Sign up Now | Forums Home
Structured Behavioral Interviewing
Post #1
08-25-2003, 11:08 AM
Susan Haumeder
Moderator
I'm curious.
How many of you are using structured behavioral interviewing when filling your positions? Do you use it for all searches? If not what is your most successful approach? Employee or friend s and family referrals?
-background-
Structure - as in a list of questions that you ask *every* interviewee.
Behavior - as in the questions ask for the interviewee to tell you how s/he handles specific situations.
A friend of mine who is an IT recruiter recently began working inside a company and learned about this interviewing technique and found it a revelation. I was very surprised as I thought it was very well known and accepted as the most reliable method for successful search and placement. (And she does get some pushback from unwise candidates.)
So, I'm curious about how well known and accepted it is in this group.
Related add on questions:
Are people growing into positions you define or are positions morphing with your employee’s strength?
Does this work for you business?
Thanks. Susan
__________________
Susan Haumeder, MSCS
Management Skill Development for Technical Leads
<http://www.thethirdbridge.com>
877-882-5600
Outside US: (+1) 510.337.1414
Post #2
08-25-2003, 07:37 PM
Dave45000
Newsletter/Forums Member
The last vast corporation I worked for was training all the managers on behaviorial interviewing. I had yet to take that training.
The people I've hired to date have been technical people. Structural and behaviorial interveiwing would not have improved the quality of these folks. Structure would have probably gotten someone that we didn't hired. It took a very technical question to get to the core issue. The problem we routinely have are careers based on successive one offs with no experience maintaining the stuff they wrote over several lifecycles. The latter tends to improve processes. If they haven't improved their processes it's a waste of time trying to train them.
Being on the other end of behaviorial questions hasn't been all that pleasant. Take a strength turn it into a weakness, then talk about it as if you improved. Can I align with you, sure. How many twists do you want in the noose.
David Locke
Post #3
08-26-2003, 04:42 AM
CFHenrickson
Newsletter/Forums Member
Check out a recent story on NPR. As recent as last week, where they talked about Microsoft having 5000 open positions for the remainder of 2003. They receive 40,000 resumes a month!
They use a particular technique where they give the interviewee a question that sounded a lot like those math problems I hate. You know the ones, if there is a white train heading south going 15 mph blah blah blah and there is a red train blah blah blahblah which one gets back first?
Me, I'm going to guess the red train, what the heck 50/50 odds aren't all that bad.
Anyway, the process seems a bit draconian, but how else are they going to winnow that crowd down to 5000 out of (what the heck is 12 times 40,000 anyway?) a ton of resumes. I guess its only draconian if you are like me and view those word problems as just above having your fingernails pulled out.
Sorry for not providing the link, I have not had the time to go looking for the story.
__________________
Carl Henrickson
Software Sales and Marketing
Can Be Fun
(703) 587 9029
carl@flashpointinc.com
Post #4
08-26-2003, 07:15 PM
Susan Haumeder
Moderator
Double arghh!
I think what Microsoft is doing is giving people intelligence tests. I found a list of ten brain busters once that was supposed to be a proven way to weed out all but the exceptionally gifted analytic thinker. Yea, they’re in quite an envious position.
Dave, I don’t know why (I could guess but it wouldn’t be generous) many implementations of structured behavior interviews include insultingly invasive, borderline therapeutic questions like “Describe your greatest weakness.” “Take a strength turn it into a weakness, then talk about it as if you improved.” – does have the feel of the twisting knife. Both strictly speaking are not behavioral questions. You would need to ask “Tell me a time when your strength turned out to be a weakness.”
But it is really not necessary to ask that question? Not unless the answer demonstrates a quality you need or want in your new hire. *And* I feel emphatic that the hiring process should be respectful of the prospects. After all it is a new person’s first experience with your company and people start right their figuring how they will work with you. Defensiveness, even in little doses, doesn’t add value.
I think you can use (I have) structured behavioral interviews with technical people just like everyone else. Actually it sounds like you did. Technical questions are exactly what you need in this process because it’s technical capabilities you’re looking to evaluate. The capability you wanted to know about is the person’s ability to develop into a mature programmer. The behavior you know demonstrates a high probability that this will or will not happen is if they have experience in maintaining code over multiple lifecycles. So that is the behavior you look for in all your interviewees. (And it’s structured if you explicitly ask for this information from everyone.)
The idea behind the approach is to think about everything you want in a employee - programmer, in those terms. Want someone who can work on a team? Work independently? To get to the behavior that demonstrates that from programmers you ask very technical questions. Otherwise you just get yes, yes and a bunch of philosophy. I assume you have noticed there is no relation between the amount people can talk about programming and the amount of programming they can do. [Fascinating isn't it?]
Susan
__________________
Susan Haumeder, MSCS
Management Skill Development for Technical Leads
<http://www.thethirdbridge.com>
877-882-5600
Outside US: (+1) 510.337.1414
Post #5
09-05-2003, 05:42 AM
mihaibotea
Newsletter/Forums Member
In my company we are using at least two interviews for each position. The first one is a structured behavioural interview and the second one is a technical interview (not that structured).
I am conducting the first interview. We are using it based on a simple principle...Even if you hire a genius, you have to be able to work with him. And we want to see if we can work with those people.
To me, the structured behav. interview seems the best recruiting method out there, except for the Evaluation Centers, which are much more complicated.
