New Year, New Friends

If the past is a predictor of the future, then each new year should start with an abundance of career choices, giving both job candidates and hiring executives numerous opportunities to get acquainted.

Think “Audition” not “Interview”

Too often, people treat interviews and introductory meetings as exceptional experiences with unique and artificial rules. This kind of thinking creates superficial grounds for discovery. Instead, think of what can be gained by treating first encounters as offering representative samples of behavior rather than platforms for persuasive arguments.

Both hiring executives and candidates need to discern quickly what it might be like to work with the other person.

Candidates Beware

Given today’s climate of talent wars, candidates who are too taken with themselves because they know they are in demand can end up tripping on themselves.

Upon first introductions, it can be all too easy for candidates to move into their worst evaluative postures as they meet potential colleagues. It is important to be aware that those who immediately begin critically sizing up the potential employer will telegraph a negatively-charged “purchasing agent” mindset rather than presenting a positive, consultative selling posture.

Instead, candidates fare better entering into each introduction as though they are already happily on the team. Candidates should be auditioning how they naturally function at work on a daily basis, showing that they can comfortably share the same side of the desk with their new employers. This means entering the interview as allies of the hiring team, imagining a layout of the field of challenges spread out before them.

Next, they should collegially explore the organization’s current situation, what previously transpired and what can be anticipated in the future. That way, prospects will “audition” using a very natural and inviting approach rather than acting with an artificial “interview-like” flair.

Vantage Point of the Hiring Executive

Let’s also take a look at these encounters from the standpoint of hiring executives.

Interviewers can learn much more by soliciting questions from the candidates rather than simply quizzing them about their employment histories. By their very nature, questions raised by candidates tend to yield more valuable information about behaviors and perceptions than do their answers to questions asked by interviewers.

We’re on the Same Team

To skilled professionals, all of this may sound obvious. The reason for reinforcing these observations lies in the stilted nature of the meeting called an “interview.” The process is greatly improved and more rewarding when all involved decide that this gathering is a familiar, common event. It’s just another garden variety meeting, rather than a hurdle that needs to be crossed. The best exchanges occur when both parties presume they are already working on the same team.

Imagine the changed outcomes if candidates and hiring executives would look forward to greeting friends at the table. With this mindset, there is much to be gained and little to lose. This way, if participants should decide not to proceed forward, at least they will have made a new friend.

And one can never have too many friends.

Election vs Selection: What a Difference the "S" Makes

During election season, people are expected to participate in due diligence regarding who to vote for among a slate of offices. We carefully assess each candidate in light of the future paths that we have elected to pursue for ourselves and want for our communities, states and country.

While we as individuals do the electing, political parties in the U.S. do the selecting. Although some candidates run as independents, most of those on a ballot are selected to run by political parties. They were chosen based on the prospect of who will best move the party forward.

In an interesting and often frustrating twist, once in office or hired, the “winners” often elect to define themselves rather differently than we may have expected based upon their campaign promises, resume or talents. The reverse is also true, as politics and organizations may not live up to the candidate’s expectations once he or she is selected or voted in.

When it comes to executive search and placement, the verbs and scenarios are similar. Individuals elect favored roles, while organizations screen and select candidates they judge as best for moving the organization forward. And, when all is said and done, the twists of not living up to expectations can also ring true.

The wise adage: “Be careful what you ask for…you may get it” applies in both politics and careers.

Due Diligence in Search and Selection

Whether you are doing the hiring or are a candidate who may be hired, the degree of careful discernment in election and selection makes all the difference.

The candidate needs to apply as much (some might say, even more) thought to voting for a career opportunity as does the hiring party. Far too often, candidates imperil their futures by making a career decision on "a wing and a prayer" rather than through studied thought and research.

Surely, the hiring organizations suffer with unwise hires at times. Yet, a candidate who errs in accepting a poorly fitting opportunity must deal with the immediate fallout from the move, and the outcome will be carried career-long as well. Departed employees find themselves under greater scrutiny about their past career decisions than do the organizations that they left.

The Importance of Focus

Whether the candidate or hiring organization, many times the employment engagement is a matter of casting a net widely, rather than spearing a trophy. 

Classic job search advice suggests that “networking”, or “seeing what’s out there” is the best way to go. Meanwhile, firms also cast a wide net, whether through recruiters or job postings. Both sides are playing the odds that plenty of suitable and available matches are poised just for them.

In this classic scenario, employers set their selection criteria to facilitate the resume screening process. Meanwhile, candidates don’t participate in a process of electing their choice opportunity. Rather, they expend their energies far too widely, trying to avoid being overlooked by a potential hiring party.

Candidates don’t improve their election odds by placing a bet on every potential employer that they might approach. Our work life is not a gambling career, although there seem to be far too many employers still willing to take a gamble on selecting new hires on just that premise.

Picking a Winner

Applying due diligence on both sides of the hiring equation offers all parties the opportunity to focus on the most critical characteristics of their ideal catch. Patient exploration and spearing the trophy deals makes much better sense than casting a net and then sorting through less suited options.

