| Some hiring authorities have had the good fortune of | | | | sales process, associated process metrics, and deal |
| being trained in various interviewing skills. I know I have, | | | | triage/strategic sales planning process ensuring we |
| both as an executive hiring authority and as an | | | | were deploying limited resources on opportunities we |
| executive recruiter. | | | | had the best chance of winning, and cutting bait earlier |
| One of the most common interviewing techniques, | | | | on those we realized we lacked significant competitive |
| behavioral interviewing, is designed around the premise | | | | advantage. As a result, we spent more time not losing |
| of past behaviors being some sort of an indicator of | | | | deals we knew we could win, and less time chasing |
| future performance. The problem with behavioral | | | | deals we shouldn't have been chasing to begin with. |
| interviewing is it focuses on how someone – | | | | The outcome also reinforced the whole process with |
| behaved – in a given historical situation; it doesn't | | | | the individual contributors who became much better at |
| get into how someone drove an outcome. | | | | assessing our critical qualifying criteria much earlier in |
| Most all professional positions within a corporate | | | | the sales process as a result. |
| hierarchy have a set of business objectives the | | | | Another Candidate could simply have said: By firing the |
| position is designed to impact or achieve. That set of | | | | sales people that didn't deliver against their forecasted |
| business objectives logically imply a certain set of | | | | numbers. |
| capabilities and attributes the individual occupying the | | | | For hiring authorities, getting to – how – |
| position had better possess if they are to have any | | | | someone produced a result can be a challenge. Why? |
| chance at successfully executing against the business | | | | Because we live in a world that rewards results |
| objectives the position is designed to impact or | | | | – not capabilities and attributes. As a result, most |
| achieve. | | | | candidates most likely not thought about, and are not |
| What someone has accomplished, or been responsible | | | | used to answering questions about, what capabilities |
| for, only communicates an individual may or may not | | | | and attributes they leveraged to produce a given |
| possess the requisite scope and scale of experience. It | | | | business result. Unfortunately, this translates into a |
| is simply a sanity check to make sure a prospective | | | | typical response to any question asking a candidate |
| candidate is not stepping into a role over their head | | | | how they accomplished an outcome usually being |
| from a scope and scale of responsibility perspective. | | | | prefaced with "Um, well let's see, I uh," with a not well |
| Focusing on – how – someone | | | | thought out response following. |
| accomplished the business results they have produced | | | | Candidates desiring to make a better interview |
| tells a hiring authority if the candidate might possess | | | | impression should spend more time assessing how |
| the capabilities and attributes necessary to | | | | they actually drove the outcomes they are claiming to |
| successfully execute against the business objectives a | | | | have driven. This will not only give a candidate more |
| given position is designed to impact or achieve. | | | | confidence going into an interview, it will also set them |
| Ultimately, you are hiring – how – someone | | | | up to interview infinitely better. This level of awareness |
| produces results and – not – what results | | | | will also enable a candidate to better assess if an |
| they have produced. | | | | opportunity is going to maximize the leverage of their |
| Example: | | | | associated unique capabilities and attributes. |
| Hiring Authority: What – did you produce against | | | | Hiring authorities desiring to make better hires should |
| your annual quota objective of $100M in revenue? | | | | spend more interview time understanding how |
| Candidate: I was able to drive 35% growth and | | | | someone produced all the great results they claim to |
| produced $135M in revenue. | | | | have produced. This will also blow away the smoke |
| Hiring Authority: That is great. That is similar to the | | | | from candidates that really played no role in the |
| growth we believe we can drive (i.e., check in the box). | | | | outcomes they are claiming to have driven. |
| Now tell me, how did you do that? | | | | The ability to identify if a candidate possesses the |
| Candidate: I leveraged my knowledge of strategic | | | | capabilities and attributes necessary to successfully |
| sales process and ability to ensure a strategic sales | | | | execute against the business objectives a given |
| process is implemented an individual contributor level. | | | | position is designed to impact will ultimately lead to |
| Specifically, I implemented a standardized strategic | | | | better hiring decisions. |