“Walk me through your progression with your current employer, leading me up to what you now do daily.”

“On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being a perfect match for this job), how would you grade yourself from a technical standpoint? What would make you a 10?” (This second question is meant to identify the gap in their current skills.)

First of all, I think these are horrible questions. It’s ridiculous to assert that any particular interview question is a panacea, a silver bullet, for finding the perfect person. For example, if you were looking for an Accountant you wouldn’t ask her the same questions you would asked a Project Manager.  You would be looking for different characteristics and as such need to ask different questions to determine competency.  Sure there are a few table stakes you will want to know about everyone: do you trust them, do they fit with your culture, would you like working with them, etc.  But these questions should be, and need to be, different for every organization.  Someone who was valued at a fast-food restaurant won’t necessarily mesh with the culture at a Wall Street firm.

I am frequently asked for advice regarding position-specific questions. A friend will ask, “I am interviewing a sales person and need some good interview questions, got any?”  For these situations, it’s the same story – the person successful at selling hammers to Home Depot will not necessarily be a winner at selling derivative trade processing software or adventure tour packages. This isn’t surprising, yet interview questions often fail to draw these basic distinctions.   

So what does one ask then? I subscribe to a method called Behavioral Based Interviewing.  It is built around a simple concept – the most accurate predictor of future success is past success.   What allows people to be successful depends on how they behave in critical situations.  If you have a complex, detailed-focused job, then you want someone whose history demonstrates a propensity to be detail oriented when faced with complex situations.  No rocket science here.

There are attributes (as opposed to behaviors) that are deceptive in this context.  Intelligence is a common one.  I have yet to meet a manager who denies the importance of intelligence in the person they hire.  Yet does it make a difference in determining success?  I say that it largely does not.  Now hear me out, how many brilliant people do you know who can’t hold down a job?  Case in point.  Intelligence and skills may be useful in determining someone’s ability to do well in a particular job, but they are ostensibly immaterial in an interview.

When I design an interview, I begin by examining an individual that was successful in the position at hand, and then identify what behaviors they exhibited that allowed for them to be successful.  I then craft questions that aim to elicit examples from their recent past that demonstrate when they behaved in a similar manner.  I will be more specific in my next post.

But before I sign off – I want to pick apart the two interview prompts that I quoted.  Why do I dislike them?  First of all they don’t speak to specific behaviors and are overly general.  Perhaps a more significant flaw is that they appear to be invitations to lie.  Think back to the last time you were interviewing for jobs. You probably quickly developed a sort of ESP for what the interviewer wanted to hear and crafted your answers to get a favorable response.   The two questions listed give ample opportunity for candidates to tell you what you want to hear. And that is all that you will get out of this type of interviewing: a candidate who is qualified to tell you what you want to hear. Whether or not they are qualified or will get their work done will be as mysterious as before the interview occurred.  Sounds like a good deal right?

My advice is to spend the time to examine what you want in a candidate. If you do, you will be more likely to find it. Leave the silver bullets for the werewolf hunters.

Peter Laughter

View our Latest Opportunities

Lately I have been thinking of Ari Gold as a model of how we need to interact with our temporary employees and consultants.  Now I don’t mean the cursing and yelling part – rather interacting with our employees from the perspective of managing their careers.  Now this is not at all rocket science – yet something we need to keep in front of ourselves at all times.  When you are in the business of providing human capital it is easy to forget that what you are providing your clients is NOT a product. Yet this is easily forgotten in the Staffing Industry – that is why so many people will not work for Staffing Services – they have had the experience of being treated like cattle and not listened to.  This is something I have spoken of before and I think that the concept of how to bring humanity to the staffing industry is something we must always keep in front of us and we need to keep innovating in this area.

Thus Ari Gold – Ari does is not a broker of parts in a movie – he is looking to lead his clients to superstardom and that is exactly what we need to do.  When we take a transactional approach to staffing (as the industry is prone to do) we see a person only when they match our current openings – when they don’t it is difficult to see them at all.  When we interact with people as their Agent things look very different – it is our task to help them map out where they standing to where they want to be.  When you look at people as agent you see several other opportunities to make a difference in their career – yet there are benefits that go well beyond altruistic satisfaction.  When you take this approach your business grows as a direct result of working with someone to advance his career.

