First, Break All the Rules

by Marcus Buckingham

  Here are two, of the infinite number of possible answers:

  1. “I think it is very important to be persistent, particularly if you really believe in your ideas. We really encourage that kind of candor here. With my team, if I have a suggestion that others disagree with, I know they will expect me to keep supporting my idea until somebody comes up with a better one. In fact, it happens all the time.”

  2. “It happened yesterday.”

  Which is the better answer? Well, it is hard to say which is “better.” But 2 is certainly the more predictive answer. Here the candidate spontaneously gave you an example that was specific by time, “yesterday.” You don’t know exactly what happened, but who cares? The details are less important than the top-of-mind specificity. You didn’t ask for a specific, but with only one prompt, “Tell me about a time …” he gave you a specific. Although you must ask many more questions to gain a fuller picture of his talent, his answer here is a first clue that this behavior, supporting his ideas in the face of resistance, is a recurring part of his life.

  By contrast, in 1, the candidate gave you a nice little description of why she thought it was important to be candid and then claimed that “it happens all the time.” There is nothing wrong with this answer. But, lacking any specifics, there is nothing predictive about it, either. Faced with answers like 1, some managers are tempted to probe, “Can you tell me more about that? Can you tell me what happened?” They then judge the answer on the quality of the person’s example: How much detail did she provide? How articulate was she? Do I agree with what she said she did?

  This is a cardinal sin of interviewing. Regardless of the detail the candidate eventually provided, if she needed two or three probes to describe a specific example, then the chances are that the behavior in question is not a recurring part of her life. When you ask “Tell me about a time” questions, don’t judge the response on the quality of its detail. If you do, you will end up evaluating whether the person is articulate or whether the person has a good memory, rather than whether he or she has the particular recurring talent you want.

  Instead, judge the response on whether it was specific and top of mind.

  (Of course, with either 1 or 2, if you want to ask more questions to satisfy your own curiosity, go ahead. But remember, even if she eventually provides you with a detailed example, the fact that she required two or three probes to dredge it up tells you that the behavior is not a recurring part of her life.)

  4. CLUES TO TALENT

  Aside from specific examples of past behavior, what else should you be listening for? Are there any other signs that can tip you off that the candidate does indeed possess the talents you are looking for?

  Over the years we have found many small clues to a person’s talent: a sudden glimpse of excellence at the role, a yearning toward certain activities, a feeling of flow while performing the activity. Of all these clues, two might be useful to you during the talent interview. Each person is so complex that no interviewing or testing system will ever be able to define his profile of talents perfectly. However, if you focus your questions toward these clues, then, like an image on a fresh Polaroid, the person’s most dominant talents should gradually emerge. You can then compare his talents to those in your desired profile and assess the match.

  a. Rapid Learning

  When you learn a new role, you tend to learn it in terms of steps. Sometimes the steps stay with you no matter how hard you practice. For example, you may have been giving presentations for years, but you still struggle. Every time you have to present you revert back to the three basic steps you remember from public speaking class: “Okay, first I must tell them what I am going to tell them; then I must tell them; then I must tell them what I just told them.”

  But with other activities, the steps just seem to fall away. You feel a sense of gliding, of smoothness. For example, after a couple of months as a salesperson you may have begun to feel this smoothness. All of a sudden you seemed to be able to see inside the mind of the prospect and you knew almost instinctively what words to say next. Or perhaps as a student teacher, after your initial nervousness had faded, the names of the children came easily and you found yourself walking up and down the rows of desks as if you had been teaching all of your life.

  When you have this feeling it is as if the steps of the new role are simply giving form to a mental pattern already grooved within you — which, if you think about it, they are.

  Rapid learning is an important clue to a person’s talent. Ask the candidate what kinds of roles she has been able to learn quickly. Ask her what activities come easily to her now. She will give you more clues to her talent.

  b. Satisfactions

  Everyone breathes different psychological oxygen. What is fulfilling for one person is asphyxiating for another.

  Great accountants love the fact that two plus two equals four every time they do it. Great salespeople get a kick out of turning a no into a yes. Great flight attendants gravitate toward the tired, angry business traveler or the boisterous school sports team at the back, because they enjoy turning around the tough customers.

  A person’s sources of satisfaction are clues to his talent. So ask him what his greatest personal satisfaction is. Ask him what kinds of situations give him strength. Ask him what he finds fulfilling. His answers will help you know what he will be able to keep doing week after week after week.

  5. KNOW WHAT TO LISTEN FOR

  Many managers have a list of favorite questions they resort to every time they interview someone. So do great managers, but with one important distinction. They ask only questions where they know how top performers respond.

  In their mind, the question is not nearly as important as knowing how the best answer.

