“I thought the whole process was more geared toward problem-solving than to me talking about who I was as an applicant and I liked that.” Andrew Snyder, 25

Hiring is in the top three, if not number one, of actions that ensure success, because it is having the right people that builds the strong teams that juice creativity and make it possible for the company to pivot as needed.

Hiring well means interviewing well and while there are many approaches to hiring there is nothing that can take the place of a really good interviewing process and well-trained interviewers.

Teams are old hat in some industries, but in others they are considered radically innovative and startup Virginia Tech Carilion Medical School is in that category.

The year-old startup, more than three years in the planning, received 2,700 applications for 42 openings in each class.

The applicants were first screened by traditional methods (grades, SAT scores, etc.) and 239 were invited to interview—and that is where things changed.

Driven by research, Carilion decided that (1) excellent communication and (2) strong social skills were must haves for any candidate they accepted.

The first is a growing catalog of studies that pin the blame for an appalling share of preventable deaths (98,000 deaths each year) on poor communication among doctors, patients and nurses that often results because some doctors, while technically competent, are socially inept.

The second and related trend is that medicine is evolving from an individual to a team sport.

Rather than rely on an interview with one recruiter, Carilion utilized a different approach called Multiple Mini Interviews (M.M.I.)

The system grew out of research that found that interviewers rarely change their scores after the first five minutes, that using multiple interviewers removes random bias and that situational interviews rather than personal ones are more likely to reveal character flaws, said Dr. Harold Reiter, a professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, who developed the system.

Here’s how it works,

…the school invited candidates to the admissions equivalent of speed-dating: nine brief interviews that forced candidates to show they had the social skills to navigate a health care system in which good communication has become critical.

MMI is used by eight other medical schools including Stanford and UCLA.

It’s a great approach, especially for screening out those who believe their vocation or actions confer god-like status—and the ego to go with it. Those types don’t play well with others and are rarely, if ever, strong team players.

I’ve been a fan of team hiring for years and done correctly the speed interviews bump it to the next level; a far smarter approach than Google’s algorithm or the normal one-on-one, with an introduction to a few team members.

Image credit: Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here

Do you do whatever it takes to hire, including a “ready, fire, aim” stock allocation methodology?

Can you slip on Joe, Jean or Pat’s shoes?

• From the minute Kristy walked through the door Joe wanted her on his executive team. Her energy was as high as his own. She was smart, articulate, with a keen sense of humor; she understood the commitment required by a startup and her family supported her. While salary wasn’t an issue, Kristy said another startup had offered her a lot more stock than Joe mentioned. She wasn’t as strong in some areas as he would have liked, but it would be so great working with her… So Joe offered Kristy 5% more stock than the other company and more than any other member of his team.
• If Jean didn’t find a good UI designer she would be forced to use a contractor or fall behind schedule, so when she interviewed Richard, she was ecstatic. Richard’s technical skills were excellent, but he demanded an additional 25,000 shares above what comparable team members had received. Afraid to continue looking and unwilling to consider a contractor Jean convinced her boss to make the deal.
• Pat hated hiring, seeing it as a necessary evil that took time away from his real job of building the company. When he found a candidate who could fill a role he did whatever it took to land the person quickly. His actions typically involved substantial extra stock, since he had limited cash and perks to offer.

Is this lazy or just the inexperienced use of a sophisticated tool (stock)?

Founders and bosses that consider a ready, fire, aim methodology an acceptable way to award stock are doomed.

Is buying candidates with stock a short-term solution guaranteed to tear the team apart as word spreads (more on that subject later in the series) and people feel betrayed or a viable way to solve your staffing needs?

Is buying candidates with stock actually shorthand for bad culture?

For more information see Insanely Stupid Hiring.

Option Sanity™ short-circuits ready-hire-aim actions.

Come visit Option Sanity for an easy-to-understand, simple-to-implement stock process.  It’s so easy a CEO can do it.

Warning.

Do not attempt to use Option Sanity™ without a strong commitment to business planning, financial controls, honesty, ethics, and “doing the right thing.” Use only as directed.

Users of Option Sanity may experience sudden increases in team cohesion and worker satisfaction. In cases where team productivity, retention and company success is greater than typical, expect media interest and invitations as keynote speaker.

Flickr image credit: Kevin Spencer

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Whether a company has 10 or 10,000 people the right people reporting directly to you and whether you call them vice presidents or something else they are critical to your success.

For convenience I’m going to use vp to refer to the top people in your company; those who report directly to the CEO and are responsible for the different functions (with or without staff).

