Loading summary
Transcript6 lines
- [00:00]
Podcast Host (Sponsor Segment)
When we started this podcast, we had to figure out a lot of it on our own, which was pretty daunting at times. When you're starting off with something new, it seems like your to do list just keeps growing and it can begin to consume every waking moment. Finding the right tool that helps you out and simplifies everything can be a game changer for millions of businesses. That tool is Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform behind 10% of all e commerce in the US from household names to brands that are just getting started. Shopify is also packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines, and even enhance your product photography. Get the word out like you have a marketing team behind you. If you're ready to sell, you're ready for Shopify. Turn your big business idea into With Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com selling leadership go to shopify.com leadership hey.
- [00:57]
Martin Moore
There and welcome to episode 379 of the no Bullshit Leadership Podcast. This week's episode Interview Questions to Expose.
- [01:05]
Martin Moore (Introduction)
The Bullshitters welcome to the no Bullshit Leadership Podcast. In a world where knowledge has become a commodity, this podcast is designed to give you something more access to the experience of a success, successful CEO who has already walked the path. So join your host, Martin Moore, who will unlock and bring to life your own leadership experiences and accelerate your journey to leadership excellence.
- [01:30]
Martin Moore
We spend a lot of time thinking about how to attract and retain the best people. Some companies conduct regular talent management reviews to assess the performance and potential of their leaders. Other companies don't have a formal process as such, but that doesn't stop them from spending an inordinate amount of time pondering the question, how can I attract and retain the best people? We all know how fickle the hiring process can be. Recruiting talent is an imprecise science, which is why you have to get really good at interviewing. This is where you get the chance to meet your potential employees face to face. The interview is your best opportunity to separate the most talented candidates from the ones who just talk a good game. In this episode, I I'm going to give you an interview technique that's guaranteed to identify the people who've actually done what they say they've done and expose those who are just full of shit. I'm going to start with a general recap on the job selection process. I'll have a look at an article from the Economist that revealed some of the best interview questions from their subscribers. And I'll reveal the interview technique that I used to find out exactly what a candidate has and hasn't done. So let's get into it. Hiring people is tricky. So tricky that many leaders freeze on their hiring decisions knowing that if they make a mistake, it can be incredibly costly. In extreme cases, it can be career limiting. Getting a hiring decision wrong pushes you into a hellish cycle. Performance management, exit planning and tiptoeing through a legal minefield. It means you'll be forced to spend a huge amount of time, money and energy that you didn't plan on spending. Not to mention the disruption to the team and the loss of personal credibility that you're going to suffer. And even after you get through all of that, you're back where you started months ago because you still have to replace the bad hire with a good hire. At the most senior levels, the cost of a bad hire increases exponentially because unwinding an executive contract can be prohibitively expensive. One example that's fresh in my mind is Louisiana State University football coach Brian Kelly. Now, even though this is not your typical corporate example, it illustrates the cost of a bad hiring decision beautifully. In US College football, LSU is a performance powerhouse, competing in the premier SEC conference. Over the years, LSU has won a bunch of conference championships and four national titles. Of the 130 plus teams in the FBS, LSU spends a disproportionate amount of time amongst the list of the top 25 ranked teams. So when they decided in 2021 to hire one of the top coaches in college football, Brian Kelly, LSU had great expectations of hitting a new purple patch. Kelly was able to negotiate an eye watering 10 year, $95 million contract. Now remember, this is college football, right? But Kelly's first three seasons were less than stellar. Not terrible, but underwhelming. Given his oversized contract, LSU never really looked like being in contention for an SEC title, let alone a national championship. So a few weeks ago, in the wake of a humiliating home loss to Texas A and M, the LSU front office decided enough was enough. Kelly was fired initially for cause. So in other words, under performance. But after a little bit of wrangling between their respective legal teams, LSU conceded that Kelly was fired without cause. Now what does this mean? Well, the implication of this decision is that Kelly will be owed the full contract buyout of $54 million. Not only did he get paid for the three and a half years he coached the team, but he'll get paid a fair whack of the six and a half years that he won't be coaching the team. This situation is a cautionary tale for corporate businesses. The first is the contract. Every executive contract should have a clause that enables you to terminate for convenience. Some people call it the face don't fit clause. I call it the love is gone clause. But what it means effectively is that either party should be able to terminate an employment agreement without punitive exit provisions. To me, a 10 year contract with such onerous buyout terms seems to have an intolerable level of risk. The second lesson is about alignment of expectations. I have no idea how acceptable performance