CHAPTER 5 Hire Based on Core Character and Competency

When hiring key employees, there are only two qualities to look for: judgment and taste. Almost everything else can be bought by the yard.

—JOHN W. GARDNER, FORMER US SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE IN THE LYNDON JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION

Shelves are full of books that tell you how to hire well. But because this book addresses communication, I'll focus in this chapter on the key event: the interview. Your success often depends on the emotional intelligence of those you hire in strategic positions. That means you need to make hiring decisions based on information other than gut instincts and first impressions.

You'll want to discover the complete package you're getting: personality traits, self-awareness, true attitudes and values, emotional stability, motivations and intentions, and interpersonal skills. Psychologists insist that asking candidates about how they've handled past situations provides far more valuable insights than asking them about hypothetical situations:

Not: "What would you do if a customer did X?"

But: "Tell me about a stressful customer interaction and how you handled it."

Not: "How do you feel about cold-calling inactive clients."

But: "Can you tell me about three inactive clients in your last job that you discovered in your organization's database and what steps you took to turn them into active customers again?"

Interviews require well-planned questions that solicit answers that reflect genuine attributes, opinions, and skills. Many applicants have rehearsed for likely questions, so ask for two or three examples to get past the practiced answers and gain real insights.

Consider the following interview questions to produce meaningful information about the core character and competence of your potential job candidates:

Who has been a favorite coworker, client, supplier, or boss of yours in the past? Why do you think the two of you worked well together?

Have your candidate identify the person first before you ask the follow-up question. Be sure not to jump to conclusions about why the two worked well together. Their simpatico relationship may have been a result of similar personalities—or complementary traits. For example, your applicant might be a disorganized person who worked well with someone extremely attentive to detail, following behind to correct mistakes or oversights!

What irritates you most about other people you've worked with?

Smart candidates will probably tell you that they get along with everyone. But probe more deeply for their true feelings about having to accommodate other people: Can you tell me about one of these "less than favorite people" at another job? What specific things did that person do that seemed to annoy other coworkers? Why was that not annoying to you? If it was annoying to you, how did you manage to cope with those habits or attitudes? With this question, you gain insight into applicants' flexibility and their capability for empathy, along with their values.

Tell me about three people in the public eye or your personal life whom you admire and why.

Responses here will reveal several things: How informed are they on current affairs, politics, or pop culture? Does their response suggest they can't think of anyone, or simply that they can't narrow their choices? Were all choices from public life rather than personal acquaintances? That response may suggest they have few mentors or role models. Why? If all choices are personal acquaintances, that answer may suggest noninvolvement in the community. Why? At least answers will reveal candidates' values.

What are the biggest ways people waste time on the job? What do you think are the reasons for this?

Time wasters on the job are routinely discussed and reported: chatting with coworkers, surfing the web, gaming, personal shopping, and personal phone calls. What you're looking for is defensiveness, discomfort, or dishonesty in your applicants' answers. Or do they analyze "time wasters" and productivity at a higher level, seeing sources of the problem? For example, do they cite improper workflow, lack of training, indecisiveness, nonfunctional teams and conflict, or insufficient equipment? The level of their analysis clues you in to the level of their thinking in general.

Have you ever seen anyone mistreated in the workplace? How did you handle the situation?

Their answers will reveal values and ethics. You're also judging their capacity to feel empathy and compassion. Further, the action they took in this situation suggests their ability to persuade others and their tolerance for risk (if they had to act alone to stop the mistreatment). Did they risk their own reputation or even their job to do the right thing?

Do you remember Judith Viorst's children's book Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day?

Tell me about a horrible day you've had this past year and how you dealt with it.

Their response gives you some perspective on what happenings they consider "routine" versus "horrible." But what you're really looking for is their coping mechanisms—both emotional stability and resourcefulness. Listen carefully to the retelling for phrases such as "so upset," "so angry," "had a major meltdown," "went ballistic," "frantic," and "just beside myself with worry." Did they finally solve the problems, or did someone else have to take charge? How much and for how long did this trouble affect their work and their life? How does their idea of "serious" compare with yours? Does their reaction seem appropriate or extreme?

What has been your biggest accomplishment to date? The second biggest? The third biggest?

Why are these three things important to you?

Again, their answers reveal character traits and values. Are they sharing all work-related accomplishments? Personal or family accomplishments? How do they rank the three things named? Reasons reveal much about applicants' view of success, meaningful work, and the importance of others in their lives.

Tell me about a time that you failed. What did you learn from the experience?

If they have never failed, either they are lying or they are extremely risk-averse. Do they blame others or accept responsibility for the failure? Do they seem teachable? What does their attitude say about humility or arrogance?

Explain a new idea to me. For example, take a complex process, product, or service in your current job and explain it to me so well that I could teach a class on it tomorrow.

I've yet to meet the job applicant who admits to lacking communication skills. In my three decades of reviewing résumés and hiring, job candidates always claim to have some version of "excellent communication skills," "good oral and written communication skills," or "great people skills." This question aims to test those skills. As the applicant replies, pose questions at various stages to see how they react.

Do they overview the idea clearly and then fill in details? Do they organize their thoughts logically? Do they skip steps and definitions, assuming you know more than you do? Does their body language convey impatience with questions? Do they show arrogance, by talking down to you? Their communication during this "explanation" will likely be similar to that used with coworkers or customers.

Of course, your questions must meet the job criteria. But these questions assume that the job you're hiring for demands good communication skills and good judgment. Given that's a valid assumption, these nine questions can mean the difference between a strategic hire and a costly termination.