Take the case of our long time Staffer Tom.  Tom came to us 12 years ago right out of Business School looking for a job as an analyst in Equity Research.  We were really taken with him – He was a pleasant, bright guy who just wanted to find an opportunity to make a name for himself.  We were able to give him that opportunity working on a project at a very prestigious international investment bank.  I would like to say we gave him brilliant coaching on how to leverage that temporary assignment into a perm role – but after 12 years I really have no recollection of what we told him (if it happened today we would have given specific instruction on this issue.)  Nevertheless, by the time the project was completed Tom was one of the few consultants on the team to secure a permanent offer at the bank.

If we were focused on transactions things would have ended there.  In 2001 when the investment bank Tom worked for downsized he lost his job and came back to us.  The only issue was that the positions we were getting at the time were too junior for Tom’s now impressive experience.  If our focus was exclusively on completing transactions that would have been the end of the line for our relationship with Tom. As his Agent we were called to do more.

We looked at our client base and identified several firms to market Tom too.   We spoke to a Private Equity shop we were providing Administrative professionals to and found they had a project that Tom could make a difference with.  I am sure you are not surprised to hear that he was shortly after hired as a permanent employee.  The Private Equity firm continued to ask us for higher level candidates and many of them were managed by Tom. 

Fast forward several years later Tom has come back to us looking for a new opportunity – I can’t wait to see what happens as a result of working with him to take the next step in his career, and ours.  As a result of our Agent-mentality (i.e., representing and developing ambitious people like Tom) Wall Street Services has grown. We now fill a wide array of consulting positions catering to Trade Operations Professionals, Accountants, Financial and Business Analysts, Project Managers, and other senior professionals. 

Ari, here I come.

View our job opportunities

Now why would we agree to work so much harder for less money?  In part, it was because of the way in which she interacted with her vendors. 

Now, full disclosure – it is a prestigious investment bank so being able to mention that we work with them was itself an attractive prospect.  And more importantly our temporary employees LOVE working there, but to be honest, those things alone are not enough to inspire our best and efforts.  The fact is, almost all recruiters work on some sort of commission that is derived from Gross Profit Margins.  When the client pays lower markups, the recruiter makes less money it is that simple.

So, why did we work so hard for this client?  She respected us and she listened.  Laura was fully aware of that she was both demanding and appreciative of those vendors who could keep up with her.  She was expressive of that appreciation.  More importantly she respected us.  I remember I had an issue with the way this bank provided information about the cultural preferences of departments and wanted more access to hiring managers.  It was a grueling 20 minute phone conversation where Laura grilled me on every aspect of my complaint.  I was exhausted afterward, and a little relieved to have made it through with my tail intact, but she listened to the concern.  Not even 24 hours later she called me to tell me that the solution I had suggested was in place.  I was clear that I was a partner and that no matter what happened I had a client who would listen to me. 

Partnership like that is very rare and is well worth the extra effort.

http://www.wallstreetservices.com/wssite4/index.php

This “good deal for everyone” philosophy is a helpful for staffing, especially if expanded. When we make a placement we need to ensure that both the client and employee are excited about the opportunity in order for us to really benefit–it all comes crashing down if one of the 3 players is left dissatisfied.  If we were selling toasters it would be much simpler: my toaster has never complained about the state of my kitchen – not once.

This is of course obvious – yet it can be hard to remember when working with clients who view staffing as a commodity and expect us to perform as such. 

Let’s take the example of one of our staffers Enid.  About six months ago I got a call from a client about Enid who was working on a temp to perm spot at a global investment back.  Apparently Enid was speaking very inappropriately to senior people in the group about another employee in the group.

Apparently, the permanent position Enid had been expecting was not extended to her.  Instead it went to someone that was less experienced and, in Enid’s mind, less qualified.  Now Enid was speaking to everyone in her group (including the Managing Director) about what a horrible choice this was and how much injurious it would be for the group.  She was making several people quite upset.  We received clear instructions from our client – Make her stop, or else. 

Now, I don’t know if you have ever received a direct and urgent order from someone who is accountable for a significant portion of your income, but believe me, it is very compelling.  Based on how charged my contact in HR was it would have been very easy to call Enid and tersely lecture her that under no circumstances is she to speak to her managers about her not getting the permanent offer.  Some might even say it was the right thing to do.  Yet would likely leaving Enid feel like the experience had been a “bad deal,” which is not what our philosophy dictates.  Enid was already very upset at this point, and if I had come down on her forcefully, she would have likely magnified her bad behavior, and subsequently get fired or leave the job in a huff.  The client would be left short-handed, we would have a dark spot on our record and, worst of all, Enid would be without an income in the middle of a recession.  

