January 18, 2016
The Science Of The Interview
Almost as if there is an exact science behind trying to pick "the winners" from "the losers." {hate those harsh terms about people]
Many questions look at how quickly the interviewee thinks on their feet, how prepared they are for the interview, and how well they present themselves for the job.
However, my question is whether these things are truly determinant of the fit between the person and the job, the culture, and the supervisor and team, as well as indicative of integrity of the person, their work ethic, or how well they would actually perform in said job.
The interviewer proudly blurts out from his or her script:
TELL ME ABOUT...
- A time that you came from from work and said "I completely nailed it--a home run out of the park!"
Or
- A time that you came from work and said "Oh shit, I completely screwed everything up."
Ah, like work--or life for that matter--is generally that black and white.
Are we forgetting about the 99% of the time that people go in the office, put in a solid day's work for a solid day's pay--and did a good job, made a decent contribution, and got along with the team.
Also, let's face it, the vast majority of people are not the Einsteins or Steve Jobs of this world.
They don't come to the interview having invented the driverless car or negotiated the end to World War II.
How about this question...
"Why do you want to work here?"
I heard someone actually asked this question about a job working in mining regulation--yeah right, your and everyone else's dream job.
What an incredibly narcissistic question, where the interviewer is looking to hear about how great their organization is or their department is, how superb a leader he/she is known to be, and why the person just will fit in perfectly to a place that alas they probably really know very little about from an insider's perspective.
Okay, let's try another one...
"Where do you see yourself in 5-years?"
Let's see I want to be kissing your ass in 5-years and actually until the day I die or maybe better what your really afraid of hearing is that I'm gunning for your and would like to take your job and show this company what a real XYZ can do to improve things around here.
Here's another one a colleague told me about recently...
Pretend your David Ogilvy and sell me on one of your ideas. You have 15-minutes to prepare.
Ok let's put the pressure on, because the candidate coming in today for the job interview with a mortgage and two kids at home to feed isn't enough. Do these conditions really demonstrate what the person could do with amble time and preparation and for something they really believe in?
Let's not forget to give an IQ and personality test to the person, so we can peg their intelligence and Myers Briggs or perhaps we should give them some puzzles and let them really sweat with the pieces.
Let's face it we've all had some people wow on the interview and on paper and turn out to be duds on the specific jobs, and others that you weren't so sure about that turned out superbly.
Assessing people is hard and many people are great at the poker game of landing the offer.
It's the interviewers job to look beyond the playbook and the acting, and try to see the real person sitting in front of them.
Yes, presentation is important, but even more so can we get down to the work ethic and the integrity of the person? What they are good at and where do they have weaknesses? Are they able and willing to learn and grow? What do they like to work on and what do they recoil from? How do they relate to others and can they get along? When they face problems, challenges, and conflicts, can they and are they willing to work through it?
I don't know any supervisor that hasn't hit the jackpot on some hires and made mistakes on others...those that claim they've made an actual science out of bringing on the absolute talent--I wonder how well they do in their next interview. ;-)
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
April 1, 2014
Why Do People Take The Cheese Off?
While I understand that it is the best part, isn't just a little bit of antisocial behavior that would drive people do something like this and leave everyone else with just the noodles underneath...
Anyway on the way back, one of my colleagues stopped me in the street to tell me some philosophy of life about how love makes the world go around, but revenge is the axis it turns on. Ouch@!
Perhaps this is April fools day making people a little snappy today.
One last thought is from episode last week on The Vikings (great show on the History Channel)--excellent battle scene, but also memorable when the one of the characters says "Bad news travels a great deal slower than good news."
Maybe that's why no one told me before about the missing cheese on the macaroni today? ;-)
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Why Do People Take The Cheese Off?
December 22, 2013
Favorite Hypnotist Act
This is my favorite comedy hypnosis show with Marc Savard.
He suggests under hypnosis to this big guy that whenever he hears the Mexican Jumping Beans music, the guy will become active and his shoes will go 100 mph dancing an Irish Jig.
And sure enough, this guy dances away...and he does it well.
The music stops and the guy settles down.
Marc Savard scolds him that he is interrupting the show with his wild dancing.
The big guy is embarrassed, says "really sorry," and that "it won't happen again."
But it does!
Savard threatens to have the troublemakers escorted out by security.
The big guy says "don't do that."
Savard says, I'm watching you.
Each time the music comes on and the big guy can't control himself and starts dancing, and when the music stops and he realizes what he's doing, he is visibly exasperated with himself.
It's also funny, when Savard goes "you wouldn't go to the Blue Man Group (another competing act in Vegas) and do that Sh*t!"