Post #6
09-05-2003, 09:20 AM
Charles Mills
Principal Moderator
Those awful intelligence and "psychology 101" questions are not what I would call behavioral interviewing. And I would say that if writing software is what your company is all about, then hiring the right developers is incredibly important.
If maintaining existing code was an important aspect of the job opening, then I would be asking candidates "tell me about how you have worked in situations where you were maintaining existing code."
__________________
Charles
CharlesMillsConsulting.com
StrategicDueDiligence.com
Post #7
09-08-2003, 12:48 AM
mihaibotea
Newsletter/Forums Member
Charles,
I was not reffering to the "psychology 101" questions....I am not asking them their favourite pet and then make judgments about their personallity....no way!
What I was talking about was more like....if in our company we are used to working with quick and strict deadlines and under high pressure, I ask them "tell me about a situation when you were under high pressure and how did you handle it?" or "tell me about a time when you missed a deadline and what did you do about it, how would you do things differently now".
If they are in charge of the architecture part and if they need analytical skills I ask them about that or maybe ask them to speak about their favourite movie or book....to see if they can make a logical presentation and summarize and have analitycal skills.
Of course, I ask them about technical situation too, as your example...but not ONLY that.
Hope I made my point clear enough....
Mihai.
Post #8
02-19-2004, 02:18 PM
BobGately
Newsletter/Forums Member
Structured Behavioral Interviewing is a better technique than the old fashioned interview where the applicant who laughs the most or talks the best gets the highest rating. The authors of the book "First break all the rules, what the world's greatest managers do differently" make the point that what separates the best performers from the rest is that the best performers have a talent for their job. Talent cannot be acquired or imparted after the hire so we must hire talent. Finally, talent is hard if not impossible to assess during interviews.
Post #9
02-19-2004, 03:27 PM
Susan Haumeder
Moderator
From the sample questions Charles and mihaibotea have posted it looks like there is agreement and affirmation of the value of structured behavior interviewing.
Bob Gately points out what was also the #1 "must have" this week's lead SoftwareCEO newsletter article on building high performance software teams. Talent.
So the job for the hiring company is to recognize talent in the hiring pool. How do you do that?
-
Know what kind of talent you want.
-
Look at accomplishments. Usually talented people find ways to put their talents to work.
-
Listen for what isn’t said. Usually talented people need to use their talents but don’t really think of them as anything unusual. (Slight caveat, the older a person gets the more self-aware they are, generally.)
I don't think it’s all that different from skill assessment. You do need to be clear that your goal is to hire talent, of a specific variety, and think about all the ways in might look. The tough part is finding it and sticking to your guns that you need it and will hold out until you do find it.
Susan
__________________
Susan Haumeder, MSCS
Management Skill Development for Technical Leads
<http://www.thethirdbridge.com>
877-882-5600
Outside US: (+1) 510.337.1414
Post #10
02-19-2004, 03:48 PM
BobGately
Newsletter/Forums Member
The authors' ("First break all the rules...") recommendations are based on Gallup's interviews of over 80,000 managers in over 400 companies across numerous industries -- the largest study of its kind ever undertaken.
The book helps explain why talent (we call it job fit) is so important when selecting employees. The authors' define a "talent", (page 71) as "a recurring pattern of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied...The emphasis here is on the word 'recurring.' Great managers say 'Your talents are the behaviors you find yourself doing often.'"
Interviews are not very effective for identifying talents. The method we use to identify talent has 300+ questions. Is it reasonable to expect an interviewer to ask 300+ questions and then listen while recording the answers and then compare the 300+ answers from 5 or more candidates and do it quickly and correctly?
Post #11
02-19-2004, 04:15 PM
Dave45000
Newsletter/Forums Member
I totally agree that a talented person doesn't see their abilities as being exceptional. It's when they hire that they find out where they stand, and that happens more frequently as we get older.
I get particularly frustrated in interviews where the interviewer is making a big deal out of things I think of as norms.
Being in a career field that is only being credentialized of late, there is a cultural change happening where older applicants don't believe something is fundamental that is being taught as fundamental to people in school. These sort of practice changes don't help. Back during the boom, here in Austin, if you had project management skills, you were not going to get hired unless you hid that. They wanted XP. They hated project management and methodologies. They laughed about older applicants and how the older applicant tried to prove the value proposition that was actually costing them their hire.
I remember being expected to hire for attitude, incompetence being beside the point.
The problem with behaviorial interviewing is that people coming out of school or out of academy corporations know how to do it. But, in the pre-HR startup, interviewers are left to their own devices. When you are on the "Other People's Money" paradigm or not getting a check this week, because the business is out of money, you can hardly expect to be trained. Then, sometime down the road after HR has been around a while, probably after institutionalization, you start hearing "Best and Brightest," which of course the current staff isn't. This isn't a comfortable place to work at that point. But, behavioral interviewing does get taught by the HR trainers at that point.
David Locke
Last edited by Dave45000 : 02-19-2004 at 04:50 PM.
Post #12
02-19-2004, 04:41 PM
Susan Haumeder
Moderator
Bob, 300 questions??? I can't say I've even been in a process that has even more than 50 questions, and that's spread out over 3 interviews. Anything more than that must be automated to give and score. As you say, who has that kind of time.
And I have also read "First Break All The Rules" - good book. Good To Great is also a good one, different subject but both show hard performance data on the value of quality people.