They are the people the CEO relies on

• as a sounding board;
• for both tactical and strategic intelligence;
• to tell it like it is—even when she doesn’t want to hear it
• to see and understand the big picture;
• to lead the effort in employee acquisition, motivation, and retention;
• to support and strengthen the culture she envisioned;
• to not sabotage another group or start a turf war, and
• to help stamp out politics whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head.

And more, but you get the idea.

The first item on your agenda when creating a senior staff is to determine what parts of your business/company (beyond the standard ones of finance, development, marketing, and sales) need to report directly to the CEO for peak performance.

You never want a truly critical function reporting through, and responsible to, someone else (agendas do get in the way).

It may be customer service (or whatever it’s called); it could be IT; if you are large enough to have a real HR department (not just a benefits admin) it should definitely report directly.

Support functions are often left to report to the CFO, which can prevent them from being used fro real strategic advantage.

Where does one find talented VPs? Now and then you’ll be lucky enough to actually hire one complete with all the bells and whistles, but more likely you will find a current VP, or talented director, with some of them, or with the right potential.

Be aware that one of the main things that sets great VPs apart from merely good ones, as well as other managers, is a strong strategic ability, which means they see the entire team and understand how their department fits into the whole.

It’s not a given, I’ve known many C-level executives who never grasp this, as well as director level (and lower) managers who get it.

Every member of your staff needs a real understanding of business, including financials, and it’s your responsibility, as their manager, to make sure they get whatever training and information is needed to do their job as a member of your senior staff.

Further, if you want the most powerful senior staff possible cross train them in each other’s functions and challenges.

Think of the phenomenal value of a CFO who understands the intricacies of manufacturing as more than a set of numbers; a VP of Engineering who understands financials and inventory turns; an HR head who understands what actually happens in the different departments, etc.

Think of the power inherent in a senior staff that understands what it takes to turn an idea into a product and a product into revenue.

And if you still have doubts about hiring all that power, don’t focus on the difference it would make to the company, but rather the difference it would make doing your own job.

Stock.Xchng image credit: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1209081

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Entrepreneurs, mompreneurs, solopreneurs, micropreneurs, partnerpreneurs, kidpreneurs, the list grows daily.

If you listen to the media these days the only career of merit is to be a somethingpreneur and that those who work for large companies should quit to start their own biz or be branded as losers.

I am taking this opportunity to state categorically, once and for all that that’s a crock.

Seriously.

There are millions of talented, driven, high producers who work happily in large companies of all kinds across the country.

They aren’t there because they are scared to do their own thing.

They aren’t there because they aren’t innovative or lack creativity.

They aren’t there because they are lazy, uncaring or stupid.

They don’t deserve to be labeled drudges or losers because they thrive in the corporate world.

They are the people who will buy or use the somethingpreneur products.

Their employers are the companies that will acquire or partner many of the somethingpreneur companies.

The somethingpreneur ecosystem would crash and burn without these companies and their employees.

The companies would crash and burn without those employees.

Somethingpreneurs couldn’t scale their companies without these people.

The idea that a person is better because they founded or work in a startup is hype; they are different, not worse or better—just different.

No matter the size of the company, it comes down to cultural fit.

Not just the company culture, but the specific culture propagated by the manager for whom they work.

It’s not just about risk-taking. The days when corporate size, unions, public service or professional degrees (doctors, lawyers) mitigated job risk are long gone.

It’s not even about a person’s accomplishments in their previous/current job.

It’s about what that person would do in your company’s culture and under your management.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/koalazymonkey/5089128512/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

John Warrillow, at BNET, writes that the best question for weeding out victim mentality is “Tell me about the last time you made a mistake.”

He says that if the person accepts full accountability and doesn’t try to excuse or blame anyone else he almost always hires them.

While I agree it’s a great question and that the response tells you a lot about the candidate, I disagree that taking full responsibility necessarily makes a good hire.

There is a substantial difference between making excuses and a situation that leaves the person with no choice but to make the mistake.

There are too many managers who set their people up to fail, whether unintentionally or not. (Yes, there are mangers who do it intentionally.)
There is a difference between stating why the mistake was made and describing what could/should have been done differently and playing victim.

I advise creating a different dialog.

Manager: Tell me how [whatever].

Candidate responds.

Manager: Is that how you would have done it if you were in charge?

Candidate responds yes or no.

Manager: Why?

Asking why gets you to what you really want to know, which is how the candidate thinks.