  For example, here is a question that can identify the different striving talents of salespeople and teachers: “How do you feel when someone doubts what you have to say?” You might think that the best salespeople would say they like a little doubting, that it would give them a chance to show just how persuasive they could be. Surprisingly, they don’t. They report that they hate it. It upsets them to be doubted (although they may not show it) because, as we described earlier, great salespeople are selling themselves. To doubt them is to question their personal integrity. Disagree with them, argue with them, choose not to buy from them. But don’t doubt them.

  Average salespeople are not personally invested. They don’t mind being doubted, so this question doesn’t strike any emotional chord with them at all.

  For sales managers, then, this has proved to be a good question, because what they listen for is, “Upset.” (Of course, this isn’t the only question great sales managers ask. As we described earlier, the worst salespeople are also upset by rejection. Managers must ask further questions — “how” questions and “who” questions — to discover whether the candidate possesses other vital sales talents, like innate assertiveness or a love of breaking the ice with people.)

  By contrast, it turns out that great teachers say they love being doubted. They cherish those moments. Great teachers instinctively interpret the “doubters” as students, and they see this doubting as a sign of an active, inquisitive mind. For great teachers, then, doubting means learning. Conversely, average teachers say they don’t like to be doubted. Their first point of reference is their own competence, not the students’ learning. Being doubted means having their competence challenged, and for them there is nothing worse.

  This question works well for selecting teachers, then, but only if the desired response is, “I love it.”

  The question doesn’t work at all if you are selecting nurses. Why? Because the best nurses do not answer in a way that is consistent with each other and different from their less successful colleagues. When you think about it, this is hardly surprising. After all, on those rare occasions when a nurse is doubted, how she reacts to the doubting probably has litt
le to do with how good a nurse she is overall.

  How can you develop these question/listen-for combinations? First, you can try out a question on a few of your best employees and a few of the “rest” and then see if the best answer differently, consistently. If they do, the question/listen-for combination is a good one. If they don’t, as with nurses and the “doubting” question, then the question might not be worth asking.

  Second, you can ask the question of all new applicants. Write down what they say and keep a record of it. After they have been hired, check back to see if the people who subsequently performed well answered your question in a consistent way.

  This takes time and focus, but, as with any art, time and focus are required to cultivate the art of interviewing for talent.

  The concept of talent applies to all that great managers do. However, the activity of selecting for talent is separate. It occurs at the time that you make the hiring decision. The activities of the other three Keys — define the right outcomes, focus on strengths, and find the right fit — cannot be separated so easily. How you set expectations for someone is interwoven with the way you motivate him to achieve those expectations. How you motivate and encourage him is often part of a broader conversation where you are also helping him find the right fit. The day-to-day challenge of turning talent into performance involves the turning of all three Keys, all at once, all the time.

  Performance Management

  “How do great managers turn the last three Keys every day, with every employee?”

  The exemplary managers Gallup interviewed described a variety of ideas for turning the final three Keys. But their real challenge lay in disciplining themselves to implement these ideas with each of their people, despite the day-to-day pressures of getting the actual work done. They met this challenge by following a routine, a “performance management” routine. This routine, of meetings and conversations, forced them to keep focused on the progress of each person’s performance, even though many other business demands were competing for their attention.

  Each manager’s routine was different, reflecting his or her unique style. Nonetheless, hidden within this diversity we found four characteristics common to the “performance management” routines of great managers.

  First, the routine is simple. Great managers dislike the complexity of most company-sponsored performance appraisal schemes. They don’t want to waste their time trying to decipher the alien terms and to fill out bureaucratic forms. Instead they prefer a simple format that allows them to concentrate on the truly difficult work: what to say to each employee and how to say it.

  Second, the routine forces frequent interaction between the manager and the employee. It is no good meeting once a year, or even twice a year, to discuss an employee’s performance, style, and goals. The secret to helping an employee excel lies in the details: the details of his particular recognition needs, of his relationship needs, of his goals, and of his talents/nontalents. A yearly meeting misses these details. It degenerates into a bland discussion about “potential” and “opportunities for improvement.” The only way to capture the details is to meet at a minimum once a quarter, sometimes even more frequently. At these meetings the specifics of a success or a disappointment are fresh in the memory. The employee can talk about how a particular meeting or interaction made him “feel.” The manager can recall the same meeting and suggest subtle changes in approach or a different way of interpreting the same event. The conversation can be vivid, the advice practical. Furthermore, in the intervening weeks between meetings the manager and the employee are motivated to concentrate on events as they occur, because each knows that a forum for discussing these events will soon arise. Frequent performance meetings force both manager and employee to pay attention. (If you are worried about the time drain inherent in frequent performance meetings, remember that the best managers spend, on average, only one hour per quarter per person discussing performance.)

