Posts tagged interviewing
hiring dwarfs
Aug 25th
“If each of us hires people who are smaller than we are, we shall become a company of dwarfs. But if each of us hires people who are bigger than we are, we shall become a company of giants”. – David Ogilvy
So.
Hiring is one of the most difficult things to do in the world. Assessing someone not only for their talents and attitude/work ethic but also chemistry fit within culture and coworkers is a maze. A maze compounded by the fact it isn’t just one assessing but a number of people.
Regardless. This isn’t about the interviewing process.
This is about hiring the best person available.
That is the phrase.
But this isn’t like the NFL draft where you can always take the best athlete. And in today’s world with unemployment being as high as it is it gets even trickier (but honestly I ran into it when I was hiring in the past also).
In business the best athlete may be great short term but not long(er) term.
The reality is overqualified people get frustrated in menial (to them) jobs.
That is a fact.
So.
It takes a special manager to hire the best athlete.
And it gets even trickier if that special manager isn’t within a special organization (but it can be done).
And that is what David Ogilvy is talking about.
Because I just used special twice let me suggest building a company of giants is rare. Because it is tough.
Managers have to be tough and confident and have character. It takes some … well … I cannot think of the word … it just takes something to be managing someone who is either better than you or you know will be better than you.
I know I have been privileged to have a few on the former and a bunch on the latter.
And it is awesome.
Getting passed by talent is okay. In fact it is inspiring personally if you know that in some form or fashion you have enabled that talent to flourish.
Now.
I am not suggesting I am a great manager. And I am sure I have made my share of mistakes in the hiring process by missing out a on a number of giants I am sure.
But Ogilvy is right.
Hiring people smaller than you insures your company will never be a giant.
And Ogilvy didn’t work in today’s work place.
The difficulty is the way today’s business (in America) works.
Upwardly mobile is the measure of success in America (versus a number of European cultures which encourage and incent employees and people to maximize ability regardless of level … so for example you are an excellent master machinist and not interested into upward move into management you are not subjected to disdain for lack of ambition instead encouraged to stay within role and become more efficiently successful).
All that means that in America if you stay at one level or one responsibility too long you have become ‘stagnant’ to management and evaluators and in group evaluations (where managers are encouraged to rank and rate employees) that person will inevitably start ‘sinking’ to the bottom. Not because they actually suck at their job but rather evaluations are set to ‘increase’ and make money and roles bigger.
Ok.
This isn’t about evaluating personnel and creating high performance organizations. This is about the difficulties in hiring and maintaining an organization of giants.
In America coaching people (as a manager) and having them consistently move past you, the manager, translates not into you are a great manager but rather you have maxed out so you need to be moved out.
All that said.
It takes a special manager to maximize people’s potential (even if it means outstripping your own) AND keep your job. It takes courage conviction and some craftiness in your own responsibilities.
Oh.
And it helps to have ownership that wants a company of giants and fosters the attitude.
Today’s business world, management philosophy, is not conducive to hiring potential giants (or best athlete available).
I would imagine someone could argue it isn’t management but rather the generation of young people who are entering into the business world (the slam on them is they feel they are entitled).
Well.
To that someone (who says that).
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … nope.
I don’t care what generation you have entering into a company as new employees and whatever their upbringing and attitudes are. I can guarantee one behavior. And I will guarantee it.
Give them a giant as a boss and they will run thru walls.
Maybe that is my last point here.
(my first is that businesses just aren’t trying to build companies of giants anymore)
My last point is this whole generational thing could be cause & effect. Instead of picking on the “GenY” employee or whatever ‘young people’s attitudes’ we want to pick on maybe us senior folk should look in the mirror and start thinking like a giant, acting like a frickin’ giant and maybe all those people we are griping about will take giant steps for us.
Wow.
That would a giant leap of faith to attempt that.
Surprisingly great organizations take giant leaps sometimes. That is what makes them giant.
interviewing part 5 (I think)
Jul 19th
I haven’t written about interviewing for quite some time mostly because I haven’t had anything new to add (my earlier observations in interviewing and the process remain unchanged).
However. In the past week or so it seems like I have been helping a number of people in the interview process and helping them find jobs which has made me think about my own sporadic ventures into exploring a select few opportunities and experiences. So if I combine their frustrations and my discussions here is the thought:
Let’s call this one “perfect for the job (or the opportunity)”.
So.
How often do you hear of an opportunity or see a job and say ‘I am perfect for that”?
And you just may be.
And I keep talking with people who are frustrated when an interviewer or potential employer just doesn’t see it.
The fall back cry of dismay is “how can I get my resume/information seen? They mustn’t have seen it because if they did I would have received the callback/call/offer!”
I usually take a minute to gather myself here before sharing some thoughts (and let them see some steam).