Dave, I share your concern about the certificating of many functions. It's goofy from many angles, particularly that of the seasoned professional. A recruiter friend of mine has tried to show me how it helps large companies. I guess I see the point, the HR department of large companies feel competent to do more screening. Is this good? I don't think so because..
I believe focus on skill and talent screening by the hiring manager is how great hires are made and great team built. Not something that can be delegated to HR. I'd like so see HR help people to do good interviewing. It is all in the asking of good questions and listening to the answers.
Susan
__________________
Susan Haumeder, MSCS
Management Skill Development for Technical Leads
<http://www.thethirdbridge.com>
877-882-5600
Outside US: (+1) 510.337.1414
Post #13
02-19-2004, 06:16 PM
Hank Stevens
Moderator
Some jobs require a different talent-set than others. ASSUMING that you have defined the requisite talent profile then determining applicant becomes the challenge. In my experience, I have found that clients want to jump to the answer (i.e. the behavioral questions), before determining the ideal candidate’s talent profile.
I have found that there are 13 basic “talents” that someone could have varying degrees of to productively function in a work environment. I will name them here but the definitions are somewhat extensive and I do not have the time to give them all, just now. Those talents are MISSION, FOCUS, POSITIVE NATURE, LEADERSHIP, BUSINESS THINKING, DELEGATION ABILITY, ABILITY TO PERSUADE, HAVE A PROFIT ORIENTATION, BE COMPETITIVE, CARING, POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS, EXACTNESS, AND RECRUITING ABILITY. These are especially important traits in thinking of the manager the person you could now hire might become. Each of these talents has behind them very specific behavioral questions. The responses to those questions is revealing of a person’s talent in the examined area – or his/her lack of it. In short, a properly conducted behavioral interview is a FAR better predictor of success on the job than any other common technique that I know of.
__________________
Dr. Hank, http://www.hrqa.com
Human Resources Quality Assurance
Post #14
02-20-2004, 05:00 AM
BobGately
Newsletter/Forums Member
Hi Susan:
Yes, 300+ questions is a lot of questions but what is the cost of a bad hire? Most people take about an hour to answer the questions. When you review the list of what is evaluated, see below, you’ll understand why there are over 300 questions.
Successful people in a job have similar thinking styles, occupational interests and behaviors. The secret to effective hiring is to know the similarities and then identify which qualified to be hired job applicants also have those similarities.
1 - Thinking Styles
- Learning Index...an index of learning, reasoning and problem solving potential.
- Verbal Skill...a measure of verbal skill through vocabulary.
- Verbal Reasoning...using words as a basis in reasoning and problem solving.
- Numerical Ability...a measure of numeric calculation ability.
- Numeric Reasoning...using numbers as a basis in reasoning and problem solving.
2 - Occupational Interests
- Enterprising...occupations where they use persuasiveness and enjoy presenting plans
- Financial/Administrative...work with financial data, business systems, admin. procedures, etc.
- People Service...occupations that help people and they are concerned with the welfare of others.
- Technical...occupations that center on scientific/technical activities, research & intellectual skills.
- Mechanical...in occupations that work with tools, equipment and machinery.
- Creative...occupations where they are imaginative, original and aesthetic.
3 - Behavioral Traits
- Energy Level...tendency to display endurance and capacity for a fast pace.
- Assertiveness...tendency to take charge of people and situations. Leads more than follows.
- Sociability...tendency to be outgoing, people-oriented and participate with others.
- Manageability...tendency to follow policies, accept controls & supervision, work within the rules.
- Attitude...tendency to have a positive attitude regarding people and outcomes.
- Decisiveness...uses available information to make decisions quickly.
- Accommodating...tendency to be friendly, cooperative, agreeable, to be a team person.
- Independence...tendency to be self-reliant, self-directed, and make independent decisions.
- Objective Judgement...the ability to think clearly and be objective in decision-making. Bob
Post #15
02-20-2004, 05:17 AM
BobGately
Newsletter/Forums Member
Hello David45000:
>I remember being expected to hire for attitude, incompetence being beside the point.<
That is wrong on both accounts. We need to hire competent people who also have a talent for the job. Hiring for attitude usually means the applicant said the right things, laughed at the right time, and agreed with what the interviewer said or suggested. Talent or job fit as we call it is not attitude but rather specific behaviors coupled with the appropriate interests and supported by adequate thinking styles.
Here is an example of what I mean.
A software development company used the job fit method for over two years and then stopped for two years because the two owners thought they could do a better job of selecting good technical support analysts (TSA) than Sonja, the hr manager. The owners felt too restricted by the job fit process. After two years of doing it themselves they went to Sonja's office and told her "We suck a this, start using the job fit method again, you are much more successful at hiring good TSA’s than we are." The owners could not duplicate her success rate.
Employers generally over rely on the interview and qualifications. The goal should be to hire competent people, not necessarily the most competent, who will become successful employees. The best I can tell a resume never actually does any work.
Managers are usually quite surprised when they learn that their best employees are not their brightest employees. I guess that speaks to the efficacy of hiring the best and the brightest.
Bob
Post #16
02-20-2004, 05:53 AM
Hank Stevens
Moderator
Very good answer, Bob!
In my experience, people will do what you want to do, when what they do is what they want to do!
The selection process should address identifying people who want to do the job you need to have done. Too often there will be a) a mad rush to hire that best and brightest (the situation you speak of) and b) little time taken to understand the talents someone must have to do the job well. That is a formula for disappointment - at best!
