Treat them right and the candidate’s references will become your hiring allies

To make checking references more than a meaningless requirement to be ticked-off the hiring to-do list, interviewers have to get the references to assume a role they likely

had not bargained for—being members of the interviewer’s team.

Whoa, you say. Don’t references “work” for the candidates who recruited them to assist them in the job search? Aren’t they primed to describe the candidate in glowing terms?

Certainly that is what both the candidates and references expect will happen when the interviewer calls. But as an interviewer, you want reference checks to unfold differently.

The key to converting references to allies is to manage the reference-checking process effectively, so that you shift the conversation from a focus on the reference’s opinion of the candidate to collecting facts about the candidate’s past performance. Rather than asking the reference’s opinions, seek relevant evidence of the candidate’s past on-the-job performance.

Even so, it is inevitable that you will need to listen to comments such as the following before moving on to gathering high-quality information that will help you decide if this is the right person to fill your vacancy:

“She is a great team member and always goes above and beyond . . . is well organized . . . committed . . . cheerful . . . a true asset . . . we’ll really miss her . . . a decision you won’t regret.”

A while back, a Briefly Noted reader provided an example of how not to conduct reference checks. She described the experience of people who agreed to be references for a job-seeking friend.

“They asked for two references. Then the three-person hiring committee booked conference calls and, as a group, utterly grilled the references to the point that they felt they were being vetted for the job.”

What she portrayed here is disturbing. The way the interview panel treated the references would have done nothing to create allies to the hiring process.

The way to recruit references as allies is to treat them as allies should be treated. Show them respect — the type of respect you would show trusted advisors, which is what you want them to become.

When you contact references, thank them for their willingness to become references. Show respect for their time. Estimate how long you will require, then confirm that this is a good time to talk. If not, schedule a better time to discuss the candidate.

Allow the reference to say what they want to say about the candidate before asking your questions. I often open reference checks with this soft request: “I have a few questions that I would like to ask you about _____, but before I do are there any thoughts about him that you would like to share with me?” Some will share their thoughts about the candidate, while others will suggest that we head straight into my questions.

The questions you ask when checking references should explore the same topics as were raised when you interviewed the candidate, plus candidate-specific questions that came to mind as a result of what the candidate said or did during the interview. Be prepared to probe for additional information. This questioning may be intense at times, but does not need to become combative. There is no need to badger the reference. Remember, by answering your questions they are doing you a favour that can help you make the right hiring decision.

The Briefly Noted reader reported that her friend is now “hesitant to ask those references to speak on her behalf again, since it was such an onerous process.”

Hopefully, it isn’t and definitely should not be. When references feel they have been treated disrespectfully, they won’t supply the quality and quantity of information which would help you make your hiring decision.

In addition, they may be reluctant to agree to serve as references in the future, making it more difficult for interviewers to learn more about candidates to ensure interviewers make the right hiring decisions.

==

Getting high-quality information from reference checks is an important aspect of the hiring process, and is a topic which is explored during my full-day Interview Right to Hire Right workshop. Please contact me (nmscott@telus.net or (780) 433-1443) to learn more or to schedule a workshop for members of your leadership team.

You Asked: “Are there some questions that should be asked in every interview?”

It all depends on what you mean by “every interview.”

If you are talking about all the interviews that are conducted to fill a specific vacancy, the answer is “Yes.” You should ask the same questions during every interview. Not doing so would be unfair to the candidates. An omitted question might have led to an opportunity for the candidate to shine. It would also be unfair to you when it’s time to make the hiring decision. You would know how one candidate responded under circumstances similar to what your staff face, but not another candidate. You would not have a complete picture. Comparing the candidates’ responses would be impossible.

On the other hand, planning to ask the same questions of candidates for all positions within the organization ignores the reality that positions are different. Each requires its own set of competencies. You should develop and ask position-specific questions.

Still, there will likely be some questions that will be asked of candidates for all positions. These questions speak to the core values of the organization. They are linked to the principles that should guide the actions and decision making of all staff, whatever positions they occupy.

For example, if teamwork is part of the culture, you should pose a question that will help you determine if the candidate has demonstrated that she is a team player. Other common questions might focus on customer service, business ethics and effective communications.

The rest of the interview will consist of position-specific questions, reflecting the unique set of competencies required to succeed in each type of position.

How interviewers are like literature’s famous detectives

Sherlock Holmes. Inspector Morse. Miss Marple. As an interviewer, you have more in common with these detectives of classic murder mysteries than you may realize. Both detectives and interviewers are seeking evidence. Who committed murder most foul? Which candidate is the most suitable for the job?

