Thursday, January 29, 2015

January 30, 2015: Trick Questions

I was chatting with a colleague recently about questions to ask a potential hire.  He had a personalized list he used.  He does not ask a candidate about their 5 strengths and weaknesses.  He does ask about a difficult situation and how the candidate handled it.  It's a good list.  It doesn't go down the standard "check the box if you asked this" list that most companies have.  Prepared candidates already have good answers for these.

I was impressed with 2 things he did.  The first is that he gave adequate time.  Half an hour on the phone is not enough time to gather sufficient information to make a good decision, unless the person simply fails.  Any competent candidate can pass a 30-minute interview, and the interview has simply wasted her time.  This manager gives an hour.  It's a structured hour, as well.  He gives a few minutes to introduce himself, asks the candidate if she has any questions, and then the interview starts.  It's more a conversation.  At 45 minutes in, the interview stops and asks the candidate if she has more questions.  When those questions are satisfied, the interviewer wraps up, and closes the call with 5 minutes to spare.  This is a great time model to follow as an interviewer.

The focus of this post, however, is on 2 trick questions.  The first is this, and I'll give you the setup to the question as well so you understand the full effect: "We're all under pressure today to get more done.  We have to multitask to accomplish more; it's a valuable skill.  How do you know when it's appropriate to multitask?"  The interviewer has done a few things here, and the question is tricky.  The interviewer has:

  1. stated a fact (we're under pressure)
  2. stated an opinion as fact (we have to multitask)
  3. asked a question about the candidate's judgment.


There's another thing he has done, though: the interviewer doesn't like multitasking.  He recognizes that failing to focus on the task at hand limits productivity.  The 4th thing he has done is test if the candidate a) thinks multitasking is useful and b) if the candidate is willing to state an opinion that is contrary to the interviewer's opinion.

In answering the question, the candidate will tell the interviewer not only when it is appropriate to multitask (the correct answer is "almost never" in study after study), but also if he is willing to contradict his boss.  Assuming the candidate is informed on this particular topic, does he have the guts to say so?  After the candidate answers, the interviewer relays a story about multitasking demonstrating how bad it can be.  Then there's another test for the candidate if he said that multitasking was good: does he equivocate to agree with the interviewer now?  And is he doing it in a boot-licking way, or has he demonstrated an ability to learn?

A boot-licking way: "Right, that's what I was trying to say before."
An ability to learn: "Interesting.  I have noticed that same thing happen before, but hadn't put it together that way.  Thanks for pointing that out."

I love that question.  Sure, the setup is a bit disingenuous, but boy is the answer informative!

Here's the 2nd trick question the interviewer uses: "In your skilled line of work, how do you rate your skill level against your peers on a scale of 1-10?"

An arrogant and inexperienced person might rate himself a 9 or 10.  "I'm the best," he might say.  That implies that he has little or nothing to learn from those around him, which is hogwash.  There is no one who knows everything, and someone who thinks he does know it all is going to be very hard to coach.  Someone who answers with a 2 obviously has a crisis of confidence.  You don't want that person, either.

A good answer might be 7.  A person who considers himself competent, but recognizes the importance of learning from others.  This interviewer typically asks the candidate to elaborate on the thought process to get to that number.  Again, this is a psychological test for fit.  It is not at all an evaluation of the individual's skill.  It is an evaluation of the person's willingness to learn and confidence to perform.

As you interview candidates, think of some good questions.  Questions that seem to ask one thing, but are evaluating something else.

"You are due at a customer meeting at 10.  It is 9:40 and you are half an hour away.  What do you do?"  This question assumes you did not plan well (you didn't leave on time), although it appears to be a question about customer management.  Does the candidate roll with the assumption that she is late?  A good candidate might say, "First, I plan appropriately so this situation doesn't come up.  Then..."

"You job duties require you to know the answer to every question in your area of technical expertise.  Failure to make a decision on the spot can cost the company millions of dollars.  You are faced with a question that you can't answer with certainty right away.  What is your decision?"  Is this a candidate who makes decisions without all the facts?  Does she realize that not making a decision can cost millions, but making the wrong decision can cost tens of millions?  Is she smart enough to know what she doesn't know and ask for help?