Job fit is FAR more important than experience. Potential is FAR more important than experience. Someone who has the basics, who wants to learn and be there, and whose scores correlate well with the ideal talent profile will make the far better choice than someone who is simply a sharp tac.
As a slight aside, I have interviewed thousands of people during an exit interview process. Easily >80% separated from their jobs because of a manager or management issue – in spite of what they may have told their employer about a “better job,” “more money,” “better benefits,” “commuting time,” & etc.
A separation, more often than not, is an act of REJECTION and not one of ACCEPTANCE! The lesson is this: if you want to mitigate turnover, look first to your own managers and management practices and not to your competition!
__________________
Dr. Hank, http://www.hrqa.com
Human Resources Quality Assurance
Post #17
02-20-2004, 06:03 AM
BobGately
Newsletter/Forums Member
Hello Dr. Hank:
>A separation, more often than not, is an act of REJECTION and not one of ACCEPTANCE!<
I agree and I'd venture a guess that the rejection is of their immediate supervisor's behavior for the most part.
>if you want to mitigate turnover, look first to your own managers and management practices and not to your competition!<
I agree again. Employers need to stop promoting employees into supervisory positions just because they do jobs well. Employees who are well-suited to supervise should be promoted to supervisor.
Post #18
02-20-2004, 06:15 AM
Hank Stevens
Moderator
Yep! You are right about that pattern of promoting people!
We are often guilty of taking the most productive employee, calling him/her a "supervisor" (i.e. - one with super vision) and six months later are critical of him/her because of his/her supervisory failure at some leadership task. Yet, when analyzed, we did nothing to properly select him/her in the first place and even less to train the employee on how to be a good supervisor. That is the classic pattern. Too often, we ensure the failure.
__________________
Dr. Hank, http://www.hrqa.com
Human Resources Quality Assurance
Post #19
02-20-2004, 07:41 AM
Dave45000
Newsletter/Forums Member
A 300 item filter would seem to select narrowly. I take it the particular values for those attributes change with each job, otherwise diversity becomes a myth.
The first psych test I ever took was given with the expectation of finding people just like them. It was probably a good thing that I didn't pass the test.
I've heard that 80% number before. I've left for that reason every time, with exception. Same thing for taking a lateral. I always had a nice reason to leave. I actually have grown my own filter for hiring managers and try to discover those traits up front.
There's an idea, behavioral interviewing for applicants. I can't imagine a hiring manager filling out my 300 item test. "Do I have any questions?" "Why, yes, I do!" LOL!
David Locke
Post #20
02-20-2004, 08:25 AM
BobGately
Newsletter/Forums Member
Hello David:
>A 300 item filter would seem to select narrowly.<
It takes about 5 qualified to be hired job finalist to find one that has a good fit.
>I take it the particular values for those attributes change with each job, otherwise diversity becomes a myth.<
Yes, they change for each job, each location and each supervisor. Large employers that hire to one set of attributes risk assigning people to the wrong job in the wrong locations with the wrong supervisor.
>The first psych test I ever took was given with the expectation of finding people just like them. It was probably a good thing that I didn't pass the test.<
Do you mean just like their top performers? Diversity doesn't require hiring people who will be unsuccessful although given the number of unsuccessful new hires we may think that is what diversity means.
>I've heard that 80% number before.<
The Pareto Effect is "80% of the output comes from 20% of the inputs." Many sales managers tell us that 80% of their revenue is generated by 20% of their sales people. Job fit is about hiring people who are like that top 20%.
>There's an idea, behavioral interviewing for applicants. I can't imagine a hiring manager filling out my 300 item test. "Do I have any questions?" "Why, yes, I do!" LOL!<
My nephew Paul, his experience was mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, applied for a job at a well known company. One of his older brothers told him to see his Uncle Bob. I prepared Paul for his interview the following day. I told him that he would be shown around the company, where he would be working, with whom he would be working, and what he would be doing. I also told him that at the end of the day the interviewer would ask "Do you have any questions?" As it turned out the interviewer was the position’s manager.
Paul then said “You have told me all about the job, where I will be working, who I will be working with and what I need to do to be successful. What type of person do I need to be in order to be successful in the job?” The manager replied “I never thought of that, let me think.” He then said “You need to be diplomatic since our clients are all over the world and they call in quite angry when our systems fail so you can’t make matter worse by insensitive comments. You’ll also need to be spontaneous since you will be jumping all over our product line and solving problems all over the world. And this is a high pressure job so you need to be calm stable and relaxed under pressure. Does that help Paul?”
Paul replied “I am more diplomatic than 70% of the population, more spontaneous than 97% of the population and more calm stable and relaxed under pressure than 85% of the population. I’m your guy.” The manager asked him how he knew and Paul showed him the report. Paul took the time to answer the 300+ questions. He was hired and has been successful for the last 9 years.
Only the employer is in a position to know if an applicant will be successful, but applicants can be better prepared.
Post #21
02-20-2004, 12:41 PM
Dave45000
Newsletter/Forums Member
The day I asked my boss why the company produced the artifact that I produced, and he told me that we don't that we do something else, and that the artifact was only a token was the day I should have left. This was six weeks into the job. You can imagine what the other 14.5 months were like.
I would say that an employee can in fact know if it is going to work out, and that the earlier the better.