How the person thinks is the crux, whether the candidate is a senior exec, admin or somewhere in-between.

And while it’s a good question to add to your interview repertoire I don’t think it’s strong enough to stand on it’s own as a ‘make or break’.

While discovering if the person has a victim mentality is useful, what is the advantage of hiring someone willing to take responsibility for a mistake that really isn’t theirs?

You need to know more; extenuating circumstances that at first may sound like an excuse can turn out to be plain facts.

Explore why the mistake happened, if and how it was rectified and what could have been done to prevent it.

In short, take time to dig deeper into any response that brings up a red flag, but do it with an open mind.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wadem/2808468566/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Are you already a devotee of insanely smart hiring, in the process of changing after reading insanely stupid hiring or somewhere in-between?

Wherever your MAP is on the subject there is one thing about hiring that you need to wrap your head around if you want your career to flourish.

You can not hire stars, but you can create and maintain them.

This is as true of executives and management as it is of workers at all levels.

Think of hiring in terms of planting a garden—only these plants have feet.

You’re at the nursery and find a magnificent rose. It’s large, because it’s several years old, has dozens of blooms and buds and is exactly what you wanted for a particular space in your yard.

The directions say that the rose needs full sun to thrive, while the space in your yard only gets four to five hours of morning sun. But the rose is so gorgeous you can’t resist, convincing yourself that those hours from sunrise to 11 will be enough, so you take it home and plant it.

It seems to do OK at first, but as time goes by it gets more straggly and has fewer and fewer blooms.

Finally, you give it to your friend who plants it in a place that gets sun from early morning to sunset.

By the end of the next summer the rose is enormous, covered in blooms and has sprouted three new canes.

One of the things that insanely smart hiring does is ensure that people are planted where they will flourish, whether they are already thriving or are leaving an inhospitable environment.

I said earlier that people are like plants with feet. Abuse a plant, whether intentionally or through neglect, and it will wither and eventually die; abuse your people and sooner or later they will walk.

Insanely smart hiring also gives you a giant edge whether the people market is hot or cold.

By knowing exactly what you need, your culture, management style and the environment you have to offer you are in a position to find hidden and unpolished jewels, as well as those that have lost their luster by being in the wrong place. (Pardon the mixed metaphors. Ed)

These are often candidates that other managers pass on, but who will become your stars—stars with no interest in seeking out something else.

They recognize insanely smart opportunities when they see them.

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ideonexus/3937284735

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Yesterday we looked at insanely stupid hiring and I said we would explore the alternatives today.

Every time a manager tells me that staffing gets in the way of their “real work” it makes me crazy. For decades I’ve heard this same stupid statement from various managers, from CEO to team leaders, and none of them was stupid.

Insanely smart (or stupid) hiring starts with individual MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™).

Here is the basic attitude of insanely smart managers, voiced decades ago by Terry Dial, who eventually became vice chairman of Business Banking at Wells Fargo.

“People are 90% of our costs as well as the key to customer service and satisfaction. The only thing that should take priority over hiring a new employee is keeping a current one.”

Overview of insanely smart hiring

1. Hire people to be part of the team. In other words, people who share your values, will support your culture, are fascinated with your product and believe in your company.
2. Take time to define what you really need. In other words, the right person for the right job at the right time and for the right reasons.
3. What you see may not be what you get. In other words, commit the time needed to interview thoroughly.
4. Performance isn’t always portable. In other words, be sure you can supply the management and environment in which the candidate can flourish.

How to practice insanely smart hiring

• Insanely smart mangers know that no matter what else they have to do it is people, acquiring them, motivating them and retaining them, that is their “real work.”
• Insanely smart managers never lose sight of this basic law of managing—there is nothing a manager can do personally (to save their review) that will off-set the effect of their under or non-performing group.
• It is easier to be an insanely smart manager if you work for an insanely smart company, or at least manager, that understands there is no hiring gene and good staffing skills are learned, not born—but don’t count on it.
• Insanely smart hiring is real work that requires time, energy and commitment.
• Insanely smart mangers focus on ending up being the dumbest person in the group.
• Insanely smart managers never hire jerks, no matter how much pressure they are under.

Join me Monday when we consider how insanely smart hiring creates stars and boosts retention.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ideaconstructor/563596890

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

On March 25^th I read an article on the newest perk, teaching employees how to start their own company, being used to lure talent; I choked and saved the URL for today’s post.