Well. The odds are they did see it. In fact the odds are they saw it for all its merits and if you were that perfect you probably made “the stack” (the ones who actually get a second look).
nuance differences
But. Perfection is in nuances.
What do I mean?
Well. You really truly may be perfect for the opportunity.
And the rest of the zillion finalist candidates they are reviewing are just really good matches for the opportunity.
Unfortunately the difference is in nuances. And, yes, I mean nuances NOT ‘clear distinction’ as the issue. Mostly because I tend to believe most of us are getting pretty good at stepping up our “job search game” in a competitive job marketplace and have the ‘how do I make myself look distinct’ pretty down pat.
This goes back to the fact that the only thing truly unique is your personality. You may have distinct qualifications but rarely are they unique qualifications when lined up with other finalists.
Look. I have been in a zillion (ok. an exaggeration … many) advertising agency new business finals. And I cannot tell you how many times we were “perfect” for the opportunity (I can also put a handful up where we were just a really good match but not perfect). And I also cannot tell you how many times we were NOT selected despite being perfect.
Yes. We were perfect for the opportunity.
But in the eyes of the potential employer (client) pretty much everyone of the finalists was “a very very good match” and it comes down to nuances.
Frustrating?
You bet.
But what do you do?
The employer didn’t make a choice that was really wrong (other than the fact it wasn’t you). So arguing or trying to go back and discuss is wasted effort. How do you debate nuances? (answer: you can’t).
I warn some of the people I talk with about the frustration of ‘nuances’ and how it can lead to incredibly bad interviews and discussions by landing in what I chuckling refer to as “the entanglement of nuances.”
entanglement of nuances
This is where discussions get bogged down as you find yourself in “Butland.”
They say something and you say “but.” over and over again.
In your head you can make yourself feel good that you are overcoming objections one by one and “but by but” you are building your case.
Well. No.
You are now entangled in nuances.
And like a garden hose or fishing line once entangled you may as well either throw it away, get ready to throw something out of frustration or simply cut out the knot and start anew.
Anyway. Even the best, the ‘geniuses’, would struggle to define the nuances in an interview (as I noted in my example in my recent ‘underneath greatness’ post):
- Could you imagine good ole Al sitting there in his rumpled suit and the interviewer asks official question number 4 “please tell me what you think you are good at?” And Al reaches up and tries to smooth down that crazy hair of his, hesitates, and says “well, I have no particular talent, I am merely extremely inquisitive.”
(cut to interviewer making note to self “cut interview short. Not ambitious enough. Cannot identify any talent. Waste of time interviewing.”)
Hey. Albert’s resume probably looked awesome (c’mon. how many people have “Nobel Prize” listed in awards).
He was a finalist for sure. And Al even made a great attempt at explaining the nuance that could possibly explain the subtle difference between him and the genius behind door number 4 relatively well.
But.
Nuances sometimes cannot be described … only seen by another. And if they don’t see it you cannot describe it. Oh. Warning. Even if they see it they may not be able to “see it.” (huh?)
Well, look at this: 
All incredibly fine guitars. Some incredibly small differences. Some may suggest the purchase decision is in the “nuances.”
Anyway.
I would imagine the point here is to be careful to recognize that while you may be highly qualified for an opportunity the odds of you being absolutely perfect for the opportunity lie within ‘nuances.’
And while I certainly am not suggesting people shouldn’t attempt to highlight the nuances I am suggesting that they are called nuances for a reason. They are, well, nuances.
And sometimes the people you are speaking with will recognize them as important but as likely as not they will hear and toss them into the “well, this person is just as qualified as the last so let’s move on.” And, in addition, constantly focusing on nuances may be more harmful than advantageous.
That’s it.
I have been talking to people a lot about this lately and thought it was worth throwing into the interviewing series discussion.
Interview Diary Part 4: The Gatekeeper
Mar 29th
So. The gatekeeper in an interview process. This is relatively a thankless job. When they hit a home run it is awesome. When they strike out it sucks (that is from their perspective).
Over the past couple of weeks I have been running the gatekeeper gauntlet.
Nowadays you don’t get a job with one call or meeting. Inevitably you need to meet and talk with other people. So, this person, the initial gatekeeper, is in a really tough spot. They both vet and pass along a candidate (or candidates) that everyone else:
- Loves the forwarded candidate and says “wow that wasn’t a waste of time” (but gatekeeper doesn’t get much credit because everyone is feeling “well, there are so many qualified people out here we shouldn’t see any bad candidates”).
- Thinks the candidate they vetted and passed along sucked in the following interviews (either qualitatively or competency wise … doesn’t matter).
Regardless of outcome the gatekeeper is the vetter and passer alonger.