David Locke
Post #22
02-20-2004, 06:21 PM
Hank Stevens
Moderator
Philosophically speaking . . . Employers have a responsibility to hire the right person for the job. A candidate has a like responsibility when it is decision time – to accept the offer or not. It’s all about responsibility. Sure, there are some insolent employers out there – and there are some immature applicants; but at the end of the day, to say that the onus for making a good decision rests with the employer and not the employee is to ignore the other half of this equation.
As I suspect is true in many of our experiences, knowing what business to accept and what to turn down is a tough part of being in business. What follows is a metaphor for the offering / acceptance side of the hiring process: In one side of my human resources consulting practice, I provide mystery applicants to shop the recruitment process. Recently, a company who wanted me to shop their competition approached me. They wanted me to send make-believe applicants to their competitor across town and “. . . find out about them.”
As attractive as it is to get more business, this misuse of my business did not meet my tummy test. I turned them down. That action was the right thing to do. Thus, as a candidate, if you do not detect a proper fit, you risk discontent – and a whole lot more - if you accept a job that just doesn’t fit. It takes maturity to make that assessment and say no.
__________________
Dr. Hank, http://www.hrqa.com
Human Resources Quality Assurance
Post #23
02-22-2004, 04:49 AM
BobGately
Newsletter/Forums Member
Hello Dr. Hank:
>but at the end of the day, to say that the onus for making a good decision rests with the employer and not the employee is to ignore the other half of this equation.<
The two halves are not equivalent. The applicant doesn't know as much about the employer and the position as the employer knows about the applicant.
As far as I know employers don't give applicants a list of the former employees (a job history) who we in the position that the applicant wants to fill nor their salaries (a salary history). In other word, applicants cannot do the research necessary to learn why so many former employees quit or were fired. Employers and applicants are not equals.
Post #24
02-22-2004, 06:45 AM
Dave45000
Newsletter/Forums Member
The fact is that when I interview the people interviewing me tell me all kinds of things. The things that a company is the most proud off are going to be signals of a sick company more than likely. Like when I hear someone say Fortune 500, I cringe and know that my equity won't be worth much. Or, enterprise software, which means that we will be getting acquired pretty soon. Or, talk about college ball. Geez, no thanks.
Or, if the recruiter says that they are a nice company to work for. I've heard that line before. Even the Fortune Top Ten companies to work didn't mean much six months down the road.
I also get to see the artifacts that I will be creating. If I see defects in the artifacts, I know that it is a managerial problem and not incompetency by an employee.
And, I get to ask behavioral questions.
The situation doesn't have to be balanced. I don't need perfect information to make the decision anymore than an employer does. I'm taking a risk when I go to work for someone. That has been made abundantly clear.
I will say that it is impossible to know if the medical insurance company will actually pay claims.
As far as revolving doors and jobs that are always open or companies that are always hiring, nope, been there. It won't be, because the employees love it there.
David Locke
Post #25
02-22-2004, 09:26 AM
Susan Haumeder
Moderator
One of the fortunate trends these days is for applicants to be interviewed by their prospective co-workers. This gives the applicant a wonderful opportunity to ask "What do you like about working for this company?" That answer is worth gold.
Susan
__________________
Susan Haumeder, MSCS
Management Skill Development for Technical Leads
<http://www.thethirdbridge.com>
877-882-5600
Outside US: (+1) 510.337.1414
Post #26
02-22-2004, 11:03 AM
Dave45000
Newsletter/Forums Member
I got asked that after I had turned in my resignation. All I could say was that I was leaving. The person was a great applicant and outlived the soon to be hired doc manager and went on to become the next doc manager.
I also had a hiring manager tell the applicant how to work each of us employees. He had spelling errors all over his resume, so my co-workers were all bothered by that. I didn't like the way the hire was rigged. But, this candiate was going to be hired regardless. Most of his interviewers quit a few years down the road, so he got to be the manager when the hiring manager was terminated.
Meladrama!
David Locke
Post #27
02-22-2004, 06:13 PM
hadley
Site Founder
Hank Stevens asked me to post this for him, because he ran into a technical glitch...
Primarily to Bob Gately:
A balanced process – no, it is not. The scales are tipped in the favor of the employer. You, as an applicant will never have the resources “they” will have. But there are some things you can do. I find it refreshing when an applicant asks me behavioral and probing questions. I do not take it as a challenge. Here are a few.
“Tell me about the last person who occupied this position (that I am applying for)?” Of all the characteristics that went into this person’s make up, what did s/he do that was valuable? If you could change one thing about his/her performance, what would that be?”
Some employers will say, perhaps just to him/herself, “Just who the hell does s/he think he is, asking me these questions?” Others will, as I find them refreshing.
As an employer’s representative, and speaking from my experience as a H-R Director, I considered it my responsibility to educate the applicant about life at the company. I took great pains to tell it just like it is – the good and the bad (there is always some bad). To me at least, the risk is to sell a bill of goods to the candidate. The consequence of that is another tick mark in my “hired” column but a rapid and often painful turnover for the company. It doesn’t work well not to be candid.
As I said, “Employers have a responsibility to hire the right person for the job. A candidate has a like responsibility when it is decision time – to accept the offer or not. It’s all about responsibility.”
__________________
Dr. Hank
Henry Stevens, Ph.D.
Human Resources Quality Assurance
Mystery Shop the Recruitment Process - Outsource Exit Interviews
Post #28
02-23-2004, 03:55 AM
BobGately
Newsletter/Forums Member
Hello Dr. Hank:
I agree that "Employers have a responsibility to hire the right person" and the employer is the only one in the position to know if an applicant is the right person. The applicant cannot know what the employer knows about the job, the past incumbents, the department, the coworkers, the supervisor, the corporate culture, etc. If employers did a good job of identifying the right person for the job, far fewer applicants would fail to become successful employees.
