Issue link: https://read.uberflip.com/i/2582
www.iltanet.org 42 Peer to Peer In his book "Hiring Smart," Dr. Pierre Mornell cites what he calls Mornell's Maxim: "the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." Mornell describes a system that accurately predicts the future performance of job candidates. While at first blush this sounds like "magic," his insights point to a realistic approach to an almost zero-defect hiring methodology. Mornell's approach was inspired by Tony Razzano, a master talent scout for the San Francisco 49ers and the reason for their string of successful Super Bowl wins in the 1980s. Razzano once selected a punter after observing him successfully kick 10 field goals with his shoes on and another 10 field goals with his shoes off in an empty stadium. Unfortunately, the punter couldn't handle the pressure of rushing linemen, poor snaps and crowd noise, and he was cut after several mediocre seasons. Following this hiring mistake, Razzano changed his selection system by insisting on seeing a player in action for at least 200 plays before recruiting him. This new system resulted in harvesting Joe Montana and Jerry Rice, two keys to the 49ers winning legacy and among the finest players in National Football League history. Mornell suggests that as business professionals we must translate the sports analogy presented in his example and apply it to our hiring situation. While we might not see 200 "plays," we have plenty of opportunity to see "snapshots" of a candidate's performance before, during and after the interview process. It is not the answer to one or two specific interview questions that should get a candidate the job offer, but the consistent responses to all of the questions that create the "portfolio" that makes him or her seem desirable. People don't change much. They are either detail-oriented, or they are not. They are either people-oriented, or they are not. If we identify the skills and personality attributes that are indicators of success for the job for which we are interviewing, our goal should be to ask questions in such a way as to reveal if the candidate possesses the right combination of those skills and attributes to predict that he or she will be successful. One easy way to do this is to look closely at those around us who are the most successful for a given job role and examine what makes them so successful. Customer service skills might top my list for a level 1 helpdesk analyst, troubleshooting skills might lead the list for another role and perseverance for yet another. Screen Before you Call I tend to split the received resumes into three piles (A, B, C). Those in the "C" pile are in some way not qualified or desirable, and they are not looked at again. This ideally should be the largest pile. The "A" pile should represent the "cream of the crop." This pile should have very few resumes in it. Decisiveness at this step will allow you to limit the set of candidates with whom you will take additional steps and time. The rest go in the "B" pile, which can be tapped if the "A" pile is exhausted for any reason. I usually have 30-minute phone interviews with the candidates in the "A" pile, particularly if there are more than a handful of candidates. These are one-on-one phone calls with candidates simply to establish if they are worth bringing in and spending the time on an in-person interview. Don't Gloss Over Reference Checks Treat reference checks as a real step in the evaluation process. Too many managers pick their candidates out in advance with an offer to hire "subject to satisfactory reference checks." This step is often reduced to a line item check list to verify such items as schools attended and degrees conferred. We are fortunate in the legal field to be part of a small community. As the "Cheers" saying goes, everybody knows your name. Often candidates have past experience at other law firms listed on their resumé. When this is the case, and you know individuals at that firm closely enough, I suggest that you reverse the order and perform the reference check early in the hiring process — after resumé screening/phone interviews, but before the in-person interview. Who would better be able to answer questions about the candidates' skills and attributes than someone that worked with them? Whether or not the candidates have provided specific names as references is unimportant — their reputations will precede them! A note of warning: Do no call their present employers unless they've specifically made it clear that it is acceptable to do so. To do otherwise could be dangerous to your health. Interview as a Team I prefer to interview candidates as part of a team (usually myself and the hiring manager). While this takes more time, I think there is significant value to the process. This format allows more than one person to see the same candidate's reactions to each question, and to see them through different eyes. It is common to have different interpretations as to the quality of individual answers to certain questions. This gives an additional level of objectivity that is not present with only one interviewer. It also forces the interviewers to stay with the program together, not easily allowing one interviewer to throw in the proverbial towel just because he or she "really didn't like" a response. The interviewing managers learn to play questions off of one another and learn from each other, rapidly building their skills in the behavioral interviewing process. Ask the Right Questions It is critical that we construct our interview processes to be successful. An important aspect of this is having the right interview questions geared toward what the applicant did and how he or she did it in their previous jobs. Interview questions such as, "Give me three words to describe yourself," provide no substantive information about the candidate. A favorite question of mine is, "Tell me about the single most important project of which you are the proudest in your