And their situation gets even worse (tougher) in an organization where the people aren’t really clear what they want or what the position responsibilities should be (and even when organizations claim to have a standard form and testing and questioning process that doesn’t always resolve the alignment on the position issue). In fact, to be honest, in my opinion the organizations who are more dependent upon testing and formal interviewing processes tend to be the absolute worst hiring organizations because they are using all that process crap to alleviate their own internal lack of alignment on types of people to hire. So. With lack of people alignment they look to process output (it’s kind of looking to use research to make a decision rather than inform a decision).
The Great gatekeepers? They play no guessing games (for one because they don’t have time). They say exactly what they want to hear. It’s kind of like RFP (request for proposal) 101. They have one or two non open ended “here is specifically what I want you to tell me and here is the format” questions in order to have an easy comparison point versus other candidate conversations.
So. “Tell me your favorite assignment and why” as a gatekeeper question sucks. Too much maneuvering room. Lack of specifics on what the organization would truly want to hear about.
Anyway.
Seems like gatekeepers fall into three general groups:
- the mysterious gatekeeper
Maybe I should have called this the black hole gatekeeper. They ask you to submit resume electronically. They tell you not to call. You wait. And within some undetermined time no matter how qualified or unqualified you were you receive a “your experience is impressive but unfortunately we had a number of highly qualified candidates and we have elected to move forward with them and not you.” Be aware. You could have sent Fred Flintstone’s resume in and if you didn’t make the black hole cut you will receive this response (or some derivative thereof). Sure. You can play all the games and make sure your resume is peppered with ‘key words” and phrases that pop up in scanned computer scenarios. You can write an experience summary that would make P&G proud. Doesn’t matter. This is the black hole.
I have worked at companies with a black hole mentality. As a hiring manager you either get folders upon folders of resumes (which you cherry pick some knowing full well that you stopped at a certain number not even looking at others unless the first batch sucked worse then you thought they would) or you get a small folder from the administrator of the black hole with a post it note saying “here are the qualified resumes for the opportunity we have.” (and I think we all wonder how they were deemed ‘qualified’ but almost everyone is afraid of talking to whoever is responsible for electronic administration for fear you will get delegated an additional responsibility or end up talking about the new Doom game scenario). Even when unemployment was lower the blackhole receives hundreds of resumes and spits out a few.
- the HR/administrator gatekeeper
This is a tricky gatekeeper. The majority of the time they don’t really know enough to evaluate your competency. Therefore, most of them just want to make sure they aren’t going to get embarrassed when you appear in front of other people in the organization (ok. that was harsh. Maybe better said that the candidate doesn’t waste the interviewers’ time when they actually get in the discussion). But this gatekeeper is doing their damndest to insure you are competent (without really being sure how to judge competency) and yet failing that (because most of these people recognize they can assess competency only up to a point) they fall back to (a) Will I like them? and (b) Will the rest of the organization like them? They do their best and the great ones here are awesome at assessing team chemistry. But. Realistically they are seeing a lot of resumes and, once again, no matter how much you play the “keyword” and “results oriented phrasing” game it is sheer luck of the draw. If your resume is number 52 in the pile and they get their royal flush by card 35 you are shit out of luck. I don’t blame them. Its time management (and everyone always feels like there are so many great candidates I only need to find one great candidate – maybe not the ‘rightest’) and no one can seriously evaluate every single resume well that gets submitted.
- the leader (manager) gatekeeper
You kill to talk with this person. Even though they most likely suck at the hiring process (hey, they didn’t get hired to hire but rather lead/manage/do) they pretty much know what they like when they see it. Can they articulate that? Not really. Or maybe better said ‘not well.’ what I mean by this is sure there are some basic qualifications but most managers can assess those in 5 minutes or less if not just by the resume they have seen. So they are looking for the intangibles that cannot be put down on a piece of paper. And I don’t care how good you are as a manager listing intangibles is next to impossible (try it and see … intellectually sharp? How do you measure … hard working? How do you measure. Can do attitude? how do you measure. You get my point). Intangibles are nebulous. They are “know it when I see it” characteristics. That’s why I like talking with a manager. They may claim another reason for not calling you back for second interviews but the reality is 9 times out of 10 you just didn’t connect on the intangibles.
Now. Unfortunately for the prospective employee the gatekeeper who is actually the hirer (in some form or fashion … either the department head or the direct report) has something else in the back of their mind – how is this person who feels so right to me going to look to the panel of people I need to get consensus from before I can officially offer them the job I want to offer them now.
Hey. I have been a gatekeeper. I would say that when I found someone I liked I just wanted to hire them and not make them run an interview gauntlet. Does that mean I was always right about my choices? Nope. In fact, everyone once in awhile you come across someone in your organization that is good at asking the questions to insure you haven’t overlooked an important flaw while you were gazing at some characteristic you loved (s
o pass your favorites to them fast). But most often extensive multi-person interviewing processes cost you your choice more often then they gain you your choice.