There are several ways in which the detectives’ investigative techniques are similar to the hiring process. I will focus on three, and perhaps write about others in future articles:

Limiting the number of suspects – The number of potential suspects in a mystery novel and the number of applicants to be interviewed must be manageable. A story with too many possible evildoers would only confuse and frustrate readers. The time that managers can devote to interviewing is limited. There’s not enough time to meet with everyone who applies.

Mystery writers control the number of suspects by setting the crime in locations that are cut off from the rest of the world by geography or weather: an island in The Lighthouse by P.D. James, a hotel in The Secret of Annexe 3 by Colin Dexter, desolate moors in The Hound of the Baskervilles by Arthur Conan Doyle, a country manor during a winter storm in The Mousetrap by Agatha Christie, or a train delayed by snow in Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express. Isolation prevents the escape of the potential suspects or the introduction of other characters, with the exception of the detective and his team of investigators, who always seem to make it through despite geographical and meteorological challenges.

Interviewers limit the number of applicants who will be interviewed by eliminating some based on what is found in resumes or on application forms, inviting only those whose training and experience they believe best predicts future success to meet with them.

Establishing Alibis – Early on during the investigations, the detectives require everyone to account for their movements around the time when the crime was committed. Do they have an alibi?

Interviewers do the same, expecting applicants to account for how they have spent their time. What is their educational background? Where have they worked previously? When? What tasks were assigned to them?

Detectives don’t accept what suspects say about where they were or what they were doing when the crime was committed. They ask, “Who can confirm your whereabouts?” Interviewers should also not accept what the candidates say about their background and experience as complete, or as completely truthful.

When they ask for a list of references that can be contacted to learn more about the candidates, interviewers are creating an alibi-checking process.

Interrogation to uncover facts, not to listen to speculation – It’s not enough for detectives to know who committed the crime; they must provide evidence that proves guilt. Their investigations must lead to a factual narrative of what happened leading up to and following the crime that a prosecutor can present to a judge and jury. As P.D. James wrote in Great Aunt Allie’s Flypapers, “The British accusatorial system of trial is designed to answer one question: is the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged? Exploration of the nuances of personality, speculation and gossip have no place in the witness box.”

The questions that detectives ask, such as those posed by Adam Dalgliesh and his team to the suspects who lived and worked in the manor and plastic surgery clinic where a patient was discovered murdered in her bed in James’s The Private Patient, are intended to elicit facts, such as:

• Did Mrs. Skeffington mention anything about hearing the lift?
• Did either of you hear or see anything unusual while you were on that floor?
• And you noticed this on your return, not when you were helping your wife carry up the tea?

The purpose of the questions that interviewers write and ask should be to learn what the candidate did in the past, not what they would do in the future if faced with hypothetical scenarios presented by interviewers. Behaviour description interview (BDI) questions are designed to encourage candidates to describe what they have done, rather that speculate on what they would do.

• Tell us about a time when there were several conflicting demands on your time.
• Provide us with an example of when you were called upon to make a presentation on behalf of your employer.
• Describe what happened when an upset customer approached you.

Both detectives and interviewers must be prepared to refocus candidates, suspects, witnesses and references on the facts when they inevitably stray into the realm of speculation and opinion. In the words famously misattributed to Sgt. Joe Friday from the radio and later TV series Dragnet: “Just the facts, Ma’am.”

The most ridiculous interview question ever asked is . . .

Two questions, actually. An online survey of Briefly Noted readers produced two “winners,” although I’m not sure that’s the correct term to use where referring to these questions.

When back at the beginning of July, I invited Briefly Noted readers to share examples of ridiculous questions they had been asked during interviews, I promised a $10 Tim Hortons gift card to the person who submitted what Briefly Noted readers would identify as the most ridiculous interview question ever asked.

With two entries receiving the same number of votes, it only seems fair that there would be two prizes, one for Shawn O’Neill and the other for Deb Huber. A gift card (although not a Tim Hortons card, which would be of little use to someone who lives in Arizona) is also on its way to Virginia Maya, who both voted and added to our collection of ridiculous questions. Her name was selected at random from among all those who contributed additional ridiculous questions.

A characteristic of most ridiculous questions is that they are confusing. The purpose for asking the question is unclear and how the responses might help the interviewer make a hiring decision is difficult to imagine. Certainly that was true for Shawn, who was requested, during an interview for a teaching job in Singapore, to “tell us about the last time you cried.”

“I could only think about (an incident) a month earlier and taking a hockey puck in the face. Not sure I cried, but it really hurt,” Shawn wrote. “I guess it was the wrong response, as I didn’t get the job.”

No job perhaps, but, “at least it was a nice week in Singapore!”

The question that Deb was asked was not only ridiculous, but it was also inappropriate and likely violated the protection provided by human rights legislation: “Have you ever had a _________infection?” She invited us to “fill in the blank,” suggesting that what she was asked “is probably not printable.”

