Tag Archives: hiring

How Do I Find Great People?

Part of what I do for clients from time to time is to help them hire.

IMG_1975

(Photo credit: bpsusf)

I’ll often help write the job specs and do preliminary interviews for them.  One thing they sometimes ask me is what I’m looking for in a candidate.  I’ve written before about how I think “smart” and “curious” are must-haves but there are other more subtle things I’m after as well.

One thing I don’t focus on too much is the technical stuff.  Unless I’m intending to grill them on the minutia of using a particular thing (everything from Excel to ad operations systems to code writing), I won’t get much of that in an interview anyway.  The bigger point is that whatever it is can be taught.  So what am I after?

I want them to tell me how they made something complex into something simple.  I want to hear how they avoided doing something by making something else more efficient.  Can they make one report wipe out two or three others without losing any information?  Can they turn a 20 minute sales pitch into a 3 minute piece of elegance?

I want to test their confidence in their own knowledge.  I might ask them a question and try to talk them off their answer.  How firm are they in their beliefs and is that firmness irrational stubbornness or is it confidence that is open to new ideas?

Do they listen?  Do their questions and answers demonstrate that they have been listening while we’re together?

I might ask them for examples of when they had to convince others that their solution to something was wrong even when a bunch of people were agreed it was right.  I love when they tell me that they argued against using some new tool because they spotted a flaw and turned around a bunch of people heading in a wrong direction.

Finally, I look for people who look for solutions.  For people who don’t have “can’t” in their problem-solving vocabulary.  Can they grasp problems at their core and not get focused on any one solution since many roads lead to the same place?

That’s my general list.  What’s yours?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting

Smart Can Be Stupid

I’ve written a number of times on the subject of hiring smart people.

The Thinking Man sculpture at Musée Rodin in Paris

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Raw intelligence and a natural curiosity about the world are two qualities I’ve found to be universal in the great executives I know and I always spent a lot of time when I was interviewing new hires trying to uncover those qualities in the candidates.  As I thought about the search for that brilliance the other day I realized that it’s just not enough.  No, I’m not retracting my statement.  I do think, however, I’m doing you folks a disservice by not providing context.  Let me do so now.

Suppose you knew a really smart ten year-old.  He is constantly asking questions about the world and more often than not can hold his own in a discussion with adults.  His logic is impeccable; his ability to express himself is superb.  Would you hire him?  Of course not (although you might tee him up for an internship in five or six years).  While he has two of the skills one can’t teach, he lacks many critical skills for success.  Emotional maturity is probably first on that list; the ability to contextualize (or not) is the other.

What do I mean by that?  When we get too caught up in a moment we need to have the ability to stop, take a step back, and see the forest as well as the trees.    That’s contextualizing. Math teachers would explain it as probing into the referents for the symbols involved – I like that.  Great businesspeople can also do the opposite – decontextualize – maybe even at the same time.  That’s the ability to abstract a situation and think about it symbolically without all the immediate pressures of what’s going on.  These abilities – as well as other critical thinking skills – take time and experience.  It’s why older executives such as me have value that our younger peers don’t: we’ve made the mistakes already and have learned.

Smart people can be stupid.  They need experience, a grounding in facts,  and the emotional maturity that comes with time to be successful in business.  We all know the brilliant jerk – the very smart executive who everyone respects and very few like.  They can crush a company. Our challenge is to find the qualities in addition to smart and curious that make for greatness.  You up to it?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Reality checks, Thinking Aloud

Coach Knight

We’re down to The Final Four (Go Blue!) and so what better place than the Golf Channel to have a chat with a great college coach?  That’s exactly what aired last evening as part of Feherty, one of my not so guilty pleasures.  David Feherty interviewed Bob Knight, best known as the coach of Indiana University.   He’s the sort of coach that many people love to hate – they respect his accomplishments but can’t understand the screaming, chair-throwing, and general misbehaving that he did.  The interview helped me to understand it – and him – a lot better.

Bobby Knight (en), coach of the Texas Tech Red...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Early on in the show, Coach Knight said something that really resonated with me as a businessperson and it’s our topic today.  It seems kind of simple but it often gets lost:

The role of a coach or the role of a teacher is to get the player or student to be the best that they can be.

Exactly.  Not “to get them to achieve some impossibly high standard that even professional athletes can’t reach.”  Not “to win a championship at all costs.”  It’s centered around understanding each kid and the potential for greatness that’s in each of them to whatever degree it exists.  Even if the kid doesn’t get it.  Then the challenge is to fulfill that potential.

Think about it in a business context.  How many managers are focused on “winning the championship” and not on getting each employee to be the best that they can be?   Instead of using the initial interview process to determine what that potential might be, many managers think about it as filing a box on the org chart.  They don’t think about complimentary skill sets, the potential to advance, or how well the candidate will fit into the group.  Instead, they assume the people are fungible.  Big mistake.

If we take the time to think carefully about Coach Knight’s standard, it becomes obvious that the key to success lies in looking hard for potential, especially if that potential is untapped to a great degree.  After all, if we’re focused on getting people to be the best that they can be, we want that bar set pretty high so the organization as a whole is elevated.

What do you think?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Helpful Hints, Thinking Aloud