “those things.”  People offered to teach her various computer skills, but she politely declined, content to do her job with the high attention to detail she’d always managed without a computer.  Eventually, however, it became clear that technology was here to stay and that in order to remain in her function, Cathy would need to catch up to the computer generation.  She wasn’t excited about it, but she was determined. In record time, Cathy became so proficient at the software required for her position that she became the “go to” person when there were questions.  Her exceptional performance without the technology translated rapidly to the new platform.

Penny Heneke, “a senior with time on her hands,” decided age was not a deterrent to taking violin lessons when she learned the studio also had two 92 year olds taking instruction.  While not yet a virtuoso, she can proudly play Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star and various other pieces (see Making Music Magazine for more about Penny).

At 48, Troy learned to use a sewing machine. At 82, Marie learned to play the piano. At 73, Robert learned to golf. At 67, Marc learned to be a zoo docent. At 58, Rebecca learned to swim. The list goes on and on.

Who says an old dog can’t learn new tricks? But for that matter, who gets to define “old dog?”

I Love You, You’re Perfect, Now Change—A Guide to Hiring the Wrong Person

I Love You, You’re Perfect, Now Change, the second longest running off-Broadway musical ever, is about love and relationships. But the title could also easily be applied to the process most companies use to bring on new employees.

How often do we hire the perfect candidate and immediately begin asking them to change?  We ask them to solve problems the way the manager solves problems or to do the job the way the previous employee did the job. Or to spend their time filling out reporting forms when they thought they were hired to sell. Or to sell when they thought they were behind the scenes in operations.

Moreover, sometimes we hire a person for their creative problem solving abilities and then insist they follow a strict set of predetermined protocols to do their job.  If those pre-established methods don’t fit their modus operandi (MO), stress and tension will rise dramatically and productivity and innovation will all but disappear.

The worst part is that when the new hire doesn’t readily change to our way of doing things, we blame the employee! We hired the person for her skills and then when she tries to use those very same skills and instincts, we fault her for not conforming!

How do we overcome this? Here are five tips for helping your organization take advantage of each person’s skills and talents.

1. Recognize the problem.  Accept the fact that not everyone solves problems in the same way.  Emphasize the need to allow talent to flourish within your organization and train managers to accept and encourage differing approaches.
2. Hire the right candidates.  Become aware of the skills, talents, and instincts various job candidates bring to the company, and select individuals whose MOs match the position’s requirements.
3. Foster employees’ strengths. Avoid the temptation to “fix” your employees’ “weaknesses”—it likely can’t be done.  Instead, focus on enhancing and utilizing their skills, talents, and innate strengths and watch them thrive and produce.
4. Focus on outcomes not processes. Too often managers focus on process—the way things are done—rather than on the outcome—what actually gets done.  Nurturing an environment which rewards results rather than methodologies will lead employees to focus on the right areas.
5. Build teams for productivity and performance. Remember that teams are much more than the sum of the individuals.  Teams with the proper mix of skills and talents will be significantly more productive than teams who are composed of individuals who were simply “available” or who are skilled but too like-minded.

Remember: I Love You, You’re Perfect, Don’t Change.

Are You Wired Differently? Creating High Performance Teams

Sometimes different interpretations come with different background experiences. Sometimes they are based on our personalities. And sometimes they come from different conative profiles.

What is Conation?

There are three parts of the mind: cognitive, affective, and conative. Cognitive refers to the thinking part of the mind (experiences, education, IQ, reasoning, etc.). Affective refers to the feeling part of the mind (personality, desires, motivation, values, attitudes, preferences, etc.). Conative refers to the doing part of the mind (drive, instinct, talents, necessity, mental energy, etc.).  For those of you who are technologically oriented, another way to think about this is that conative is your basic wiring, cognitive is the platform you are using, and affective is the application you are currently running. Your instincts (conative character) will not change with age nor can it be altered through training.  All three parts of the mind are important and are always working in conjunction.

Because of our different hardwiring (conative), different people approach problem solving in very different ways.  Our conative profile reflects how we solve problems when we are using our best natural instincts.  But since instincts differ from individual to individual, our approaches to problems can differ dramatically.  Without training and understanding, this can be very stressful in team environments. But eliminate these differences at great peril to the team.