I am a skeptic when it comes to hypnosis, but overall, this act gets an A+. ;-)
Favorite Hypnotist Act
September 15, 2013
Genius Consultants--Yes or No?
You hire McKinsey, Bain, or The Boston Consulting Group when you need to address big organizational problems--frequently those that involve broad reorganizations, massive cutbacks, reformulation of strategy, and culture makeovers.
According to Bloomberg Businessweek in a book review of The Firm, the notion is that these consulting big boys come in to "teach you how to do whatever you do better than you do it--and certainly better than your competition does it."
The question is can consultants really do it better than those who do it everyday, or perhaps an objective 3rd party is exactly what is needed to break broken paradigms and set things straight.
These global consultants are usually generalists--who specialize in "rational thinking and blunt talk."
It's like going to an organizational shrink to have someone listen to your crazy sh*t and tell it back to you the way it out to be--and then guide you with some behavioral interventions (i.e. the recommendations).
What's interesting also is that these consulting firms hire the "A" kids right out of school--so they are inexperienced, but bright-eyed and bushy-tailed ready with their idealistic thinking to tell you how things ought to be done--the question is do they have enough fundamentals under their belts and genuine solid thinking in a real setting to make sense to your business.
Probably the best thing is that these graduates can think out of the box and for an organization that needs to make a leap forward, these newbies can cut through the clutter and give your organizational a fresh start.
One of the problems pointed out is that with these consultant companies, it's heads they win and tails you lose--if their ideas pan out, it's to their credit--and if it doesn't, well you implemented poorly.
Basically consultants are not magicians, but they do listen to your organizations tales of woes, put the pieces together, and tell you what you told them...many times, it's basically validation of what people already know--but now it's coming from "the experts"--so it must be true.
Another problem of course is whether their recommendations become more shelfware, collecting dust, or whether the organization can actually make the difficult choices and changes...or perhaps, there is another consulting firm that assists with that? ;-)
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Genius Consultants--Yes or No?
April 21, 2012
Don't Throw Out The Pre-Crime With the Bathwater
The Atlantic mocks the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) for attempting to screen terrorists based on physiological and behavioral cues to analyze and detect people demonstrating abnormal or dangerous indicators.
The article calls this "pre-crime detection" similar to that in Tom Cruise's movie Minority Report, and labels it a "super creepy invasion of privacy" and of "little to no marginal security" benefit.
They base this on a 70% success rate in "first round of field tests" and the "false-positive paradox," whereby there would be a large number of innocent false positives and that distinguishing these would be a "non-trivial and invasive task."
However, I do not agree that they are correct for a number of reasons:
1) Accuracy Rates Will Improve--the current accuracy rate is no predictor of future accuracy rates. With additional research and development and testing, there is no reason to believe that over time we cannot significantly improve the accuracy rates to screen for such common things as "elevated heart rate, eye movement, body temperature, facial patterns, and body language" to help us weed out friend from foe.
2) False-Positives Can Be Managed--Just as in disease detection and medical diagnosis, there can be false-positives, and we manage these by validating the results through repeating the tests or performing additional corroborating tests; so too with pre-crime screening, false-positives can be managed with validation testing, such as through interviews, matching against terrorist watch lists, biometric screening tools, scans and searches, and more. In other words, pre-crime detection through observable cues are only a single layer of a comprehensive, multilayer screening strategy.
Contrary to what The Atlantic states that pre-crime screening is "doomed from the word go by a preponderance of false-positives," terrorist screening is actually is vital and necessary part of a defense-in-depth strategy and is based on risk management principles. To secure the homeland with finite resources, we must continuously narrow in on the terrorist target by screening and refining results through validation testing, so that we can safeguard the nation as well as protect privacy and civil liberties of those who are not a threat to others.
Additionally, The Atlantic questions whether subjects used in experimental screening will be able to accurately mimic the cues that real terrorist would have in the field. However, with the wealth of surveillance that we have gathered of terrorists planning or conducting attacks, especially in the last decade in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as with reams of scientific study of the mind and body, we should be able to distinguish the difference between someone about to commit mass murder from someone simply visiting their grandmother in Miami.
The Atlantic's position is that terrorist screening's "(possible) gain is not worth the cost"; However, this is ridiculous since the only alternative to pre-crime detection is post-crime analysis--where rather than try and prevent terrorist attacks, we let the terrorists commit their deadly deeds--and clean up the mess afterwards.
In an age, when terrorists will stop at nothing to hit their target and hit it hard and shoe and underwear bombs are serious issues and not late night comedy, we must invest in the technology tools like pre-crime screening to help us identify those who would do us harm, and continuously work to filter them out before they attack.
(Source Photo: here with attribution to Dan and Eric Sweeney)
Don't Throw Out The Pre-Crime With the Bathwater
March 6, 2011
Meet ATLAS
Meet ATLAS
November 26, 2010
Raising the Bar By Aligning Expectations and Personality
I always love on the court television show Judge Hatchett, when she tells people: "I expect great things from you!"
The Pygmalion Effect says that when we have high expectations of performance for people, they perform better.
In other words, how you see others is how they perform.
While behavior is driven by a host of motivational factors (recognition, rewards, and so on), behavior and ultimately performance is impacted by genetic and environmental factors—“nature and nurture”—and the nurture aspect includes people’s expectations of us.
Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, people live up or down to expectations.
For example, studies by Rosenthal and Jacobson showed that if teachers expected enhanced performance from selected children, those children performed better.
When people have high or low expectations for others, they treat them differently—consciously or unconsciously—they tip off what they believe the others are capable of and will ultimately deliver. In the video, The Pygmalion Effect: Managing the power of Expectation, these show up in the following ways:
- Climate: The social and emotional mood we create, such as tone, eye contact, facial expression, body language, etc.
- Inputs: The amount and quality of instruction, assistance, or input we provide.
- Outputs: The opportunities to do the type of work that best aligns with the employee and produce that we provide.
- Feedback: The strength and duration of the feedback we provide.
In business, expect great things from people and set them to succeed by providing the following to meet those expectations:
- Inspiration
- Teaching
- Opportunity
- Encouragement
Additionally, treat others in the style that is consistent with the way that they see themselves, so that there is underlying alignment between the workplace (i.e. how we treat the employee) and who the employee fundamentally is.
Normally people think that setting high expectations means creating a situation where the individual’s high performance will take extra effort – both on their part and on the part of the manager.
However, this is not necessarily the case at all. All we have to do is align organizational expectations with the inherent knowledge, skills, and abilities of the employee, and their individual aspirations for development.
The point is we need to play to people’s strengths and help them work on their weaknesses. This, along with ongoing encouragement, can make our goals a reality, and enable the organization to set the bar meaningfully high for each and every one of us.
Raising the Bar By Aligning Expectations and Personality
November 20, 2010
Selfishness and The Paradox of Emotional Intelligence
I was fortunate to be in a terrific leadership development class this week held in coordination with University of Virginia, and one of the instructors shared this interesting explanation about the four levels of emotional intelligence (EI), which I have put into the attached graphic (note: there are other variants of this).
Essentially there are three levels of EI that have to do with “me”:
1. Self-Awareness: Being cognizant of one’s own emotions, thinking and behaviors
2. Self-Management: Being able to control negative displays of emotions, thoughts, and behaviors.
3. Self-Direction: Being able to positively choose emotions, thoughts, and behaviors.
- Being so busy with “the daily grind” that we don’t have the time, energy, or capacity to do justice to the relationships in our lives.
- Lack of mastery of the “me”—we lack self-awareness and are not in control of ourselves.
- Narcissism that leads us to ignore the others around us and therefore leads us to have difficulty relating to them.
All of these, in a sense, represent a huge life paradox. We are taught that to succeed we must work on ourselves, and in turn we have become a self-focused society.
We have learned that success means being perfectly educated, thin, fit, married, earning a huge salary, and so on. But we are so busy thinking about these goals and looking at them as pure achievements to be marked off on a list that we lose sight of the process. And in doing so we actually become less effective at the things we are trying to do.
The process is about becoming emotionally intelligent—about learning the skills of self-control, self-management, self-direction, and ultimately empathy.
In fact, to succeed—and to find meaning in that success—we must give meaningfully to others in time and energy, rather than just taking for ourselves.
Selfishness and The Paradox of Emotional Intelligence
September 2, 2009
Are Organizational Values Valuable?
Many organizations have a value statement that identifies what traits are most important to them.
Organizational values are similar to an enterprise architecture in that the organizational values identify a type of target state for organization members to strive for and adhere to.
The purpose of value statements is to guide people’s behaviors, decisions, and interactions.
For example, one police department that I looked up has value statements around the traits of integrity, pride, service, and fairness. A city that I found had value statements for passion for community, integrity in work, and results through collaboration. A non-profit organization had values of leadership, integrity, excellence, and impact.
As you read the value statements they give you a sense of the organization in terms of who they are, or actually more like what they believe in.
But do they really—i.e. are organizational value statements something that people in the organization are aware of, understand, can locate, recite, or summarize, and moreover, are the values actually used to guide behavior?
Or are these value statements written by leadership, human resources, or some strategic planning function in the organization as an ivory tower effort, and then published in the organization’s glossy annual plan and/or on their website, but never really communicated with or adopted by the people in the rank and file?
The question is not posed in order to be cynical, but to genuinely ask: are organizational value statements “true values” or are they more marketing and branding glitz?
With few exceptions, I would challenge most to identify whether their organization even has a value statement, let alone what it is. Moreover, the last time, they thought of and considered the organizational values in making a decision or taking an action.
Then why do organizations have value statements?
Perhaps, organizations intuitively or through management best practices know that they need to have values, because they are genuinely important. Just like as individuals we have personal values (be they religious or otherwise) that “tell” us who we as human being are and guide our behaviors, so too as organizations, we need to identify the values that will be our “moral compass” and define our organizational identity.
The problem though comes when organizational values are developed as a “project”—a time bound task or “to do” for someone or some committee who researched it, developed it, and got approval on it; but not managed as a “program”—an ongoing endeavor and commitment to create awareness, educate, and even enforce the values through performance rewards and recognition.
Moreover, culture and peer pressure are vey powerful forces that drive employee behavior, whether they consciously are aware of it or not. So many values are indeed employed in day-to-day interactions, but they may not be explicit and they may not be the same values that are actually in the organization’s value statement. That is because the informal network and implicit values may actually be more prominent and powerful in driving people’s behaviors that the formal and documented one in the organization.
The key is for leaders to genuinely commit to the values and their use across the organization. The leaders need to provide for the values to be widely communicated (on wall hangings, pocket cards, employee reference guides, Intranet and so on) and they need to be referred to in periodic communications (speeches, announcements, broadcasts, meetings, etc.). They need to be living, breathing values that touch people daily (and obviate the implicit and unsanctioned ones).
Further, leaders need not only talk about the values, but also they need to exemplify them. In other words, leaders need to practice what they preach and lead by example using the values to drive decisions and actions in a way that is transparent to all.
What I learned when I developed user-centric enterprise architecture is that any ivory-tower exercises or development of organizational shelfware is by definition a failure, and therefore we need to treat all of our strategic planning and management functions as a real-world effort.
If we could do that with both EA and organizational values, it would be great to integrate them and use them to drive an explicit target state for both the performance and the business perspectives, as well as a human capital perspective of the architecture.
Are Organizational Values Valuable?
April 9, 2009
You Can Lead a Horse to Water
Maybe that’s one reason why architectures so often remain shelfware and never actually get implemented.
This is reminiscent of the adage, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” or can you?
With the Obama administration elected on a platform of change and major problems facing our nation in terms of the economy, healthcare, the environment, and so on, we are seeing the government confront the dilemma of how do we get the change we promised?
Time Magazine, 2 April 2009 has an interesting article “How Obama is using the Science of Change.”
The administration is using it [behavioral science] to try to transform the country. Because when you know what makes people tick, it’s a lot easier to help them change.”
Similarly, this knowledge can help enterprise architects effect change in their organizations. It’s not enough to just put a plan to paper—that’s a long way from effecting meaningful and lasting change.
So here are some tips that I adapted from the article:- Bottom-up or Top Down: We can mandate change from the top or we can grow change from grass-roots. If we can do both, the change is swifter and more likely to succeed.
- Carrot and Stick: Change is not easy and usually will not happen without a nudge—we need help. We need to motivate desired change and disincentive obstinate clinging to failed status quo behaviors that are hurting the mission and long term success of the organization.
- Make change clear and simple: Explain to people why a change is important and necessary. “In general, we’re ignorant, shortsighted, and biased toward the status quo…we procrastinate. Our impulsive ids overwhelm our logical superegos.” So change has got to be clearly articulated, easy to understand, and simple for people to act on. “Cheap is alluring; easy can be irresistible.”
- Accept that change is painful: We need to keep our eye on the goal, and then accept that we have to work hard to achieve it. President Obama “urges us to snap out of denial, to accept that we’re in for some prolonged discomfort but not to wallow in it, to focus on our values.”
- The way of the herd: When implementing change initiatives, we need to build community “creating a sense that we’re all in this together.” “We’re a herdlike species….when we think we’re out of step with our peers, the part of our brain that registers pain shifts into overdrive.”
- Keep the focus on long-term success: Weight the benefits of long-term planning and change to short term status quo and gratification; constantly remind people that most worthwhile organizational goals are a marathon and not a sprint. But together, we can support each other and achieve anything.
With behavioral science principles like these, we can make enterprise architecture transition plans truly actionable by the organization.
You Can Lead a Horse to Water