Deb wrote that she learned two important lessons from the experience about preparing for interviews: “Make sure that everyone who is on the interview panel is well-prepped about what cannot be asked and [that there is] a list of pre-approved questions.”

In addition to the question that Virginia added while completing the online survey (“What is your favourite meal?”) there were several additions to the collection of ridiculous interview questions.

One person was asked, “If you were an animal, what would you be?” Another offered two examples of ridiculous questions, which she asked during recent interviews, along with some thoughts she may not expressed to those asking the questions at the time (unless she had already decided she didn’t want to be associated with people who asked such ridiculous questions):

“What’s your favourite book?” (On what day? What can you divine if I say Anne of Green Gables today or A Brief History of Time tomorrow?)

“Where do you see your career going in five to 10 years?” (Really? You want me to tell you that I want your job? Or lie? And have you noticed my age? I hope to be retired in 10 years!)

Another reader directed us to an article on the website of the British Magazine Marie Claire, which included 10 questions from each side of the Atlantic. Here is just a sample:

“How many calories are in a grocery store?”

“What would you take to a lonely island with you and why?”

“What cartoon character would you be and why?”

“What would you do if you were the one survivor in a plane crash?”

“Who would win in a fight between Spider-Man and Batman?”

“If you were asked to unload a 747 full of jelly beans, what would you do?”

===

The purpose of my Interview Right to Hire Right program is to provide participants with an approach to writing questions, which will produce the information necessary to make the right hiring decisions. Contact me to schedule training for your team.

What is the most ridiculous interview question ever asked?

When I hear about some questions that interviewers ask, I scratch my head. What are they thinking? What can they possibility learn and how do they use what they heard when making their hiring decisions?

I’m not thinking about poorly worded questions that require the candidates to supply information already available on their resumes, or inquiries that violate human rights laws. No, what I am referring to are those ridiculous questions that some managers ask:

“If you were a tree, what type of tree would you be?” (Feel free to substitute animal, flower or superhero for tree.)

“Suppose you were stranded on a desert island, with whom would you want to share your island?”

“Here’s a paper clip. In two minutes, how many different uses can you come up with to use this paper clip? I’ll time you.”

How do they interpret the responses? Have these interviewers been issued secret decoder rings? Where do I get one?

Now it’s your turn. I would like to hear about your experience. What was the most ridiculous question that you or someone you know was asked during an interview? Or it could be a question that you have read about having been asked.

Email your ridiculous questions to nmscott@telus.net and you could win a $10 Tim Hortons gift card. I will publish all the questions submitted by Monday, August 24 and ask Briefly Noted readers to pick the winner—the most ridiculous question ever asked.

Click here to subscribe to Briefly Noted and to receive, every two weeks, a question to help you identify potential top performers, along with other tips, tools and techniques to interview more effectively and recognize and retain staff.

Don’t ask about career goals until after you hire

Just because some questions are frequently asked during interviews doesn’t mean that they should be asked. There are questions that will yield little information that will be useful when it’s time to make your hiring decision.

Among the questions that should not be asked are those inquiries that require the

candidate to list strengths and weaknesses, to explain “why I should hire you,” or to describe career goals.

I’ve reviewed many books that were written to prepare job seekers to impress interviewers and found that most advise readers to anticipate these questions and then suggest how to respond. As a result, candidates who prepared for the interview will be ready with well-rehearsed responses to these inquiries.

What you hear will tell you less about the candidate than about the author whose book he or she read. Asking these questions is generally a waste of the limited time scheduled for the interview.

This doesn’t mean that all these questions are bad questions—although most are—when asked under the right circumstances.

One such questions is, “What are your career goals?” or some variation thereof, such as, “What do you see yourself doing five years from now?” While this is not a useful inquiry during interviews, it is a question that should be asked of new hires.

Knowing where a new employee hopes his or her working life will evolve provides you with information that can be considered when developing your staff-recognition and retention strategies. It is, in fact, information you should have about all employees.

When a staff member does a good job, an Appropriate way to recognize her is with an opportunity to learn a new skill that will help her realize her career goal. This type of recognition could take several forms:

• Opportunities to attend in-house training
• Participation in a mentoring program
• Tuition reimbursement
• Online courses
• Attendance at an industry conference or public seminar
• Membership in a professional association
• Opportunity to visit other departments to learn how they contribute to the organization’s overall success
• Subscription to a professional publication
• A book, the topic of which relates to the staff member’s career goals

Linking recognition to staff members’ career goals is a win/win situation for both the employee and employer. The employee is closer to his/her desired future and the employer has a more skilled staff member who can make a greater contribution.