Two Different Conative Profiles—Two Different Interpretations

An example

Marianna has the conative gift of being able to estimate and see the big picture without filling in a lot of detail. She doesn’t need all the possible relevant facts to be able to find a solution or propose an alternative. Her teammate, Bethany, on the other hand, has the conative gift of pursuing in depth analysis and providing illustrative details to better enable the team to make informed, well-researched decisions.  Clearly, they have very different conative styles and therefore very different approaches to solving problems. 

Bethany’s need to supply the backup for assessing probabilities provides the team with critical data and historical perspective.  Her method of gathering information brings structure and concreteness to the discussion. Conversely, Marianna’s approach allows the team to condense the data, step back and view the forest, and avoid being stuck in analysis paralysis.

In another setting, Marianna and Bethany might have driven each other crazy and hurt team productivity.  After all, Marianna doesn’t need Bethany’s level of detail and might perceive Bethany as stalling the team, being overly cautious, or refusing to make a decision. Bethany might perceive Marianna’s big picture focus as being irresponsible for not gathering sufficient facts and wanting to rush to a decision rather than really consider all the variables.

Marianna and Bethany are lucky.  They are part of a team that has been trained in the conative language of the Kolbe Index™.  They have learned to appreciate the wonderful positive conative traits the other brings to the team.  In fact, they are able to tease when one gets too far afield of the rest of the team.  Conative team analysis and teaching has led to their team being one of the most productive in the company.

Again and again research has shown that teams that are created based on conative traits, trained in conation and given a language with which to understand each other substantially outperform other teams.  Using this scientific approach to bring together the right people and giving them the proper tools to work together, companies can reliable create high performance teams in any sector.

That Is One Possible Interpretation!

We woke up today to the first real snow of the season.  The trees were covered in light outlines of white and the snow lay about an inch and a half deep throughout the neighborhood.

As my family progressed through the morning, we each had a very different reaction to the weather.  It reminded of one of the most useful phrases I’ve ever learned:  That is one possible interpretation.

We all know that many people can view a single event or fact and come away with radically different interpretations.  Here’s what happened in our house on this particular morning.

The GirlChild rolled out of bed, saw the snow, launched into song about how wonderful snow is, and  wrote a letter to a friend in another city extolling the virtues of having snow even if it wasn’t a snow day because it was already the weekend. She spent the rest of the day composing various songs and skits in tribute to the winter weather.

The BoyChild leaped out of bed with hitherto unseen enthusiasm and announced, “I am DEFINITELY going snowboarding with (Best Friend) today.” Snow depth and accumulation were secondary to the possibility of vigorously attacking the golf course in best teenage-boy fashion.

My Husband glanced out the window, muttered, “Huh. Not enough to worry about shoveling.” And promptly returned to coffee and the newspaper.

On his walk, Puppy sank down into the snow to armpit depth (which isn’t all that far considering he’s part dachshund) and bounded around like, well, like a puppy.  Joy, without any further goals attached.

 I had several different reactions to the snow. My first was “Look how gorgeous the trees are; I’m so glad I don’t have to go anywhere and can sit here and enjoy the beauty.” My second was, “Better get some towels to the laundry room—we’re going to have some wet people today.” And my third was, “Marshmallows! Do we have enough marshmallows for hot chocolate?”

As I think about these reactions, it is so easy to see that none were “Right” or “Wrong,” none were “Good” or “Bad.” They simply were different interpretations of the same event. Undoubtedly other people had additional reactions.

Fortunately in this case everyone was happy to enjoy their own interpretation and didn’t spend time trying to convert anyone else to their view. All too often however people insist that their vantage point is the only appropriate one.  While explaining and sharing a viewpoint is wonderful, it’s important to remember that other people’s perceptions can be equally valid.

One fact: snow.  Many different reactions. And the phrase “That is one possible interpretation.”

The Secret to Reading Resumes—Five Tips to Choosing the Right Candidates to Interview

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there were a Huge Secret to reading resumes?  One that would let you get through that huge stack on your desk more quickly and that would give you more confidence that you were selecting the right people?