That’s it. I am done on gatekeepers for today. Interview Diary Part 4. Part 5 is just a matter of time.
Interview Diary Part 3 – Where Someone Gets It
Mar 12th
Note: If you missed them, here is Interview diary part 1 and part 2.
So. I get contacted for a global position with responsibilities managing brand integration. And this despite the fact I have minimal (at best) global experience and my website harpoons branding seemingly on a weekly basis. The good news is my experience is perfect for this type of position. Here is a quick look at how this happened.
The part that was not in my control
They had an intuitive grasp to go beyond the topline words in my resume and understand the relevance of words I wrote and experience I showcased.
Before I explain what I mean specifically, let me say that if someone you are talking to (or want to talk to) doesn’t grasp some things intuitively you can get frustrated. And you will waste energy banging your head against the wall. Or even trying to get them to understand (or educate the relevant linkage). But here’s the deal: If they don’t get it intuitively 8 times out of 10, you are wasting your time trying to get them there. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be clear and concise, but rather that in some situations your experience & expertise doesn’t align specifically, or literally, and some organizations don’t link it figuratively (or maybe more often they just don’t have the time to do so with all the resumes and things they have to do). And you just cannot check all boxes and still be distinct.
So. With that said here is what they got intuitively:
- They intuitively understood that while my website is strewn with brand bashing, the underlying premise behind what I believe is a practical approach to distinctive positioning. And, while that is attractive to most organizations, to one that is seeking a “branding integrator” or a “marketing integrator” it is an essential attribute in a position where bullshit can hinder success.
- They intuitively understood that even more important than global experience is the fact that integration is about aligning fragmented pieces (or disparate groups/divisions). They looked for experience in taking difficult multi-fragmented organizations, campaigns and situations and figuring out how to gain an alignment grounded in the positioning.
That was out of my control. They either understood that or they didn’t.
The part (s) that were in my control
1. My website (or let’s say published thinking)
I built a place for people to go if they were considering me to read how I think, what I think about and some experience threaded through what I wrote. So. While my resume didn’t exactly fit their criteria, my website filled in some gaps. Or maybe better said … enough gaps to facilitate a phone call to ask a question.
2. An articulated philosophy
Sometimes interviewing is about quickly articulating the stake you are putting in the ground. And, yes, it is high risk, high return. My thought has almost always been you cannot please all of the people so you may as well put what you think on the table as clearly as you can and as quickly as you can. You can be eliminated quickly (in an interview process … in the business world it just facilitates debate or agreement/alignment earlier). Regardless, it gets things focused fast and you can decide where to invest energy.
So. In my typical “scribbled picture visualization” style, when asked what my philosophy with regard to global branding was I gave them a visual and described its relevance. I used an umbrella.
Suggested the handle and the ribs which hold the canopy as the positioning (and whatever aspects of the functional positioning and branding elements and product character) that are critical to maintaining its distinctiveness and the canopy fabric as the local activity. A tight construct with flexibility to create fabric to match local needs. They thought it was a nice visual capturing gathering disparate pieces into a useful functional solid construct.
Anyway. They got it quickly.
I also suggested a “local to national” mentality (instead of the traditional “national to local”). Basically the thought is that so often when organizations build from corporate out to local they get screwed because corporate/national plans typically get cut before local budgets do (uh, that’s because you need the sales that local generates so you cut them last). So I believe that local activity has to be constructed to live without a national/global overlay, because often they have to live without it (and if they do have it, it is a luxury/bonus). And while I wasn’t opposed to overlay programs if they created efficiencies, I tended to believe that local programs built within a good construct built brand faster and stronger.
Anyway. Just more from the Interview Diary.
I guess the point of this one is that there is a lot you cannot control. And you hope that the right people are weaving their way through that part. But once you have an opportunity to control the moment assess the risk, assess the return, and do what you believe is right as clearly as you can.
Look. First. There were several little things and words that caught their eye that I didn’t highlight in this post. But I couldn’t have counted on them nor could I have guessed that they would have played a role way back when I created my resume. Second. Not everyone likes putting a stake in the ground like I do. So don’t. It’s just an example of how to do it if it matches your style. It works, and worked, if it is right for you.
Oh. And despite this diary entry I still hate the whole interview process.
Interview Diary 1: Reflection on strategy expertise Discussions
Mar 8th
So. I have talked with two agencies the past several days about a director of strategy position. I don’t think either discussion went particularly well. Okay but not great.
The weird thing is I am pretty good at uncovering meaningful (see “relevant” in a definition somewhere) insights and isolating a strategy that not only generates results but is open enough to allow some creative output to deliver that insight. (ok. how about other people have told me I am good at this so it isn’t like I stare in the mirror and go “what a handsome man you are” .. although I am tempted to try that upon occasion without laughing as an exercise ..). I also believe because I don’t have a traditional account planning background my strategies tend to be less esoteric and more practical.