  Furthermore, frequent performance meetings make it so much easier to raise the always sensitive subject of the employee’s areas of poor performance. If you meet only once or twice a year, you are forced to drop your criticisms on the employee all at once, like a bomb. When the employee inevitably recoils, you then have to dredge your memory for examples to support your argument. But by meeting frequently, you can avoid this battle of wills. You can introduce areas of poor performance little by little over time, and each time you raise the subject, you can refer to recent, vivid examples. Your criticisms will be easier to swallow and the conversation more productive.

  Third, the routine is focused on the future. Great managers do use a review of past performance to highlight discoveries about the person’s style or needs. However, their natural inclination is to focus on the future. They want to discuss what “could be,” rather than allowing the conversation to descend into recriminations and postmortems that lead nowhere. Therefore, while the first ten minutes of the meeting may be used for review, the rest of the time is devoted to the truly creative work: “What do you want to accomplish in the next few months? What measuring sticks will we use? What is your most efficient route toward those goals? How can I help?” In their view, these kinds of conversations are more energetic, more productive, and more satisfying.

  Last, the routine asks the employee to keep track of his own performance and learnings. In many companies “performance appraisal” is something that happens to an employee. She is a passive observer, waiting to receive the judgment of her manager. If she is lucky, she may be asked to rate herself before she sees how the company rates her. But even here she is still reactive. She knows that the purpose of her self-assessment is to serve as a counterpoint or comparison with the assessment of her manager. So her self-assessment becomes a negotiating tool — “I’ll pitch mine high and we’ll probably end up somewhere in the middle” — rather than an honest evaluation of her own performance.

  The best managers reject this. They want a routine that asks each employee to keep track of her own performance and learnings. They want her to write down her goals, her successes, and her discoveries. This record is not designed to be evaluated or critiqued by her manager. Rather, its purpose is to help each employee take responsibility for her performance. It serves as her mirror. It is a way to step outside herself. Using this record, she can see how she plans to affect the world. She can weigh the effectiveness of those plans. She can be accountable to herself.

  Naturally, great managers want to discuss and agree to each employee’s short-term performance goals, but the rest of the record — her discoveries about herself, the descriptions of new skills she has learned, the letters of recognition she may have received — are part of a private document. If the employee is fortunate enough to have a trusting relationship with her manager, she may feel comfortable sharing the whole record — successes, failures, perceived strengths. But this is not the point of it. The point is to encourage the employee to keep track of her own performance and learnings. The point is self-discovery.

  Recent research into adult learning reveals that students stay in school longer and learn more if they are expected to direct and record their progress. Great managers realized this long ago and now apply it with their employees.

  These four characteristics — simplicity, frequent interaction, focus on the future, and self-tracking — are the foundation for a successful “performance management” routine. In the basic routine below we describe some of the questions many great managers ask to learn about their employees and the format they usually follow. Our purpose is not to tell you exactly what to say, or how to say it, or to whom, because that would be cumbersome and artificial — you will of course want to adapt the questions and tools to your own talent and experience.

  However, if you follow this basic routine and incorporate it successfully into your own style, you will give yourself the best chance possible to define the right outcomes, to focus on strengths, and to help e
ach person find the right fit.

  THE BASIC ROUTINE

  The Strengths Interview

  At the beginning of each year, or a week or two after the person has been hired, spend about an hour with him asking the following ten questions:

  Q.l What did you enjoy most about your previous work experience?

  What brought you here?

  (If an existing employee) What keeps you here?

  Q.2 What do you think your strengths are? (skills, knowledge, talent)

  Q.3 What about your weaknesses?

  Q.4 What are your goals for your current role? (Ask for scores and timelines)

  Q.5 How often do you like to meet with me to discuss your progress?

  Are you the kind of person who will tell me how you are feeling, or will I have to ask?

  Q.6 Do you have any personal goals or commitment you would like to tell me about?

  Q.7 What is the best praise you have ever received?

  What made it so good?

  Q.8 Have you had any really productive partnerships or mentors?

  Why do you think these relationships worked so well for you?

  Q.9 What are your future growth goals, your career goals?

  Are there any particular skills you want to learn?

  Are there some specific challenges you want to experience?

  How can I help?

  Q.10 Is there anything else you want to talk about that might help us work well together?

  The main purpose of this session is to learn about his strengths, his goals, and his needs, as he perceives them. Whatever he says, even if you disagree with him, jot it down. If you want to help him be productive, you have to know where he is starting from. His answers will tell you where he thinks he is. During the course of the year it may be appropriate to help him change his opinions, but initially you are interested in seeing his world through his eyes.