A few days later I read Bill Taylor’s reaction to the same article at HBR. To say that Taylor, who is a co-founder of Fast Company, is a big booster of entrepreneurial efforts is like saying Google is a modest success, but his reaction was the same as mine.

Rather than rehashing what he said (click and read it) I want to point out why jumping through hoops to hire from a certain tiny percentage of available talent is insanely stupid and tomorrow I’ll offer alternatives.

• Insane because, as Einstein so aptly put it, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”
• Stupid because there is a wide range of talent available that would work its butt off for the right reasons.

Why it’s insanely stupid

1. The candidate who joins a company primarily for money, stock or whatever is hot du jour will quickly leave for more money, stock or hotter du jour. In other words, when joining a company is “all about me” there is nothing invested in the company, its values/culture, products or even its success, so when (not if) the going gets rough there’s no vested reason to stay.
2. Many companies and managers hire as much for bragging rights as for need. In other words, do you really need to hire god or will an angel or even a mortal do the job just as well?
3. One manager’s star is another manager’s failure. In other words, past achievement is an indicator, not a guarantee, of future performance.
4. Candidates have definite cultural ideas and needs. In other words, people perform based on how synergistic their cultural and managerial needs are with the same elements in their employer.

(Note: although the focus here is on software development, I’ve seen the same insanely stupid hiring in most fields and industries at one time or another.)

Companion posts,

• Insanely Smart Hiring
• Insanely Smart Retention and Stars

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thewhitestdogalive/3100357559/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Mark Suster is well known in the startup world; he started as an entrepreneur and is now a VC. In a post that ran first at TechCrunch and then at AlwaysOn where I saw it, he talks about the importance of attitude over aptitude in a startup.

Which is ridiculous—not the importance, but the idea that it is somehow more important to a startup.

1. Managers fight to hire the best in any given field, whether software developers, engineers, financial types, salespeople, etc.
2. Managers want the best and brightest and get very offended when told that that isn’t always the best choice.
3. Managers write job descriptions that are laundry wish lists, with little consideration for the real requirements based on the actual work, strengths of the team and room to grow.
4. Managers want more years of experience than the subject has been in existence; this is especially true in software development.
5. Managers kid themselves that people are portable, like cell phone numbers, and will continue performing at peak levels no matter the management style or culture.

Obviously, not all managers, but too many.

Whether you are hiring for a startup or your company has been around for decades, keep these points in mind:

• Talented people perform best when they are challenged;
• hire what you really need (see number 3 above);
• honestly evaluate the environment you are offering (see number 5 above);
• the more variety in previous jobs the better/faster the learning curve; and
• look for the uncut gems and diamonds, instead of chasing the polished stone that turns out to be faux.

Skills can be learned, but trying to change a person’s MAP is a thankless job, not to mention a losing proposition.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zedbee/103147140/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

In my varied reading I keep seeing articles and blogs talking about the importance of assessing cultural fit, understanding management styles and approaches, etc., and they go on to recommend asking direct questions to obtain the information.

However, no matter which side of the desk you are on, direct questions will rarely achieve your goal.

Here’s why.

Direct questions contain the correct answer. In legal terms it’s referred to as “leading the witness.”

The following are examples from real interviews.

• “We at XYZ believe that teamwork is a major factor in our success and are looking to hire more; are you a team player, Ms. Candidate?” The candidate responded that she believed that being a good team player was of paramount importance for a company’s success.
• “I’m looking for an opportunity that will challenge me and a manager who will coach me so I can move to the next level; will I find that in the job you have open?” The manager responded that there were many opportunities for promotion and that he relished helping his people grow.

Both interviews continued along these lines, each person assuring the other that they fit the profile indicated by the questions.

In both cases the interviews resulted in offers and hires.

Neither one lasted six months.

What happened?

Did the candidate or manager intentionally lie or did they unconsciously say what the other person wanted to hear?

In most of the cases I’ve seen it’s the latter.

Candidates are encouraged to do what it takes to “get the offer,” while managers want to fill the position as quickly as possible and move forward.

People are smart and both go into the interview wanting it to work. The result is that they give the “right” answer, with little thought to the long term outcome.

The take away for you is to make this axiom part of your MAP, so it will guide your responses automatically, whether you are a manager hiring or a candidate interviewing:

Don’t lead the witness and don’t follow where the witness leads.

For guidance on asking non-leading questions click the appropriate link, RampUp’s CheatSheet for InterviewERS or RampUp’s CheatSheet for InterviewEEs™

Image credit: Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL