This quick, highly useful read is filled with various nuggets about how to get the most out of your firm's recruiting. Though it is targeted at hiring managers, I think it will help those involved at any level of the hiring process. (1)
The big idea I drew from this book addressed the design of interview questions. The best questions bring out the truth quickly. They force candidates to describe what happened in the past and allow them an opportunity to describe their role in the event. At the end of the answer, the why and the how of the candidate's role must be clear. Otherwise, what was the point of the question?
A poorly designed question does not invite the truth. It leaves no invitation to describe how and no opportunity to explain why. Instead, the question leads the conversation toward hypotheticals, speculation, or promise-making. Most bad questions have some element of the hypothetical and any such question must be disregarded immediately. There is simply no valuable information within an answer to such a question because anyone can come into an interview and claim anything.
After I read this book, I tried to craft interview questions to bring out the facts from job candidates. But an overly designed question will not always draw out the best answers and there is no reward for highlighting our own genius by crafting a clever question for a candidate. Usually, the best questions simply dig into unclear answers or ask for further explanation of an impressive resume item.
One up: The book advocates a common sense approach for crafting good questions. To know why something happened, ask 'why did this happen'. If the original answer is unclear, follow up with phrases such as 'can you help me understand...' or 'can you describe in more detail...'. These phrases help keep candidates on the same train of thought without forcing them to wonder if they gave a bad answer.
Simple follow ups such as 'can you provide an example of that?' or 'can you describe a time where you did what you just claimed?' are also very important questions. These are the tools needed to turn answers drifting toward the hypothetical back to the facts about the candidate.
The 'common sense' approach is what I liked most about the book. It extended beyond just forming questions. If a hiring team is unsure about a candidate, the book suggests scheduling another interview. Duh, right? It seems simple enough on the surface. But in practice, many hiring managers prefer to stick to some vague notion of 'a process' (or even worse, The Process) at the cost of hiring some idiot an extra round of interviews would have weeded out.
One down: This book made an effort to remove specifics about the author's area of expertise (hiring for a sales team) but I think there was just a little too much unnecessary detail presented here to make the book a general guide for all hiring teams. A careful reader should focus on the basics to get the most out of this read.
If you want to take candidates and their spouses out to dinner, though, by all means, go right ahead!
Just saying: The goal of a strong hiring process is to gather all the facts needed to make the correct hire. Failure to do so means utilizing less reliable techniques such as speculation, interpretation, or extrapolation to assess potential hires. It also increases the likelihood of hidden biases or fluke factors influencing a final decision. (2)
Now, one thing this book harps on is understanding why hiring teams do any of the things they do. Such rigorous thinking ensures each step adds value to the hiring process.
I think it's important to apply the same general concept to the book. So, why is it important for hiring managers to read a book about having a strong hiring process? (3)
One reason is because the hiring process is the first time an organization reveals its ability to assess and understand the performance of its employees. It happens somewhat indirectly through defining open roles. The more an organization understands what makes its top performers successful, the better its criteria for open positions will be. Most of the time, the job posting will look a lot like a description of those who've succeeded in the past.
But an organization struggling to apply the lessons of its performance evaluations will not handle this step very well. Such firms are almost sure to end up in trouble after a few rounds of hiring. Good employees will notice how strong performers are not being acknowledged and suspect a performance-based culture is slowly giving in to the pressure of politics. (4)
A poorly run hiring process runs the risk of reinforcing the importance of appearance over contribution. It invites posturing and promises while dismissing performance and delivery. If no one in an organization can figure out why someone was hired, the logical conclusion is to suspect leaders are unable to assess performance. If the pattern continues, new hires will systematically be unable to challenge push their colleagues to reach new heights. For many talented people, such environments become intellectually stale and might lead them to
Footnotes / imagined complaints
0. This is the second straight 'life changing' book post failing to address why the book was life changing!
Yes, I'm getting lazy with the concept lately.
This book just changed my approach to hiring. Until I read it, I just assumed the process should work more or less like I saw it work anywhere else. Once I started questioning some of my basic assumptions about running a hiring process, I noticed I started questioning other assumptions with (sometimes alarming) regularity.
1. Cute title.
When it comes to book titles, Hire Like You Just Beat Cancer is a tricky one to assess. Broadly speaking, it is a relevant idea because the author has just beaten cancer and is using those lessons to hire better. But I'm not going to say I think beating cancer automatically makes anyone better at hiring. It just worked for him and so his book's title reflects the fact.
My mom was sick with cancer when I picked this book out. Coincidence? I suppose it could have been.
But there are people paid awfully large salaries to understand how I scan and process titles who might argue otherwise.
2. I always ask for a 1pm interview...
My favorite one described the effect of interview timing. One study I read about reported a link between hunger levels of interviewers and their perception of interviewees. A hungry interviewer tended to view candidates with a more skeptical eye while those just returning from lunch seemed to rate the same candidates more highly.
3. Because, like, you want good people??
It's not as self-evident as you might think. In a 'fixed-pie' type of organization, hiring less talented colleagues might make you look good by comparison. A cynical (and self-protecting) hiring manager in such an organization is capable of locking in a level of mediocrity which will prove lucrative for him but hurt the performance of the unit as a whole.
4. Office politics, noun...
Defined as: a situation where reward is no longer linked to performance.