By remembering to treat Enid as a human rather than a commodity, another course of action became clear.  Enid loved that job and had given her all to the group.  She interacted with that job as if it were hers to keep and was simply devastated to find out that someone with less experience had received the offer.  She was also very frightened for her future. Her conversations with her managers seemed a justified course of action to clear up a mistake that was ostensibly unjust.  She didn’t realize that these conversations were pushing her further from her intended result.

I spoke to her with this perspective, acknowledging she was upset and why; I reminded her of hard work and commitment to get a perm position at this particular bank, and eventually she was able to see the negative effect her actions were having.  By the time I suggested she apologize and explain her actions to the Managing Director she was more than willing.  In turn, the MD recommended her for a perm position in a different group.  We coached her on what steps she could take to improve her chances of getting a perm offer.

Needless to say, last week was Enid’s last on Wall Street Services’ payroll.  She received a direct hire offer at the same bank and couldn’t be happier.  She is very expressive of her gratitude for our efforts.  Our client is very pleased with the talent and we are proud of what we accomplished together. The experience had truly been a good deal for all of us.

None of this would have happened without a little humanity.

As always, I would love to hear any comments or questions.

http://www.wallstreetservices.com/wssite4/index.php

Interestingly enough we have seen a tremendous improvement in the caliber of interviewee.  Generally, people come in well prepared, dressed well, and speaking directly.   I see two possible reasons for the improvement – 1. We are being much more selective on whom we call in (based on resume and phone screening) and 2. People take more time to research best interview practices and employ those practices. 

In all fairness, we do get our share of rude people or bring a friend to the interview, but to me these are too obvious of blunders to dwell on. Instead, I wanted to write a piece for strong candidates who make some of the lesser known, perhaps more subtle, interview mistakes.

• Talking too much! – This one is a killer.  I will have an excellent candidate, I ask a question and then I can’t get a word in edgewise.  We are all very busy; when you hear a question consider what the interviewer might be looking for and speak to that issue.  Be concise and crisp in your answers and allow the interviewer time to ask some follow up questions.  When you talk too much you project that you are unfocused and disorganized.
• Specifics please? – When someone asks you to give a specific instance in your past, make sure you actually give a specific example.  When most people ask this question they are looking to see if the candidate will display a given behavioral attribute in certain situations.  If candidates cannot give a specific instance I assume that they do not have the attribute – or at best that I cannot determine whether or not they do.   So when you get a question that starts with “tell me about a time when…” or “give me an example of a time when…” take a moment to figure out what attributes they are looking for and select a moment from your recent past in which you displayed those attributes.  You should choose a specific instance and give a “there was one time (at band camp…)” answer.  Avoid answers like “I did that all the time at my last job.”
• Not Another People Person! Do not, under any circumstances say you are a “people person.” Ever.  The statement is completely vacuous, and yet I hear people say it all the time.  This is a trait that people think is valuable, but really says nothing more than that you like people.  As a prospective employer I want more.  Are you persuasive?  Are you comfortable working with very demanding professionals? Are you capable of quickly forming relationships?  If so speak to those attributes and kick the “people person” to the crib.
• Yes, Virginia, there is a weakness. I admit it; I ask the weakness question  all the time.  Not many people answer it.  Many try to get buy it by thinly disguising strength as a weakness.  Answers like “I just work too hard” or “I’m too much of a perfectionist” drive me nuts.  Can you ever imagine a manager complaining about an employee working too hard?  I don’t think so.  Show some courage and bring up a real weakness that caused you professional difficultly and that you had to address.  It will communicate that you are self aware, and confident your strengths outweigh your weaknesses. This is a trait in an employee that most managers value.  Be sure, however, you bring up a weakness that you addressed (as opposed to one that still plagues you) and can comfortably discuss.

Okay, I think that I have covered the basics.  Go forth and have great interviews.

http://www.wallstreetservices.com/wssite4/index.php

One of my standard interview questions is “Briefly tell me about your most pronounced professional weaknesses and tell me about a time on your last job where that weakness caused difficulty for you.”  Now, in this question I am looking for someone who is self aware enough to identify their own weaknesses, has the confidence to speak about them and can develop strategies to work around those weaknesses. 

This is a tall order – people tend to be uncomfortable speaking about their weaknesses and rarely ever do so.  Even though I discourage these answers, I get a lot of strengths thinly disguised as weaknesses: Things like “I just work too hard” or “I’m a perfectionist and if I can’t do something well I obsess over it.”  Now, in my 16 years of managing people I have never complained that someone works too hard or is too determined.  These answers are an automatic reject.