Wednesday, January 21, 2015

January 21, 2015: The Squirrel in My Living Room

I was in my living yesterday morning going through my morning routine when some motion caught my eye.  I turned to look at it, and found a squirrel staring at me.  What is a squirrel doing in my house?  And how did it get here?  And how do I get it out before I go to work this morning?

It was my first problem of the day.

I ignored it at first.  This was a conscious decision, and is a simple way to start solving problems.  No, it's not "ignore it and hope it goes away".  That would be ridiculous in this case, as all the doors and windows were closed.  Instead, it was an admission that I didn't know exactly what to do.  I needed more information before I could take action.  So I waited.  The squirrel walked over to the wood box next to the fireplace, and seemed comfortable enough in there for a bit.  I continued ignoring it.  A few minutes later I heard some crashing from the breakfast nook and I went to see what was going on.  The squirrel was climbing up through a birdhouse on the window seat, and jumping from the top of the birdhouse at the screen window.  Our windows open out, so the screens are on the inside.

So this, finally, was information I could use.  The squirrel did want to get outside, liked the birdhouse, and wanted to jump instead of walk.  I walked over to the window, removed the screen, opened the window wide enough for the squirrel to leave.  During this process, I scared it, and it jumped right past me, and that's when I noticed it was a flying squirrel.  I'd never knowingly seen one.  It was pretty cool.

The squirrel had run back to the living room, so I followed it.  It wandered back to the breakfast nook, where it climbed a different place and tried to fly out a different window.  It gave up on that window, and ignored the window I had kindly opened for it.  It tried to leave the breakfast nook, but I stood in its way.  It certainly could have run past me, but it was too scared.  Another key data point.  At this point I was hopeful this would be over soon.  It ran into the window seat, and tried to fly out another window.  It tried to leave the nook again.  I blocked it again.  Finally, it went back to the birdhouse and jumped into the open window.  And then it wiggled out of the open window.  And I resumed my morning, problem solved.

I think the practical applications of this experience are powerful.  When faced with a surprising situation, many of us will make decisions and take actions immediately.  If we have not encountered this exact situation before, that's not a good idea.  The first thing to come to mind when something new happens is, "Do I understand this situation well enough to take reliably positive action?  What are the risks and rewards of immediate action?"  I could have run through the house, opened all the windows and doors and waited for the squirrel to leave.  But I ran the risk of not seeing it go.  If I didn't see it go, it could still be in my house when I left for work, and I could have a movie-ready squirrel-ravaged home when I returned.  In the mean time, it was below freezing outside, and my house would get cold.

So I was able to define my problem a little better as I ignored it and let my mind think through the consequences and parameters of my problem.

  1. The squirrel wants to get outside (that's an assumption since I can't ask it).  
  2. It wants to leave by jumping instead of walking.
  3. It is scared of me.
  4. I can't catch it.


Some of these parameters are limiting.  Not being able to ask the squirrel what it wants and not being able to catch it are limits to my problem solving.  But knowing it was scared and that it wanted to jump out of the house provided good guidance for a solution.  By providing a place to exit the house via jumping and then using the squirrel's fear of me, I was able to effectively corral a wild rodent and make it do what we both wanted it to do.

Most of our problems can follow a similar pattern:

  1. Notice the problem
  2. Evaluate the problem: have you solved this particular problem before?  If not, what are the consequences to leaving it unsolved for now?  Unsolved permanently?
  3. Evaluate possible solution limits: what actions are possible?  Which are impossible?
  4. What other guiding factors can help you to shape your solution?  Are there people with specific expertise available to help you with technical solutions?  How does the problem want to be solved?
  5. What solutions appear within the confines of the limits and guiding factors you have discovered?  Are these solutions reasonable?  If so, you can take action.  If not, it's likely time to revisit the limits and guiding factors.


Eventually, this loop will usually provide you with a solution.  There are some problems that simply cannot be solved, and those are things we have to live with.  More on that next time.

Monday, January 19, 2015

January 19, 2015: Making it look easy

I recently joined a local Toastmasters group.  After a few meetings, I understood how they were supposed to flow, and I signed up to give the first speech.  It's called "The Icebreaker", and it is a self-introduction.  It's a short speech, 4-6 minutes, and should be memorized.  But as with all things I've seen so far at Toastmasters, memorization is optional.