Unfortunately, there is no secret to reading resumes properly (sorry for the misleading title). Just as resumes differ, so do the jobs they target and so do the resume readers.  So while I can’t give you one secret to reading resumes well, I can point out some things that might help you do a better job of winnowing down the number of people you plan to bring in for interviews.

Tip #1.  Before you ever read a resume, before you ever request a resume, before you ever post a position, spend time developing the job description so that you really understand what you are looking for.  This is the most often overlooked part of the job search.  All too often, hiring managers pull out an old job description, change the title and posting date, and breathe a sigh of relief. They’ve done their part—see, on paper, here it is, a job description. The problem is that while recycling is a laudable process in many areas, it’s not always a great idea for job descriptions.  After all, are you looking for the person who would have been right for the job 5 years ago?

Tip #2.  Create a list of attributes, skills, education, experiences, etc. you are looking for. Use this list as you review resumes to look for those specific skills. While it can be tempting to want to bring in the guy who won the long jump national title in 1999, if he doesn’t have the rest of the skills you need you are just wasting your time.

Tip #3.  Skim the resume for obvious red flags.  If the job calls for organization and the resume is chaotic, you might not choose to continue with that candidate.  Look for misspellings and grammatical errors.  Read the cover letter to see if any gaps or changes in career direction are well explained.

Tip #4.  Do a phone prescreen. Whether you call or have someone else place the calls is not as important as taking a few minutes to be sure this is someone you really want to spend your valuable time speaking with in an in-person interview.  Generally, pre-screen interview questions include reasons for leaving current/last position, salary requirements, whether the general hours fit the person’s availability, request to explain any gaps, changes in career direction, or other confusing items.

Tip #5. Read the resume more than once.  Be sure to reference it as you create an interview guide so you can be sure you’ve asked about any open issues.  Then be sure to read the resume (carefully) right before the interview.

What are your best tips for reading resumes?

Learn more at http://JGraceConsulting.net or follow Judi on twitter @JudiCogen.

Conative Testing—The Key to Better Hiring Decisions

Conation refers to the third part—the doing part—of the mind (the other two parts are cognitive and affective). Our conative actions are our natural, striving instincts—the part of our mind we use when we are solving problems in our best, most effective way. 

Because these instincts do not change over time, they are integral in how a person will fit in a new job.  Conative testing—when properly used—is 83% predictive of the success an individual will have in a job.

Conative testing allows us to measure the conative requirements of the job and the conative attributes of the candidate prior to the interview process.  By choosing to interview only the candidates with appropriate skills, education, experience, AND conative attributes, the likelihood of selecting a candidate that will be successful in the position skyrockets. Imagine all the time, effort, and money company will save!

Time and again, the approach of fine tuning the job requirements for cognitive, affective, and conative attributes, screening for these specific items, and conducting high quality interviews has proven to be the most effective method for screening candidates.

Learn more at http://JGraceConsulting.net

Is Pre-Employment Testing Predictive of Job Success?

Not all pre-employment testing is designed to be specifically predictive of job success.  For example, background checks are used to ensure companies are not unknowingly hiring a convicted axe murder, and credit checks are important for individuals who may be handling large sums of money for the company.  These checks do not ensure success; rather they minimize the risk of catastrophic failure.

Other testing, however, is used to try to determine the success an individual will have in the position.  The challenge is that while these tests are legal if appropriately administered, they are generally not particularly useful in predicting how well a candidate will perform in the position.  In-person interviews, which companies spend so much time and effort to conduct properly, have only a 14% probability of predicting whether the interviewee chosen is the right person for the job! Even the most predictive of the traditional techniques—cognitive testing—is only about 53% predictive of a candidate’s success rate.  In other words, you’re probably better off flipping a coin than engaging in the cost and effort of most of the ways of choosing new hires.

I am not suggesting we abandon all hope or that we give up all attempts to find the right candidates. However, I am pointing out that we need new and better ways to evaluate candidates if we’re serious about reducing turnover and increasing workforce productivity.