I recognize that asking a complete stranger to speak about their weaknesses is a very tall order.  And this is the brilliance of Dr. Dattner’s interview questions.  They really do a fantastic job of finding alternate ways to get candidates to speak about their shortcomings. 

So thus the conundrum – should I make it easier for my interviewees to speak about their weaknesses?  If the point is to find out what they are not so good at professionally the questions are truly inspired.  Yet I want to know if someone can identify their weaknesses and want people who are confident in the knowledge that their strengths outweigh their weaknesses.  I want someone who is secure enough to speak about what they are not good at.  I know it is a lot to ask for an interviewee to open up on a vulnerable topic and perhaps this is an unfair expectation. 

 I guess I have to do some experimenting.

http://www.wallstreetservices.com/wssite4/index.php

 “I’m not a Quaker but I went to Haverford College and I saw consensus in action.  I’d be interested to see how you’re using a kind of modified consensus in your business.  The challenge, I think, is that most employees are happy being employees – even if they can be open and give suggestions, they fundamentally want you to own the decision.  I think this may be true even in relatively non-hierarchical situations.   But certainly, it could be one more piece of the puzzle.”

He has a good point and I have had similar experiences with asking employees to make decisions.  Yet I think when you look at this dynamic you need to take the context into account.  I suspect that most CEOs really do not want all that much input from employees.  So when they ask employees for decisions they frequently second guess them.  Now, I am speaking from personal experience here – this is something that I know I have done and I know other CEO’s do as well.  This is an understandable flaw – as CEO you are the one who is charged with holding the vision of the company and moving the company in that direction.  The charge of being a CEO gives added perspective, pressure and accountability which make giving up control very difficult.  In these cases it is only natural that employees would be reluctant to offer input on direction only to have it trumped later on. 

Another issue that would make employees reluctant to make decisions is the consequences.  If you do not make decisions, you are not responsible when they go wrong.  We all know what it is like to be the one pushing for something that doesn’t work out.  Whether it is with our friends and families or even in our workplace, the fallout from those mishaps is downright uncomfortable.  Who would want to bring on that? 

The other issue is simply that most employees are unaccustomed to making decisions that affect the entire organization.  It is not that they don’t want to; it is that they are unaccustomed to doing so. 

If you put all this together (along with the myriad of other reasons that I did not think of) the obstacles are formidable.  Yet my concern remains:  by being the sole decision maker and source of ideas I am losing out on the amazing creativity, experience and insight of my team and thereby limiting the growth potential of Wall Street Services.  I have some good ideas but what is more, when I do come up with an idea I have to spend quite a bit of time explaining it to my team, enrolling them in the idea and getting them to implement it.  I have seen that when Quaker Process is used correctly, the resulting outcomes are always much more elegant than what I would be capable of generating by myself.

So, there are a couple of things to consider.  First of all – contrary to popular belief, Quaker Decision making does not call for consensus, rather during the process one looks for a greater truth to emerge from the combination of the collective contributions of the participants.  So no one person is accountable; instead, the group is accountable.  That dynamic changes things on a very powerful level and in my experience, brings forth a greater willingness to contribute and take ownership of the result.                       

The remaining issue is for me to avoid putting the kibosh on people’s ideas.  Fortunately there is a mechanism for this.  In order to recognize the greater truth that emerges from the input of the group someone needs to be accountable for listening for that greater truth and acknowledging it when it emerges.  We call the person taking on that role “The Clerk”.  Now The Clerk does not participate in discussion or offer input, rather listens for what is emerging and once that is apparent, calls it out to confirm that the group agrees and can support it.  This is a good role for me to take as we try this out – I know the process, and it gives me a convenient excuse to keep my mouth shut (not an easy endeavor, I assure you.)

I also think it is important to recognize that this is a process and an experiment.  I am not proposing that we would turn over the management of the company over right away – aside from thinking this is a bad idea I am frankly just not capable of it.  We are therefore starting with looking at a specific project – namely how can we create a more meaningful sense of community and purpose among our population of staffers and how can we have that community.  I know this sounds vague – I will speak more of how this is working in later posts.

http://www.wallstreetservices.com/wssite4/index.php

After all have spoken, the clerk states what she or he has heard and if this sits well with the group that becomes the decision. If what the clerk has heard does not represent a clear understanding of the decision or course of action the group continues to wrestle until clarity is achieved.  At times individual members need to differ to the wisdom of the group and sometimes they will not see the way to support what the clerk is hearing.  It is incumbent on the clerk to see if those who are opposing a decision are just being inflexible and not being swayed by the wisdom of others or seeing a flaw that others have not observed.