I hate gobbledygook (that’s another word for bullshit) and kind of think developing a strategy is a complex challenge but in the end all about simplicity.
Hey. They didn’t ask me to speak in gobbledygook terms it’s just that sometimes if you don’t it gets tougher to talk about. Simplicity just ain’t easy to explain.
Anyway. I believe developing a strategy is very straightforward (or how you go about doing it). What makes it complex to explain is that almost every strategy development challenge is different.
And I think that hurts me in some discussions because some traditional account planner (I use the words traditional loosely) has some high falutin’ process and a ton of strategy documents highlighting a ton of sometimes concise strategy statements (sometimes meaningless) to showcase.
And here is the thing. It is kind of a numbers game. If you pony up enough of these account planner type strategy statement things sooner or later you show one the other person kind of understands and you get to talk about it.
I have lots of examples but not that consistent P&G one strategy statement philosophy which I think I may need because talking about strategy gets weird if you don’t have them.
So. Why don’t I have that “consistent one strategy statement” philosophy? Several reasons.
I know when I talk about strategy it must seem all over the place. Mainly because the process I have stored in my pea like brain is very very consistent (but no one really wants to talk about the process) but the output (which everyone wants to talk about) is very very inconsistent (and that is something philosophically I believe is correct).
What I mean is that regardless of how simple you want a strategy or an insight depending on what you arrive at it could be captured in two words (and awesome situation until you realize that you still have to write the paragraph after it to share the depth of the insight) or it could be captured in three sentences (which people inherently suggest “couldn’t it be more concise” but outside people grasp it quickly and move on to other discussion like “why is the coffee so bad in the cafeteria” or “why are snacks good in one meeting and not so good in another”).
The process I use to get to the varied output is very simple and straightforward (because it is simply a logical way to tear apart things to assess what it is you really need to do).
The output from that consistent process construct is varied.
That’s it.
Look. I started my career on P&G brand work so I am steeped in that P&G formulaic positioning statement belief. Oh. And because I worked at JWT I am steeped in a strong methodical strategic thinking process (although I was there long enough that our “output statement” changed a number of times as we shifted to whatever the strategic process idea du jour was). Oh. And because I am a student of the industry I am steeped in Bates’ infamous “USP” (a hard-headed insistence on judging a product by what it does, not by how good it looks, a Unique Selling Proposition).
Oh. Maybe that’s the problem. I don’t have one tried & true output I stick with (probably because what I realized was consistency of process dictated that the output may vary depending on the business challenge or situation).
Having worked at a variety of agencies as well as evaluated a variety of consulting & research companies strategy output, not only does everyone have a different process (and while some of the differences are slight they are different) but everyone also has a different “output” form. And I am flexible enough to not worry about those things and focus on what needs to get done.
Agencies like to have an output form (that is consistent). I guess the difficulty I have with that is sometimes it is like putting a square peg in a round hole depending on what the challenge was and what the solution was.
So I guess that makes judging my output (what I have done) a little more difficult because I personally care more about judging the process of how you got to the strategy. I don’t care if you come up with Oscar Mayer being “capturing the joy and innocence of childhood” versus Marines being “elite warrior” versus SunTrust Bank being “large bank resources with small bank service.”
Maybe I should care. But I guess in the end all I really care about is finding a great insight and help build a great strategy.
Interviewing to discuss it sucks though.
Lastly. (because I all of a sudden I am on the interview discussion thing).
Talking about strategy and strategy thinking. I think you get to a point in your experience when it becomes tough to explain what is so simple to you it has become just “what you do” and not “something you have to think about doing.”
Oh. This isn’t about having earned some respect because of past experience. That is a completely different post.
What I mean is, for example, assessing research. At a point in my type of career experience you kind of have to know how to interpret research. Not implement a methodology (although we all certainly understand the basics and can probably write and develop basic methodologies) but certainly to review what someone else has completed and interpret the information. We all know how to do it in varying degrees.
Anyway. I admit. I don’t know what to say when someone asks me “can you interpret research” other than “yes.” (or “gosh, I don’t think I could have gotten to where I got to in my career without knowing how to do it.”) By this time I have looked at so many frickin’ tracking studies, omnibus studies, segmentations studies, sales tracking information, MRI computer runs, focus group write-ups, A&U studies, whatever … I think I can pick out how many rum drinkers in multi person households own tricycles for god’s sake (which I actually did by mistake when I worked on Mount Gay rum).
In fact, that may be the issue. Going back to the basics in a professional credibility discussion when you have done so many things you feel like you don’t have to explain it. No. that’s not it. It’s just I don’t know how to talk about it without actually doing it. It’s like talking about breathing. How do you breathe? Shit. I don’t know. I don’t think about it but I sure am good at it.