Post #29
02-23-2004, 07:39 AM
Hank Stevens
Moderator
Agreed! There is often a rush to hire what often turns out to be the wrong person!
__________________
Dr. Hank, http://www.hrqa.com
Human Resources Quality Assurance
Post #30
02-23-2004, 09:08 AM
BobGately
Newsletter/Forums Member
Hello Dr. Hank:
Great minds...One of my clients called me several years ago to discuss a problem employee. Before we discussed the employee's behavior I asked if the employee had been assessed prior to hiring, she answered "Yes." I then asked to see the one page summary from the hiring report. I then told her how the employee would behave especially when stressed. She laughed and said "That's exactly how she behaves. You mean we had this information before we hired her?" I then found out the CEO wanted to hire her since she was a relative of an important client. Being a relative of an important client is not a predictor of job success.
Post #31
02-23-2004, 04:16 PM
Hank Stevens
Moderator
Whether it is, " . . . a relative of an important client . . . . ." or someone who "looks nice" or "looks the part" or "someone who has "good vibes" (what ever THAT is), your story is NOT atypical. Managers too often rely on gut instinct. And, gut instinct is WRONG!
Here's a quote that I a carry with me in my briefcase and read first, when thinking about how to help my next client make better hiring decisions:
"No matter how you total success in the coaching profession, it all comes down to a single factor -- TALENT! There may be a hundred great coaches of whom you never have heard in basketball, football, or any sport who will probably never receive the acclaim they deserve simply because they have not been blessed with TALENT. Although not every coach can win consistently with TALENT, no coach can win without it." John Wooden, "They Call Me Coach."
It's all about talent and talent fit.
__________________
Dr. Hank, http://www.hrqa.com
Human Resources Quality Assurance
Post #32
01-25-2005, 03:06 PM
Jeffrey Geibel
Newsletter/Forums Member
Interesting thread...
Lots of anecdotal advice - but if so many hiring systems are in place - why does one often ask the question (after meeting someone who works for a company): "How did they ever get hired?"
I often ask hiring managers and executives what they look for when hiring - partly to see how they do it, partly to check their decision-making process. (I consult in marketing , so it is not directly germane to what I do, and hence I get some very straighforward answers.)
The answer I most often get is "the fit". In other words, if the person could get along (whether with the interviewer or the corporate culture often wasn't clear). I guess that's relevant, but it also tends to favor a candidate who can play politics well, and stroke the interviewer.
Those who conduct interviews and are fond of standardized tests and questions should remember that skilled interview candidates can pass the standard questions with ease - just like a career alcoholic can pass the police field sobriety tests - I once had an experienced local cop relate to me (while waiting for coffee) that he once checked some driver who he thought was barely under the influence - turns out the guy, when tested at the police station, was over twice the limit. Obviously, a highly experienced test-taker.
The best reference on hiring I ever read is "Hiring the Best: A Manager's Guide to Effective Interviewing" -- by Martin Yate -- you can buy it on Amazon for $8. It's brutal - and tells you how to cut through the clutter to find out what you need to know. Bottom line - you develop a series of non-standard, open-ended questions that also cross-check on the responses. I use the same techniques (subtly) when meeting with prospective clients - always gets very interesting results.
On a more sober note (forgive the pun) many companies are now routinely conducting credit, criminal, drug and reference checks before any face-to-face interviews. (The risks of a bad hire are not limited to just job performance.) In an extreme case, I had an executive search professional tell me of the CEO candidate he was checking out for a client - seems the candidate would go from Los Angeles to points north every weekend in the company of three young women - always different. The search firm couldn't figure out what the guy was up to - but decided not to recommend him. "Amazing what you can see from a helicopter with a telephoto lens" the search guy remarked to me.
Hiring is tough - perhaps one of the toughest thinks a manager (or board) can do. For those of you that do it well - my compliments.
Jeffrey Geibel
www.geibelmarketing.com
Last edited by hadley : 01-25-2005 at 05:32 PM.
Post #33
01-26-2005, 10:40 AM
HRoutsourcer
behavioral based interviewing
Hello.
In my opinion behavioral based interviewing is a powerful tool. And structured interviewing is very important from an employment law standpoint.
The theory behind behavioral based interviewing is that past behavior is often a good indicator of future behavior. So by asking these types of questions as they relate to the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) required of a position, you can get a pretty good idea of how well a candidate may or may not succeed in the position.
Asking the questions in an open ended manner - that is within a frame work that will result in more than a yes or no answer will enhance your ability to extract the most valuable information possible. So for example, after you have created a job description that identifies the requirements of the position and the KSA's, then develop your behavioral based open ended questions so that they are getting at those requirements and KSAs.
Say for technical representative who not only needs KSAs in computer languages but also customer service: Don't ask, do you know xyz language? That will only result in yes or no. Ask, instead, tell me about your past experience in applying xyz language in a customer service environment.
Other examples might be: Tell me about a particularly challenging customer service experience you had. What were the circumstances, what process did you use to resolve it. What was the outcome. Basically ask for examples and stories of real life past experiences as they relate to the job description.