was defined under the LSU Brian Kelly contract, but being sacked when your win loss record is 3414 indicates expectations of a leap performance on the part of the LSU administration. The confusion around the basis for termination seems to suggest that expectations may have been misaligned. The third lesson is the inevitable flow on effects of these hiring decisions, the media circus, the appointment of interim coaches, and a team that's halfway through the season. This is not going to help LSU to attract the top player talent in 2020. The reason I just told that cautionary tale is to impress upon you the need for diligence in the hiring process. You can't outsource the risk of a bad hire, you can't outsource it to hr, you can't outsource it to a recruiter, and you certainly can't outsource it to an executive search firm, no matter how much you pay them. Reducing the likelihood of a hiring mistake should be a key focus for every hiring manager, which is why we use a range of tools to give us the best chance possible of making the correct decision. Interviewing is just one of these tools. I released an episode earlier this year looking at the hiring process in more detail. It was episode 343, securing top talent. In that episode, I gave six practical tips for securing top talent. But it always starts with knowing your market. Who is going to turn up in your candidate pools? Well, that depends upon your location, your industry, your brand, and the mobility of your talent pool. And when competition for talent is fierce, as it was in the post Covid employment market, what does your company offer to any potential hire? What's your employee value proposition? I went through the six tools of successful hiring in a little bit of depth Advertising and brand awareness Resume filtering interviews, which of course is the focus of today's episode. Aptitude and psych testing, Reference checking and setting up a robust contract. I'd really encourage you to go back to this episode before you embark on your next hiring campaign. Let's face it, you don't want to have to unwind an employment contract, even if it has a couple less zeros than Brian Kelly's LSU contract. The Economist can always be relied upon for excellent business insights, and this article was no exception. Titled what questions would you ask a candidate in a job interview? The article captured some of the best interview questions submitted by Economist readers. I think there's enormous power in asking great questions in any area of business, or in life for that matter. I just want to give you a feel for some of these questions because they typically tend to go to culture fit, lateral thinking and personal expression. Now the brief to the subscribers was what's the one question you ask in an interview that reliably says the most about a candidate? It didn't ask which questions were the most predictive of performance in the role, so I suspect that may have elicited a slightly different response. In any case, one reader offered a useful question for new graduates hoping to join the company at entry level. The question was in two parts. Part one what was your favourite subject at university? And Part two what did you learn in that subject? I can see how this might be a searching question to ask a newly minted graduate, and this particular reader shared the best answer with us. One applicant said, apparently that was nine months ago. I don't remember well, I think that might have just told you everything you needed to know about that individual. One interesting question that might uncover someone's personal focus was if we gave you a blank cheque and a free weekend.
- [10:23]
Podcast Host (Sponsor Segment)
Where would you go?
- [10:25]
Martin Moore
What would you do and who would you go with? Cute, but I'm not sure it helps you sort out the dogs from the fleas. In the same vein, there are questions like what was the last book you read? What do you do in your spare time, not including work or family? What is your biggest achievement? A slightly more performance focused question is we all want to talk about our accomplishments, but tell us about something you tried that didn't work. Tell me about a time that you failed. Now all of these questions are pretty interesting and they may help you to discover more about someone's personality. They may speak to whether or not the individual would fit in with the rest of the team. But you know what they won't do? They won't provide any value in trying to work out if someone can do the job that you're asking them to do. I've heard leaders say in the past, we can work out if someone can do the job. From their academic qualifications, their experience and their reference checks, the interview is really just about fit Au contraire, I found many people who were a good fit but couldn't do the job they were being paid to do. Now don't get me wrong, cultural fit is important, but maybe that should be reserved for an interview that a skip level manager conducts with a higher two levels below them. Or maybe for a second or third interview on a candidate who has already established the capability in a previous interview round. Because assessing culture fit alone leaves a lot of questions unanswered and it certainly won't provide the rigour that's going to expose an accomplished bullshitter. Interestingly, finding the bullshitters is harder in some cultures than it is in others. Every country does develops its own unique identity which is enshrined in its social norms. For example, in the U.S. job applicants are much more likely to be able to talk a good game than they are in Australia. That's because in the US there's a much stronger culture of shamelessly selling yourself than there is down in the Antipodes. From a relatively young age, children in the US become accustomed to interviewing for places in school, and this often starts as young as grade school. Now obviously interviews at