Now when I first started practicing this process I viewed it as cumbersome and lengthy.  I preferred the simplicity of just choosing a course of action and implementing it.  After several years of practice I feel very differently.  I have seen that the decisions the board of Brooklyn Friends were much more elegant and sound than those I would have achieved on my own. 

One colleague who I serve with at Brooklyn Friends is an executive at a Fortune 100 company.  This company had tremendous difficulty during the recession, but my friend is convinced that her company would not have made such poor strategy decisions during that time had they used Quaker decision making.  Not just because it allows for unpleasant truths to be plainly spoken, but because once a decision is made, implementation moves very rapidly as all involved are engaged and in agreement with the course of action.  Their ownership in the decision leads to excitement about execution.

So as a CEO utilizing this practice I have been intrigued and would like to utilize Quaker Process to strengthen decisions, empower my staff and leverage their knowledge and experience.  Yet there are some obvious road blocks, as my staff is relatively new, many decisions need immediate attention, and there are some issues I am sure my staff would rather not care to discuss.

So as a theme in this Blog I would like to chronicle my efforts to find a way to use this tool in a way that is appropriate for Wall Street Services.

Next post I will write on what I see as a first step.

http://www.wallstreetservices.com/wssite4/index.php

Last Post I spoke about my beloved friend Melba, the Subway Token Booth Clerk, and how she gets satisfaction and brings it to others by being excellent and doing just a bit more than what is required of her.  This clearly leads to a more satisfying work experience but the real reason for taking the extra step to be excellent in your job is more compelling.

The simple truth is – you cannot afford to be mediocre at your job.  As a result of this terrible economy, excellence is the New Normal and we all have to find ways where we can up our game.   For the last 18 months people with “decent” resumes have regularly contacted Wall Street Services unable to find a job.  Lately those calls are getting increasingly desperate and it breaks my heart.  These are people who I have worked with in the past and whom I know can do good work in the future.  So why can’t they find work?

They were just not good enough.

When the economy went to pieces my friends thought the recruiting side of my business would get much easier.  They were wrong.  It got much, much harder.  Sure there were lots more candidates but our client’s expectations went way up.  They wanted resumes with more time at each position and a higher quality of accomplishments.  So the hundreds of candidates who were out of work and were sending me resumes would not get their CV viewed by my clients.  My job screening just got much harder.  With many clients these expectations far exceeded the candidates we were accustomed to sending out.  As things have improved, the standards clients have adopted have not changed.

Perhaps as the job market improves clients will once again hire the candidates who are currently struggling.  I certainly pray for that.  But let us be clear: the underpinnings of our economy still remain unchanged and dramatic swings in employment will remain part of our reality.

How does that lead to excellence? Well when forced to cut staff, managers will always look to retain candidates who consistently provide value over and above what the job requires.  Those who are cut first are those whose performance is sub-par.  The next classification to get cut is those who do their job but not much more.

Doing your job is just not sufficient to ensure job security.  For that you need to take a step above your accountabilities and go above beyond what is asked.

http://www.wallstreetservices.com/wssite4/index.php

Most people don’t notice the token booth clerk as they leave the subway but Melba is hard to ignore.  Every morning as the hordes of people exit the turnstiles and rush to the escalator on their way to work Melba would greet the crowd with a cheery and loud “GOOD MORNING EVERYONE, HAPPY THURSDAY! HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY.”  She would do it all the time.  It made people smile – every time.

I can’t tell you how often I have seen serious faces break into smile as a result of Melba’s greetings.  Or the number of complete strangers who would have conversations with each other praising Melba’s cheeriness.  I even remember two people in the elevator of my office complaining about the “imposter” when Melba was out.

Now I love Melba because she makes a difference in the world.  Call me skeptical but I can’t imagine that being a clerk at a token booth would be a terribly fulfilling job: you are dealing with grouchy New Yorkers in a hurry all day long when their metro cards don’t work, giving directions and calming people down when the subway breaks down.  Not a lot of appreciation there.  So what I think is amazing about Melba is that she found a simple way to make a difference and to be satisfied in her job. 

And that is pure genius.   

I think the world needs more people like Melba – doing simple things that enhance the lives of others and add satisfaction to their work.  In fact there is no longer much room in the world for those who do not take that extra step.  Work is scarce and competition is frightful and just doing what is expected is no longer enough. 

More on that when I write the next post.  Meanwhile I am still sad Melba is gone…