Another good tactic is to reverse it so that you aren't always asking for positive examples - it's easy to say nice things about yourself. Try asking a reverse of the example above. So for instance: Tell me about a time when you were faced with a challenging customer service issue and you felt you could have handled it better - or were disappointed in how you handled it - or felt you didn't handle it well - something like that. Ask the candidate to relay the story and perhaps give them the opportunity to also share what they would have done differently or what they learned from the experience.
The structured part as I mentioned is important from a legal persective. Asking all candidates the same questions is a good idea because if a candidate comes back after not being hired and claims discrimination and you had to produce evidence of your interviewing and selection process, you'd want to show that all candidates were interviewed in the same manner. It would not be good if it was viewed that some candidates were given easier questions for instance than others. Consistency is always a good idea when it comes to risk management.
Lastly, always perform reference checks at a minimum and background checks are often a good idea too, especially depending on the nature of the position. I think as someone pointed out already, some people are expert interviewers and know how to answer anything and everything just the way you want them too. But it may not be true. Make sure you protect yourself and your Company. Make sure you know who you are hiring. Heaven forbid your new employee ends up causing harm. You could be found guilty of negligent hiring.
Good luck!
Last edited by hadley : 01-26-2005 at 10:48 AM.
Post #34
01-26-2005, 11:14 AM
Dave45000
Newsletter/Forums Member
The problem with behavioral interviewing or doing those background checks isn't that they don't work. Beyond the negative expectations you are setting for the potential hires, it's that this level of HR won't exist in a startup until you hire the 50th person. When HR does get hired, its kept out of the way for quite some time. Once HR starts to exert itself, then most of the prior hires will be ready to move on to something more wealth creating, because you are starting to institutionalize, you are starting to cash cow.
The failure to reach a hiring manager is the first indicator of a place that I don't want to work. Getting an HR person conducting an interview is another. Background checks another. Getting asked a question that I didn't prepare for isn't going to happen if I really care. But, if I really care, I'm not going to get interviewed. I'm going to get hired.
The last two times I was behaviorally interviewed, someone called to set up an appointment. Then, the person I had an appointment with didn't make the meeting on time. So if I were interviewing these people, what does this tell me? And, what does it tell me about the company?
The job I do on the side right now, because the startup is not funded yet, is a job I was asked to do by the founder, because he knew me and knew my work. I wasn't looking for a job at the time. When you network to a job and people know you, then you don't get investigated or behaviorally examined, you get hired.
I will say that working at one startup wasn't much fun. The head guy funded beer Thursdays, Hooters lunches, and took prospects to strip joints. It really got ridiculous when he bought a Harley and everyone else went out and bought one. That was the culture he built around his part of the company. Did that damage the company, I don't know. But, you got the impression that all the execs even the ones in the headquarters office in a distant city were friends before they signed on with the company.
I dread the day I have to hire an HR director.
And, asking me a question requiring a negative response will get you a positive that improved to a greater positive. But, the reality is asking me a question like that will probably have me terminating the interview. I'm glad that I'm finally in a position where I hire and don't have to play the game. Interviewees should interview the company they hire with the same kind of behavioral questions. Here are a few of the questions I'd ask.
When will the first layoff be? How many jobs did you ship to India over the last year? How much was the VP of Sales compensated last year? The CEO? What percentage of issued equity is represented by the x stock options you are offering me? Does your policy manual really say that supervisors are God? Will the facilities person really unlock my office door and enter without knocking? If I get a death threat at work will I be allowed to call the police? And, could you fax me a sample of your work? Will the company fire all the employee owners the week after we IPO, so the REAL stockholder can be happy?
Why would I ask such questions? Right, I don't want to work for certain kinds of questions. I mean if I asked the hiring manager, "Hey are you a jerk?" What do you think he'd say? And, given my last interview, I know how to get the answer. The guy thought he wasn't hiring me. But, I wasn't hiring him. It cuts both ways. Maybe I should do a background check on the companies that interview me. Well, I can't afford to do that. And, as a early startup, I can't either.
But, no, companies don't exhibit behavior, do they?
David Locke
Last edited by Dave45000 : 01-26-2005 at 11:26 AM.
Post #35
01-26-2005, 11:43 AM
HRoutsourcer
Dave brings up a good point. True, at the beginning stages of a Company, they are in the 'friends and family' stage, that is where most of the talent comes from. But as a company grows and you do need to start using other sources of recruiting and methods of interviewing, remember that when you are interviewing someone. That you, as an employer, are being interviewed too. If you want to attract and hire top people, be prepared to impress them with what you have to offer them as well. With regard not only to compensation and benefits, but Company culture, growth opportunities, etc. And always remember to show basic manners such as being on time, not having interruptions, following up with candidates as to their status, things of that nature. And yes, absolutely, candidates should always be given the oportunity to ask questions and should indeed ask questions about the position and Company to ensure it will be a good fit for them. It's a 2 way street and the ultimate goal for both parties should be an employment relationship that will be mutually beneficial.
Have a great day, both job seekers and interviewers!
Last edited by hadley : 01-26-2005 at 11:56 AM.
Post #36
01-26-2005, 11:51 AM
Dave45000
Newsletter/Forums Member
I've always cared about one and only one thing and that was meeting the schedule, aka getting the work done, aka performance, aka production. Worrying about the rest is a waste of time. I'm sure the worst people I've had to work with could pass a behavioral interveiw. They somehow got the jobs they had. They were tolerated after they were hired, probably out of sheer inertia. Ban inertia.