Some may reject this notion of providing training that will help employees develop skills that will make them attractive to other employers. “Why would I train them, if they are just going to leave?”

But the opposite may be true. Employees may commit to an organization that cares enough to partner with him in learning and achieving his career goals. Employees are more likely to stay where they feel the organization cares about them as individuals and their career aspirations.

What weight loss teaches us about interviewing and hiring

The results of a recent study of weight loss may be discouraging, but hardly surprising.

 

“Long-term weight loss happens to only the smallest minority of people,” University of Minnesota psychologist Traci Mann is quoted as saying in an online article by CBC reporter Kelly Crowe. While dieters are
initially successful in losing weight, it’s likely that they will regain what they lost and more. Only about five per cent maintain their new weight over time.

Based on my own experiences and my observations of most other well-intentioned dieters, I would have predicted these results. It’s more evidence that:

Past performance is the best predictor of future performance.

 This line will be familiar to anyone who has attended my Interview Right to Hire Right workshops. This principle is the basis of the concept of behaviour description interviewing. The way people did things in the past is the way they most often will do things in the future.

We are creatures of habit. If you have tended to overeat in the past, the chances are good that you will return to these same habits after meeting your weight-lost goals.

Sustained weight lost requires that we change a lifetime of poor eating habits, but changing how we do what we do is difficult for most people. Having reached our weight-loss goal (or modifying our target to one that is more “realistic”), we relax. We pay less attention to what we consume. Eventually, most of us revert to our previous meal and between-meals eating practices and soon all the weight we lost has returned.

The same is true in the world of work. Staff tends to approach work-related tasks in the same ways as they have always approached them, often despite having planned to take a better approach or having been trained to complete the task differently. It is so easy to slip back into past practices.

Knowing this, you should use interviews and reference checks to discover how job candidates have completed tasks similar to what they are likely to encounter in your workplace. Just like dieters who return to their previous eating habits, most employees will revert to how they have performed tasks in the past.

Ask questions that require candidates to respond with descriptions of how they have completed tasks similar to what they will encounter if you hire them. Look for evidence in their answers that how they have done things aligns with how you want things done. Avoid asking how they would deal with these situations, and don’t accept an answer which includes their speculation about how they would handle the situation. There is no evidence in these answers that what they say they would do is how they would actually perform when faced with circumstances similar to what they will encounter in your workplace.

For those who are overweight, the greatest challenge is not losing weight. It is sustaining that weight loss—avoiding a return to the habits that cause them to have been overweight to begin with.

When hiring, the challenge is not to hire someone who says he or she would do the job. It is hiring someone who will do the job as you want it done—those who provide evidence of having completed the required tasks in the right way in the past.

==

During his Interview Right to Hire Right workshops, Nelson Scott provides participants with tools, tips and techniques to enable them to identify behaviours that are the key to future on-the-job success and to use this information to craft questions to uncover evidence that identifies which candidates have previously done the right things in the right way. Contact Nelson (nmscott@telus.net or (780) 433-1443) to schedule Interview Right to Hire Righttraining for the leaders in your organization who are committed to hiring the right people.

Complimentary e-book identifies 13 reasons managers are “unlucky” when hiring and suggests how to avoid these mistakes

Hiring decisions can turn out badly. When this happens, those who made the decision are tempted to blame the unexpected outcome on bad luck. After all, “you can’t be lucky every time you hire. You’ll have better luck next time.”

It turns out that luck doesn’t have that much to do with it. Bad hiring decisions usually come down to the interviewer having made easily avoidable mistakes during the process.

After conducting thousands of interviews, making hundreds of decisions to hire and being responsible for more bad hires that I care to admit, I have concluded that there are 13 reasons for the bad luck that managers complain of after a hiring decision goes wrong. I listed them in a brief article that I wrote several years ago.

Recently, I added to what I had written, and suggested ways to avoid making these mistakes. The result is an e-book, 13 Reasons Managers Are “Unlucky” when Hiring. I am offering this book to clients and Briefly Noted readers at no cost.

To obtain your copy of 13 Reasons Managers Are “Unlucky” when Hiring, send an email to nmscott@telus.net, including the words “13 reasons” in the subject line.

Each chapter focuses on one of the reasons that some hiring decisions don’t turn out well, including:

• Not understanding what makes employees successful
• Too little attention paid to resumes
• Decisions based on first impressions
• Asking the wrong questions
• Not asking the right questions
• Wasted reference checks

And, as if 13 reasons weren’t enough, there is even a bonus reason.

Hiring success depends on more than wishing for a better outcome the next time a manager rolls the recruiting dice. Better luck comes to those who understand the common mistakes managers make when hiring and act to avoid them. 13 Reasons Managers Are “Unlucky” when Hiring suggests how to do that. Request your copy today.