As for the background credibility discussion (once again this isn’t about respect it is more “belief in what someone can do without having to explain some things) I guess in my sports interest warped mind I find myself on occasion in these interview type settings saying:
“Hey, I have batted .320 in the national league for 8 straight years. Sure one year I led the league in home runs and another I led the league in doubles and one season I had a boatload of singles and had a huge on base percentage but basically year in and year out I bat .320. So. Even though I am talking to you about playing a season in the American league and I have never batted against American league pitchers what makes you think I won’t bat around .320 again? I don’t know if I will lead the league in home runs or doubles but I can pretty much guarantee I will bate .320. In fact let’s assume if you need home
runs I have the ability to do so and maybe we don’t need to talk about how I hit home runs instead of doubles. So why do keep asking me about how I hit? What is my philosophy at the plate? Shouldn’t we be talking about if I fit into the team chemistry and am I the right guy who can hit .320 for your lineup?”
Anyway. Certainly a rambling post but maybe it helps people to know that even with my experience some interview or job discussion experiences can be frustrating on occasion. Explaining things that you have done for years, with some success, can be difficult. Even the simple becomes complex.
Interviewing 1.5. (Which should have proceeded 2.0)
Jan 20th
While I spent Interviewing 2.0 mostly ranting about the use of branding and actual interviewing, my good friend (and a guy really smart about this stuff) Scott reminded me of some things you need to do before you start interviewing.
Oh, like what? (you may ask)
Oh, well like what you are good at. (that whole competency thing)
You really need to nail this down before you even think about interviewing (and this is a tough one).
So. I am not going to get hung up on branding (that will be another post soon where I will attempt to show people how we have bastardized the use of brand from its origins to a point it is meaningless and misused) and move on to how to decide what you are good at to help out on interviewing.
It is interesting, because having played a role as business development director at several advertising agencies, I learned a lot about articulating competency. Let’s say for simplicity sake there are three tiers to defining competency
Tier 1: The most basic competency
I have the skills or past experience to even be in the game. So. This is like interviewing for an accounting job and saying you have the best accounting skills because you worked at one of the largest accounting firms in the world. Or saying at a marketing interview that you have worked at some of the largest marketing firms in the world. It gets you in the game, but its all puffery. Ultimately, if you get stuck in this tier you will lose because everyone will figure out how to make their basic skills sound like the best and it becomes white noise to someone who is interviewing dozens of people.
So check the box on tier one and get to tier 2 as quickly as possible.
Tier 2: The basic problem the competency you just outlined solves
Because of my skills I am faster. Or maybe I resolve issues faster. Or maybe you get things “unstuck” better. Or maybe you allow others around you to be more productive. It reflects an understanding of what your skill has to offer and how a future employer will benefit.
Once again checking the box on tier 2 is nice (and you can win here on rare occasion). This tier typically aligns you with whomever you are talking with. You show you understand what you need to do, understand the problem and you know how to solve that type of problem.
The problem with tier two is there are a lot of smart people out there and (as in business development) you will find that a lot of people will check this box well. Doesn’t mean you don’t need to check it. Just that when you figure out that this is what you are good at providing benefit-wise, you need to understand that it may simply be a parity place (which isn’t necessarily bad if during face-to-face the chemistry is great).
Tier 3: Ah. Then there is tier three. This is where you figure out why you are good at what you do and explain an unexpectedly relevant benefit.
It reflects a higher understanding of what it is you have to offer. (And at the end I will spend a minute explaining how to make who you may end up talking to care about it).
This level of relevance is not just talking about results. This is more about what kind of results specifically you are good at. For example, in my world, in retail not talking about sales but saying “the programs I develop are really good at generating foot traffic”.
Or. My skills are really effective in fragmented or multiple constituent organizations.
Here’s the deal with the Tier 3. It’s yours. It’s you. It’s kind of “your thing” that you are good at. It can’t be vanilla (good with people, good team leader, good at tough decisions, etc.) it has to be an insightful attachment to your competency.
How do you keep your competency Tier 3 unchangeable but relevant?
So. This is really important.
A lot of people talk about customizing for interviews. New business taught me a huge lesson on this.
Never change who you are and what you are good at. Tier 1, Tier 2 and, absolutely, Tier 3.
Never. (There is a litany of reasons for this I won’t waste the space on. But suffice it to say in the ad agency new business world, inconsistency is an unforgiving trait where people can compare notes. And you should treat interviewing the same).
In fact your tier three opening line/paragraph/whatever should always remain the same. At my agencies the “what we are really good at” never changed. The only thing that changed was the following “and here is why it should matter to you” paragraph. That is the relevance part. That is what changes for the interview (and, oh by the way, it kinda shows you have done some homework).