Every measure has a countermeasure has a countercountermeasure, etc. It's an elective game. I'm not playful. I don't believe in the "best and brightest" or that you can have a "perfect life." If you have a perfect life congrats. It's pretty clear that I don't. It's pretty clear that I'm not one of the best and brightest, but I am the absolute best at what I do. And, more importantly, I own the company. I'll probably avoid the best and brightest right up until the IPO. Then, I'm history and they can sink the company on their own. I milked a cow when I was a kid. I'm not going to milk one now.
Read Management by Baseball. I'm not a baseball fan, but baseball managers build great teams with less than perfect people every day.
Maybe behavioral interviews create such homogenity that you don't need a leader. So maybe it comes down to having a servant leader, you don't need behavioral interviewing. Ov course, in business we define "leaders," so they really don't have to be a leader. They'll get called leader regardless.
We are a machine. We chew people up and spit them out. It's the coming thing. So what if the funnel is gated. That's it maybe I should hire the best and the brightest and turn them into waste product like so many companies do.
Oglyvey, the advertising guy said hire C students, because they make the best business people. They didn't jump through the hoops. They party. They network. They have "know who." And, they know how to construct a deal.
Ellison said something smilar at a Stanford MBA Graduation. They prepared you for a job. They did not prepare you to run a business. You're better off with entrepreuers than with the best and brightest. Than, the guy who knew the answer when the professor asked, who was Fifee? Oglyvey's dog.
So it's a validated technique for creating successful cash cows. I don't care. I'm creating wealth, not cash cows.
David Locke
Post #37
01-27-2005, 07:09 AM
BobGately
Newsletter/Forums Member
David Locke makes some great points.
>I'm sure the worst people I've had to work with could pass a behavioral interview.<
I agree. The best talkers often get hired before the best producers. When using behavioral event interviewing the applicant never tells the whole story, just the story he wants us to hear. Did the story in whole or in part come from a book about how to ace a behavioral interview? Did the applicant tell us the look on his face, the tone of his voice, the body language he exhibited during this event? Did he tell us how productivity was impacted after his successful intervention? How would we know?
>They somehow got the jobs they had. They were tolerated after they were hired, probably out of sheer inertia. Ban inertia.<
Bad hires are bad hires long after they are hired. Many hiring managers don’t like to admit failure so they try to fix their mistakes. The book “The Peter Principle” does a good job of explaining why bad hires are still on the job years after they were hired.
>I don't believe in the "best and brightest…"<
Hiring “the best and the brightest” is a mistake unless the job demands the best and the brightest. Most all jobs don’t demand the best and the brightest so hiring the best and the brightest is often a mistake.
>It's pretty clear that I'm not one of the best and brightest, but I am the absolute best at what I do.<
Most all jobs don’t require the best and brightest. Being the best doesn’t mean being the brightest. Being the brightest doesn’t mean being the best. Our clients are usually surprised when they learn their best employees are not their brightest employees and that their troublesome employees are often their brightest employees.
>And, more importantly, I own the company.<
One of my clients, the CEO of a manufacturing company, was concerned that a CFO candidate, who was well qualified and a shoe-in to be hired, scored only a 6 on mental abilities (a 6 means he scored somewhere between the 50th percentile and the 69th percentile). After we discussed what that meant he laughed when realized his entire management staff were also 6s.
>I'll probably avoid the best and brightest right up until the IPO.<
That may well be the smartest thing to do. Being the best and the brightest doesn’t predict job success.
>Read Management by Baseball. I'm not a baseball fan, but baseball managers build great teams with less than perfect people every day.<
The New England Patriots are a good example of great success without the greatest players. It helps to have a great leader on the field. The coach isn’t bad either.
>Maybe behavioral interviews create such homogenity that you don't need a leader.<
A leader is always needed. If we want to hire the best talkers and the fastest thinkers than behavioral interviewing is a sure thing. How many jobs require the fastest thinkers and the best talkers? Wouldn’t we prefer to hire the most productive?
>in business we define "leaders," so they really don't have to be a leader. They'll get called leader regardless.<
Business has given up trying to train employees to be effective managers so they now train them to be leaders.
>We are a machine. We chew people up and spit them out. It's the coming thing.<
If managers don’t know that else to do, that makes sense.
>… maybe I should hire the best and the brightest and turn them into waste product like so many companies do.<
Employers owe it to their employees not to put them into positions where failure is predictable. Hiring only the best and the brightest ensures that many new hires will fail.
>Oglyvey, the advertising guy said hire C students, because they make the best business people.<
Interesting view. The best business people are not always former C students and C students don’t always make the best business people. There is more to job success than grades whether we hire only the A’s or we hire only the C’s. Both approaches are wrong.
>Ellison said something similar at a Stanford MBA Graduation. They prepared you for a job.<
My advice to business schools is to stop telling employers that their graduates make good employees. The best that can be said is that their graduates will be well educated. Schools have no idea which graduates will become successful employees for a particular employer. It is an employer’s responsibility to hire successful employees.
>They did not prepare you to run a business.<
That is so true even if they provide the knowledge to do so.
>You're better off with entrepreneurs than with the best and brightest.<
I agree unless the job demands the best and the brightest and few jobs so demand it. However, not all jobs demand entrepreneurial type employees either.
Bob Gately
Post #38
01-27-2005, 08:35 AM
Dave45000
Newsletter/Forums Member
Thanks. As I wrote that, I really felt like I was off in the weeds.
David Locke
Sign up Now | Forums
Home
|
