Skip to main content

Interview techniques that work

I have been working over the past year and a half with several folks, mostly new library directors, as a coach. One of my clients just hired a key person for her team, and was curious enough about a hiring technique I have used in the past to give it a try herself.

Mostly, this is a version of the "assessment center" technique known as the "leaderless discussion." (You can find out more about the assessment center here.)

The core idea is very simple. First, know what you're looking for - at least in the sense of demonstrable skills.

Second, create a scenario or exercise in which that skill must be demonstrated. In the case of many leadership positions, a leaderless panel discussion, large enough to promote real interaction (at least five people) and around some relevant job topics, is a rich source for observational data.

Third, have multiple observers, who have been coached about how to observe people's communication behaviors (I give them a chart with headings - voice, non-verbal, process management, content - then walk them through some examples). Usually, observers are assigned to watch one person in particular, with at least one dedicated observer per candidate.

Fourth, after the exercise, excuse the candidates, then pool the comments. The facilitator has to be careful to note the difference between a judgment and the behavior itself. So if someone offers that "this person is too aggressive," the facilitator asks, "what behavior made you think that?" Let's say the answer is something like, "she kept cutting off other speakers." Then the facilitator asks, "Did anyone else see that?" The object here is to build up a communication profile that is as specific and grounded in observed behavior as possible. Bottom line: this is how the person manifests their abilities, and that's what you're going to get on the job. Then I have some suggestions about ways to get a rough calculation of the fit of the candidate for the position.

That takes care of one half of the interview: figuring out if an organization wants to hire someone. (And it also allows a lot of people to participate in a transparent interview exercise that is staggeringly efficient: 7 candidates in and out in 45 minutes, with as many observers as you want to accommodate.) But what about the other half? How does the candidate know if he or she would take the job if offered?

The new twist: put the staff on a panel (typically, the director, a supervisor, a colleague, and maybe a customer, internal or external). Ask them: what do you think this job is really about - its key function and key needs. Then the candidates watch, learning what people will expect of them, and watching how they communicate with each other. All of the candidates hear the same information. This exercise takes only about 30 minutes.

Again, take the two together, and you get a very cost-effective process, focused and on point, with both sides better understanding what they might be getting into. But there are some unexpected benefits.
  • The staff panel tends to draw the team a little closer together. They hear each other talk about the job needs, and they can't help but want to make the place seem like a good place to work. 
  • The focus on communication behavior tends to make the staff more thoughtful about their own behavior, and what kind of style would be a good addition to the staff. 
The combination of the two tends to promote better teams, and a more mindful and positive culture.

At any rate, I was delighted to hear that the process worked well for my client: helping her get at the subtle cues that mark the right hire, and making the organization itself a little stronger. Since few decisions are as important as getting the right people on the bus, that's a big deal.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Uncle Bobby's Wedding

Recently, a library patron challenged (urged a reconsideration of the ownership or placement of) a book called "Uncle Bobby's Wedding." Honestly, I hadn't even heard of it until that complaint. But I did read the book, and responded to the patron, who challenged the item through email and requested that I respond online (not via snail-mail) about her concerns. I suspect the book will get a lot of challenges in 2008-2009. So I offer my response, purging the patron's name, for other librarians. Uncle Bobby's wedding June 27, 2008 Dear Ms. Patron: Thank you for working with my assistant to allow me to fit your concerns about “Uncle Bobby's Wedding,” by Sarah S. Brannen, into our “reconsideration” process. I have been assured that you have received and viewed our relevant policies: the Library Bill of Rights, the Freedom to Read, Free Access to Libraries for Minors, the Freedom to View, and our Reconsideration Policy. The intent of providing all tha

Installing Linux on a 2011 Macbook Pro

I had two MacBook Pros, both 13" models from late 2011. One had 4 gigs of RAM, and the other 8. Both of them were intolerably slow. In the first case, I wound up installing CleanMyMac , which did arcane things to various files, and put up alerts to warn me about disappearing memory. But it made the machine useable again, albeit not exactly speedy. I changed some habits: Safari as browser rather than Firefox or Chrome. I tried to keep tabs down to four or five. The second Mac had bigger problems. Its charger was shot, but even with that replaced, the battery tapped out at 75%. More importantly, the whole disk had been wiped, which meant that it wouldn't boot. Recently, I had downloaded a couple of Linux distributions ("distros") on USB drives. Elementary OS 5.1 (Hera) was reputed to be a lightweight, beautiful distro that shared some aesthetics with the Mac OS. So I thought I'd give it a try. Ahead of time, I tried to read up on how difficult it might be to

The enemies of literature

Every year, apologists for the restriction of reading stumble over themselves to "mock" Banned Books Week. Walther (Oct 1, 2023's " The Enemies of Literature ") upholds the grand tradition. Complaints about banning, the argument goes, are simply false. Walther writes, "In zero cases since the advent of Banned Books Week has a local or state ordinance been passed in this country that forbids the sale or general possession of any of the books in question." Yet Texas HB 900 was passed on June 13 of this year. It requires book vendors to assign ratings to books based only on the presence of depictions or references to sex. If a book is "sexually explicit" and has no direct connection to required curriculum, it must be pulled from the school. (One wonders what happens to the Bible, and its story of Lot's daughters, first offered by their father for gang rape, and whom he later sleeps with.) In Arkansas, legislation stated that school and pu