Some risk? Absolutely. Sometimes you will hear (rarely if you get the “here’s why” right) “well. I don’t get why it matters” in an interview…and that is ok. Sometimes you are not a good fit. Or maybe tier three is not in their “interest zone”. It happens.
But figure Tier 3 out. More often than not this is the level that makes who you are talking with cock their head and make them think really hard about you (and that is a good thing in an interview).
interviewing for jobs: The Bruce 2.0 version
Jan 12th
I call this Interviewing 2.0 (it’s probably really version 2.11374 but let’s not quibble) because I am trying to get into the entire interviewing lingo that seems to be bombarding job seekers leading into the New Year. And I was hanging in there alright until I got to “10 ways to destroy your personal brand.” Oh boy. Let’s get started on my rant (although I will offer some advice). So. Before we get to actual interviewing let me get this off my chest about personal brand and branding:
Ok admit. The way people throw around the word brand nowadays drives me nuts. And the whole concept of building a “personal brand” is such a foreign wacko concept to me it is hard to wrap my head around. With all the stress that comes with unemployment and interviewing (and all the zillion perspectives of interview advice you can find online) trying to develop a personal brand seems like a crazy decision to make. When I hear ‘personal brand’ all I can think of is Ricky Henderson (i.e., speaking about yourself in the third person).
- A typical Ricky Henderson interview. Ricky when asked,
“Well, Ricky, he is the best base stealer of all time.”
“Ricky came to play tonight.”
“Ricky was seeing the ball well.”
Skip to your own interview. So tell me something about yourself. (you answering)
“The Bruce brand is an engaging brand and really good at…bla bla bla ”
(WTF).
I believe the minute you start referring to yourself as a brand (figuratively not literally…I assume no one would actually talk about their personal brand in an interview) you have lost it.
I buy the fact that the principles behind establishing a brand in the marketplace and establishing yourself to a company are similar, but in an interview you are a person (not a brand) talking with another person (who isn’t seeking to buy a brand but rather hire a person). But. Hey. If you want to be the best can of soup in the interview, more power to ya.
BUT. Remember. It may be semantics but there is no such thing as “building a brand.” You can build a great product or service. Deliver it consistently over time. Meet or exceed expectations. Do it consistently within a personally or character type. And, well, at some point people will award a brand status to the product/service. Remember. You do not claim a brand status. You are given, or earn, a brand status. So. I would argue if you are aiming to “build a personal brand” you run the risk of ignoring the underpinnings necessary because you are aiming for “becoming a brand” rather than a superior consistent functional delivery person.
Anyway. With all that said. So. Back to interviewing. During an economic downturn, people can be pulled every which way with job searching advice from someone holding up a Bible quoting ‘eternal advice’ (just a note: I don’t believe Moses was the first choice for that job) to, well, anyone who has had an interview and wants to hand out their version of job searching wisdom.
This “deep recession” (sorry to tell you but it’s a depression) creates some desperation and that makes people vulnerable. And that is a bad thing when you are interviewing. This is a time where people especially need wise counsel and not superlative buzzword lingo which confuses people from simplicity.
So. My advice? Forget about building your own personal brand. Forget about all the wacky voodoo incantations that will win you the interview question challenge. Focus on simplicity (or your head will be filled with so much goo it may explode – which is embarrassing in an interview – and you won’t be able to coherently answer anything anyway).
Beyond all the interview coaching and seminars and such (which make my head spin so much I am not sure I would actually know what to do in an interview if I tried to follow all the coaching advice) interviewing comes down to two things:
- Functional competency (can you do the job)
- Chemistry (do you fit into culture and team…or…do we like you)
I would argue that if you nail these two things in an interview then things like salary and benefits and titles all fall into place. Completing a great interview process is similar to when you find something you cannot live without – you will pay full price and not wait for a promotion – you have to have it now. So if you go do your job in the interview process that is the prize (and oh by the way…keep that attitude throughout: “Buy me at full price, this is not a promotion” it is a healthy perspective for you to have regardless how badly you need a job).
Okay now. Remember. There are some things you can control and some things you cannot control in an interview (so don’t waste energy trying to control what you can’t is what I am trying to say):
What you can control:
- What you are good at
- Being yourself
What you cannot control:
- Who they (the company) are culturally
- What they are good at
So. I am going to actually start with Chemistry to get it out of the way (because Competency is the key to interviewing).
What I am getting at with ‘You can’t control their culture’ is you actually can’t control the chemistry factor. Just like eHarmony relationships, you can get a ‘match’ but when you meet “it’s” either there or it ain’t (you know. the elusive “it” whatever it is that makes chemistry click). You may wish for a relationship to bud but you cannot fake it or make it. However, you can control who you are so they (and you) can judge whether you are a good fit for them.
“Be true to thineself.”