What is a "Pilot Hole" Hire?

A Fable: A growing family-managed firm had reached the point where it needed to hire its first non-family executive for a newly created role. Up to this time, family members had been able to share the many hats needed to run the business. After a diligent search and assessment, the new manager comes on board--excited about the prospects of bringing innovative ideas to the company. Within six months the executive is let go--the victim of another “pilot hole” hire.

The Relationship Between a Pilot Hole and Executive Hiring

A pilot hole serves as a guide. Drilling a pilot hole before using a screw or nail to join parts together makes for a tighter fit and prevents the wood, drywall or plaster from splitting. A pilot hole paves the way for transition.

The pilot hole analogy can be applied to executive search and management. Sometimes the first person entering a new job ends up being used to pave the way for an easier transition for this individual’s successor. Often, the problem isn’t entirely with the pilot hole hire.

Adjusting to Change

When a new function is introduced to an organization, the new executive hired to lead has a tough transition to make. Previously, the duties assigned will have been collected from among several people, who may feel that losing their newly transferred duties is not so much of a relief as it is a loss of power and status. Managers used to calling their own shots may resent the arrival of the new executive. As new rules, procedures and controls are introduced, managers can feel they have lost prerogatives.

Meanwhile, the new hire must adjust to an established setting, where there is ample opportunity for the “new kid on the block” to misread cues and traditions.

When inevitable chemistry, personality or philosophical differences come to light, people can begin to talk about the new team member as “not fitting in” and may start exhibiting behavior that undermines the new executive—often criticizing style rather than substance.

Same Hole. Different Person.

Most people are hired precisely because they are different and bring something new. But in newly created roles, it is all too common that the new pro turns out to be a short- term hire.

Ironically, the next person brought into the role often shares the same credentials and interpersonal style as did the predecessor; but is accepted into the organization much more easily because of the “pilot hole” drilled by the pioneer who paved the way.

Why the turnover? Part of the issue is that staff often want to keep things as they were. Meanwhile, the new hire takes to heart the boss’ phrase “we want you to make an impact” when given marching orders. Energetically, the new professional does a cannonball dive into what appeared to be a calm pool. The resulting impact on the rest of the people can be unsettling as the new hire makes a big splash within the organization.

Avoiding a Split

Is a “pilot hole hire” inevitable? Assuming the right person was hired during the executive search process, there are ways to help avoid troubles during the transition of this new hire into a new role. Here are some tips:

1. Make certain everyone on the management team is on the same page regarding goals, expectations and support of the new hire.

2. Provide solid orientation and make it a two-way process. In addition to orienting the new hire to the organization and its workforce, provide activities that help current staff to adjust to the new person in this new role.

3. The new executive should solicit counsel on how best to prepare to “enter the water” in order to build successful common alliances.

A wise entry plan can assure a solid and lasting fit.

A Good Reason Not to Hire Relatives

"If there is something about the candidate you don't like during the interview,

you will like it even less if you go ahead and hire the person." 

                                           --HR Department Poster

 

Executive search publications and news headlines often talk about the war for talent, highlighting the enduring shortage of top candidates for leadership positions. While this puts us on high alert, this is old news to savvy observers who have been paying attention to the warning signs that fewer finalists seem to fit hiring specs.

Could this be why we are so quick to set aside a rare prospect over what was a seemingly minor (but unfavorably noticed) quality displayed during interviews?

Desire to Hire and to be Hired

We all have favorite anecdotes about vexing variances between on-the-job behavior and the splash a person made during interviews with hiring executives. These interviews can generate an unwelcome paradox.

First, in a desire to get hired, candidates move into self-promotion mode, having practiced their pitches until polished enough to appear natural. As a result, candidates may inadvertently realize their worst fears: They get the job, but regret the new role.

And then there are the interviewers who are anxious to make a good hire and fearful of letting good prospects get away. As such, they sweep little annoyances under the rug as deftly as possible so that all the inconvenient thoughts they didn’t like are out-of-sight and out-of-mind.

But then, aren’t we supposed to be understanding, flexible, considerate and open-minded about our fellow humans’ quirks? And, we don’t want to appear intolerant by picking at social, values-oriented and interpersonal gaffes or flubs. After all, most people are nervous when being interviewed.

Acting More Like Relatives

During the interview process, perhaps it would be helpful to apply the same intuitive frame of reference used when we choose doctors, friends or a potential mate. Why not apply the same type of thinking when hiring management team members?

A political lobbyist once said: “You help someone get elected and think you’ve made a friend, but then they start acting like relatives.” There lies the rub. Sometimes the people we hire begin acting like relatives carrying the same annoyances or issues we noticed during the interview process.

Use your familiar friend-making judgment when in an interview—whether you are the hiring executive or the candidate. Friends don’t try to fool friends. And friends have a mutual understanding of what does and doesn’t matter to each other.

Pay attention when there is something you don’t like in an interview. Is it a friend’s quirk or a pesky relative’s fatal flaw?

P