that age are more about the parents than the child, but I know from the experience of my teenage nieces they've had to interview for places at schools from junior high onwards, so we're talking from the age of 11 or 12. As a whole, the US working population is no better or worse than any other, but the fact that they develop high order interview skills at a young age just makes it harder to sort out the sheep from the goats. And with the emergence of AI, the ability of people who are practically illiterate to produce relatively intelligible resumes and cover letters means that you'll find it a lot harder to get the right people into the interview room in the first place. For more senior jobs, it's really important to have multiple interview rounds so the behavioural fit questions will come into play at some point. Just be careful that you don't fall into the trap of only hiring people who have the same interests and leanings as you do. That's how you promote groupthink. I'm a really strong believer in the fact that multiple interviews are essential for most leadership roles. About 25 years ago, for my first executive role as chief information officer of global mining company MIM, I went through five rounds of interviews over a six month period. I had two interviews with my direct manager, the CFO, I had one with the head of HR, and I had one each with the Two executives who ran the largest global business units. Each person took a different approach based on their exposure to the CIO role, and each asked questions that were relevant to how I would solve their individual problems and meet their needs. They did a pretty good job of working out what I knew, what I'd done and what I was likely to bring to the company. And unsurprisingly, the process also gave me a really good understanding of of what I was getting myself into. Putting cultural fit aside, the interview process is there to help you work out who the best candidate is for the job. Done well, it's also going to reduce the risk of making a bad hire, which is a really good goal to have. Just remember, the best predictor of future success is past performance. This is why we use a technique called competency based interviewing, which is also known as behavioural interviewing. It's relatively straightforward, but it takes a bit of time to get used to and you've got to be strong to pull it off. Well, it goes like step one. Start with the job description. Work out what the key deliverables of the job are. Now, I'm not talking about the role, duties and responsibilities, I'm talking about the deliverables. And there are probably only four or five that really define success in that role. The second step is, once you have those, you need to frame a question around each deliverable and it's going to be in this form. One of the key outcomes of this role is X. Please tell me in as much detail as you think appropriate about a time in the last two to three years where you did X successfully. And this is going to tell you a lot of things. Can the person credibly communicate their track record of achievement in each key performance area? Don't worry, you're easily going to find the gaps. Do they talk at a level of detail that's appropriate for the role level they're going into? And is their story, along with the key facts, consistent with the claims they've made in their resume and on their LinkedIn profile? Just allowing them to tell you how they move from situation to result is usually pretty enlightening. Now, the third step is all important. Depending on their response, you can redirect the conversation to wherever you feel as though you need to dig a bit deeper. For example, you may be interviewing an optometrist. That's one of my favourite slang terms for someone who's very egocentric. Every time they open their mouth, it's I, I, I. Equally, you've got to be attuned to any individual who uses the royal we to claim the glory. My standard follow up question, especially if I didn't get a good sense of their initial answer, is can you give me some specific details about the role that you played individually in that outcome? Now that really exposes the bullshitters. In some cases, someone's going to say to you, look, I haven't done that thing specifically. In that case, you can easily, okay, look, no problem. But knowing what you know about the role, can you please walk me through how you would approach that situation if you had to do it? This interview technique is as effective as it is simple. I've had lots of really senior people come to me after an interview like that and say, gee, Marty, you know, that was the toughest interview I've ever had. But you know, it doesn't feel tough when you're the one asking the questions. Curiosity tends to take over as you try to get to the bottom of each individual's credentials and work out how likely it is that they're going to be successful in the role. And that's good for both of you to do it effectively though. You can't be afraid to have the hard conversations with someone who's put themselves forward for a job in your team. So your mantra, as it is with all areas of leadership, has to be respect before popularity. You're going to find out pretty quickly who has really achieved what they claim and who is just hoping they can get through the interview without being exposed as a master bullshitter. Alright, so that brings us to the end of episode 379. I really hope you enjoyed it, but as I'm sure you know, listening is easy, leading is hard. That's why we created Leadership beyond the Theory, our flagship program that turns insight into action and action insight into results. This is where we unlock the secrets of elite leadership performance and help you to build the right team with the right people. I'm really looking forward to next week's episode where we're going to release our first themed mashup. Until then, I know you'll take every opportunity you can to be a no bullshit.