I did not dread the speech.  Audiences don't bother me as a rule, although I do tend to pick topics and examples that are close to my heart, and I tend to get emotional when I talk about such things.  This is a key problem of mine when writing a speech.

I'm pleased to report it went well.  Feedback was honestly positive, and I got some good pointers on future improvements.  You know how these things go - you are supposed to give lots of positive feedback and a couple small pointers of things "you might want to think about for next time".  The comments were very positive, and one of them that stuck with me was that the evaluator said it came naturally to me.  Few things are further from the truth.  This is how I prepare for a public speaking engagement, or any time when the words I say are important and getting them wrong has real consequences.

I signed up for the speech in December, knowing I couldn't deliver it until mid-January.  From the moment I signed up for it, I thought about it.  It was in my mind constantly.  This is the first step in preparation for me: know it has to be done; think about for a few minutes; let it stew for a few weeks.  Although it appears that I'm not working on it, I have assigned some space in my brain for it, and my subconscious churns through it while I'm not paying attention.  We all do this to some degree or another.  This is why we may suddenly think, "I know what I want to do with the bathroom!" when we last talked about it 6 months ago.  I use this technique consciously, and I've done it enough that I have a good idea of how the size of the task measures up against the amount of time I have to spend to prepare my mind to work on it.  10-20 minutes of working through possible approaches one evening in December was about right for a 5 minute speech in January.

I sat down last week to write it.  This is the next step.  Make time, sit down, and get your subconscious' results on paper.  While I liked the content, the speech was WAY too long.  And the next day, I wasn't impressed with the approach.  The stories were fine, but they weren't pointed in a direction I liked.  This is hard to describe.  But say you're telling a story about opening gifts at Christmas.  The focus of your story could be on the thoughts of the people who bought the gifts; or on the reaction of the people opening them; or the plight of the Chinese factory workers who made them; or grandma's hair; or the mess you had to clean up afterward.  It's the same story, but points in a different direction.

So I had a rough draft, serviceable, but not what I wanted.  And I stepped away again.  Sometimes you have the luxury of doing that: of making a rough draft and letting it sit some more.  Preparation allows that time.  Often in business environments, we don't have the luxury of waiting.  But we do have the option of thinking about what we might need to create in the next few months and letting our minds percolate on it.

I sat down this morning to write another draft.  I knew it could only be 3 pages double-spaced, max.  And I knew how long it would take me to write something of that length on a topic I knew as well as I knew myself.  An hour later, it was done.  I read it through.  5:58 vs a tie limit of 6:00.  Not good.  I crossed out a few lines, read through it again, and went off to do something else.  I came back to it later, and tried to give the speech, using my notes as little as possible.  Then I did it without notes.  There were some things I noticed on my previous reads that I thought might not translate for the audience.  So I fixed them in the memorized version.  It ran to 8:45 before I checked my time.

Oh no.  Panic time.  Ok, not panic, but "how do I systematically reduce this and still keep the weight of the subject matter in tact?"  My topic was a self introduction, but I themed it along the choices we make and how they define us.  My next attempt was shorter at 5:35.  By this point, after a month of percolating ideas and stories, 2 drafts, 3 runs reading it, and 3 runs memorized, I felt ready enough.  I drove to the meeting location early and did a run in the car.  5:30 or so.  I was ready.

For a topic I didn't know so well, memorizing would have been much more difficult.  For this one, it was easier.  I was not natural when I was practicing.  I stumbled over words, corrected myself, skipped key points and went back to them.  But practice makes better, and better is good.

I use these techniques often in the workplace.  Before every important presentation, I block time in a conference room alone to rehearse.  Before every single difficult performance evaluation I deliver, I take 15 minutes or so to remind myself of the key points of discussion and they way I want to frame my constructive criticism.  What objections will the person likely have?  How should I respond to them?  For any disciplinary action, I set aside a full hour, preferably the day before the action.

Why?  Why is it so important?  Because of this fact: you are the manager, and it is that important to the person you are talking to.  You owe them that much respect and that much time.  What you are doing and saying can change that person's entire career.  You had better take it seriously.

And that is how you make it look easy.  It's not easy.  And it is necessary.  And it is worth it.