Shakespeare
Bottom line is if they like you (or like the idea of you being part of their team) you are in the game. They won’t choose you solely on this but chemistry is valuable particularly in this day and age of lean company structure. So be yourself. Don’t try to be anything else.
Sure. There are some cosmetic things you can be flexible with. They all wear ties and you hate wearing ties. Unless that is a deal breaker to you wear a tie and shut up about it (when you interview AND if you get the job).
Last thought on ‘Be true to thineself.’ If you try and act one way to get the job and then you get the job one of two things happen:
- You revert to yourself at some point and they get confused and probably unhappy (and want to break up at some point), or
- You try to act that way all the time and are pretty unhappy every morning you wake up to go to work.
Chemistry in this case ain’t created. It either is or it isn’t. And the only way you can be sure is if you just be yourself. Don’t worry. Most companies aren’t seeking clones so they aren’t expecting you to act like them. Just that you fit in their culture and there is some chemistry (and chemistry takes an even higher priority these days because everyone runs so lean things can get a little stressful on occasion).
So. Let’s talk competence.
Here is where I disagree with many of the wise interview experts. I hear sell sell sell. Make sure you show results. Bla bla bla. Yeah. Sure. But here’s the deal: Stay within yourself and your personality. If you don’t like talking about results because you feel uncomfortable about it, don’t. Trust me. If you feel uncomfortable talking about ‘results you have generated’ it will show. And who knows. Mayb
e their culture is one of humbleness. Anyway. The whole “quantify what you have done” rule kind of throws me a little.
And let’s be serious. If you interview for a sales position you talk all that sales gobbledygook. If you interview for an engineering slot you bring the calculator and show the whizz-bang co-tangent of a molecule. If you are interviewing for a mechanic position then know how to change brakes. And if you are an accountant, bring a green visor and abacus. You pretty much know the gig on your competency.
And competency. However you define it comes down to “Can you do the job they are interviewing you for?”
I personally don’t care how you prove that. Show results? Sure. Track record of successes? Ok. Talk your way through your process to get things done? Sure. Just pick a way that feels comfortable for you. Because if you do then you are aligned with your own chemistry and your answer will be comfortable.
And, frankly, if you can’t show you are competent in the role then chemistry doesn’t matter. But I also have to tell you most people who are interviewing for a particular job are revealed in the first five minutes of an interview whether they are at least in the competency range of adequacy or not. You can’t prepare for questions or bone up on things (although I am all for doing homework on job and company before going into an interview). Because you are either competent or not.
Here is a thought. Competency means you know the vocabulary and you talk it well enough that an outsider doesn’t understand a frickin thing if they eavesdrop on one of your in depth conversations. (At least that’s my criteria for you knowing your stuff) But oh by the way. It should be you talking and discussing (and if you are passionate about something go ahead and be passionate). Don’t try and bring out the latest marketing fad (or suggest that something isn’t part of your personal brand DNA. Ouch).
Ok. Someone is going to start jabbing at me on preparing for interview questions. Look. The questions you receive are typically a reflection of their culture. You may get thrown a curve ball but you cannot go wrong if you stick with “competency”. They have a job open. They have a functional need. Tell them how you can meet that need completely.
I swear to you. If you stick with functional competency as fall back you won’t go wrong. (note word ‘fallback’). What I mean.
Specific questions you answer specifically. Unfortunately that means “listen” and then “respond”. (yeah. You have to listen to the question…and feel free and ask for clarification if you aren’t sure).
Vague questions (like “tell me about yourself” or “what are you like in the office” or stuff like that). Competency. Fall back on answers centered around delivering on the functional need of the role you are interviewing for. If they want a “fuzzy feel good” answer they will ask you that question (hint: “I know you can do the job but I want to get a feel for what you are like”). By the way. Even feel good answers revolving around competency ain’t bad like “well. I am pleased you believe I can do the job. That is actually a reflection of what I am like. Performance or doing the job well is important to me.” Then go ahead and bla bla bla about yourself.
Next. I am gonna get jabbed on “competent means average”. Baloney. Get in the game first. Superlatives are dangerous. Being “exceptional” is a very dangerous game. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be confident you can fulfill the role they have outlined. Pound away on consistently capable of delivering on functional need of the role you are interviewing for. (See. This isn’t about building your brand. Nuts and bolts stuff).
It’s possible I have simplified this too much but I don’t think so. In times of stress I have found simplicity is the way to go (and interviewing is stressful). That said I imagine my biggest issue with all this online advice is that while I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer I have interviewed hundreds of people as a manager and interviewed for jobs myself a number of times and even I get confused on what to prepare, how to prepare, what to say, what not to say and how to act.
So. In the end I aim for simplicity:
- Be prepared.
- Be yourself.
- Be competent for what they need done.
Anything beyond that and I am not sure what good it does. Oh. Maybe that’s the stuff that builds your personal brand.
