It may seem like I want to discuss hiring... and I do.

Recently I wrote about ownership couched in a story about hiring and I was asked by a couple of people if I could offer some insight and thoughts into the topic of hiring itself — Bingo, Bango, Bongo a blog topic presented itself. Much of my hiring over the years has been for middle management and entry-level sales positions, and as I look back, it has added up to about seventy-five people (give or take) I've personally hired. And although I am by no means an expert, I do have strong opinions on the matter. 

My intention here is to offer perspective as a hiring manager for a role that has been defined and signed off on, and not for an opportunity that is ill defined and only being considered as a way to bring great talent into an organization — I might add this happens much more than I believe people appreciate (a subtle shoutout to the importance of networking).

In my mind the hiring process needs to start with four things: 1) a requisition to hire needs to be opened (or if it's a smaller organization the boss needs to give the definitive green light), 2) an interview team needs to be identified, 3) a job description needs to be written which also identifies the competencies needed to be successful in the position (these competencies should align with much of the overall interview discussion) and lastly, 4) an understanding that the hiring manager owns the hiring decision.

In the end you are looking for an individual who can effectively fulfill the requirements of the job description, work within the culture of the team (and organization), and is promotable in the future (it indicates you are bringing extra talent into the organization which is always a good thing). My process is quite simple — I like to interview candidates first (even before HR if possible), develop a short list of candidates, and then pass them onto the team. Once the candidates have been interviewed I assemble the team to review the candidates and get feedback regarding who is the best fit. I thank the team for their input and then go off and make a decision. If it's a hard decision I will re-interview the final two candidates and then make a decision. Many times there is a need for senior management to review the candidate, but ultimately I am putting forth the person with the understanding that "I want to hire this person, and please tell me why I can't". My process isn't particularly unique but it has served me well.

Regarding the actual interview itself, there are some mechanics and considerations I work into all discussions —

1) I break my interviews into three sections: a) a quick overview of the position, the objectives and expectations, as well as the company and it's culture b) my questions and c) the candidates questions. I always schedule at least an hour and work very hard to fill the hour with discussion.

2) I use the STAR interviewing methodology; the purpose of the questioning it employs is to get into the details of a Situation, the Task (or the resulting objective), the Action used, and the Result. This methodology allows you to get away from general responses and get into the detail so you can better understand a person's capabilities and competencies. More information on this is just a Google search away.

3) My first question is always the same — "I have your black and white resume in front of me; can you please add some colour to it". I am actually more interested in the approach to this question and how the candidate goes about answering because it offers insight into their thought process and ability to communicate. I never like when asked where I would like them to begin because I am also looking for initiative and independent thinking. My other questions are focused on the competencies needed to be successful in the role.

4) I try to create an environment for a conversation instead of a series of questions and answers. I believe it creates a more comfortable and realistic situation to better understand possible working relationships and interaction.

5) I don't think I have ever hired anyone who wasn't full of questions... it's a strong indicator of interest, curiosity and respect.

6) The interview process starts the moment you send in a resume (or application) and ends when a contract is signed; it is not just the agreed upon meeting time between 2:00 and 3:00 on a Wednesday when you have to be "on your game". I was part of an interview team once and my interview was over; as we waited for the candidate to meet with a colleague, he relaxed and decided to pass the time with his thoughts on women... it turns out he was quite the misogynist. He didn't get the job as you would expect and he was the lead candidate at the time. The Interview is always on, and besides, a good interviewer will always find your dark secrets.

I have always been of the belief that as much as a company is interviewing a candidate for a position, the candidate is also interviewing the company to determine if it is a place she or he wants to work. This is the reason I like to make my interviews a conversation — ultimately it is a discussion to determine if there is an opportunity to work together, be productive, build skills and enjoy what you are doing.

After all, we do spend an awful lot of time working, and there is nothing worse than being in a situation you don't like.

iamgpe.

Leadership... what would your three words be?

I knew an incredible people leader who, as part of his development strategy, would give his people three words to consider for their personal development; sometimes the words were well received, and as I understand, sometimes not so much. As I was listening to him describe this over dinner, I could not help but ask what my three words would be; he looked at me, laughed, and said, "Sobriety, sobriety and sobriety". In fairness, it was a celebration dinner.

I was reminded of this the other night when the discussion of Leadership came up and we tried to articulate the qualities that make up good leadership. As with many of these types of conversations it usually starts with something rather innocuous, and then gets more refined and more serious as the conversation continues,

"OMG — I used to joke around with a colleague who was very grumpy but funny, funny, funny... and my daily question would be, 'Are you bitter, angry or resentful today?'. God I miss him... crazy funny."

The conversation continued to meander over a number of topics but it became apparent the topic of Leadership was not over when someone said,

"At the heart of all Leadership is clarity, vision and competency... How's that?"  

You could see heads nodding when someone added,

"Someone who is quietly confident, trusts and believes in his colleagues, and is able to get his hands dirty, and competently gets the job done."

The final words on the topic were eloquently added,

"Without being an idiot. Is that too much to ask?"

As we laughed and moved onto other dinner topics, I heard the person who started all of this say, "I miss my old boss".

And this brings me full circle back to that incredible people leader with his three words. I can't help but wonder what his three words would be to encapsulate "Leadership"?

By no means is listing the qualities that make up a great leader original — There are countless books, blogs, white papers and opinion on the topic, and I recommend you read as many as you can. What identifying three words does is ensure you have actually put some thought into leadership and prioritized what you think are the most important leadership competencies (there are definitely more than three). For right or for wrong, the three words you pick will represent your guiding principles on Leadership.

And any three words are better than the alternative... because then we aren't even discussing Leadership.  

iamgpe

PS: Mine are Selflessness, Transparency, and Vision.

PPS: Thank you to those around the table.

Sales versus Marketing... a narrative that is getting old.

The other day I was trying to explain the Sales and Marketing function to a friend who is a hard core "finance guy"; as I went about doing so, I couldn't help but flippantly say —

"When things are going well (meaning revenue) Sales gets the credit; when things aren't going so well Marketing gets the blame" 

We both laughed... but surprisingly not that hard.

I could not help but think of a conversation between a seasoned commercial leader and a marketing manager where I heard the manager say, "I understand what you are saying from a sales perspective but marketing is different, and we are going to do this..." As I was listening to the marketing manager I actually screamed in my head, "No, no... nooooo. The commercial leader is correct, and you are not different... focus on the customer, the customer's needs, and work together to generate revenue!" 

I should point out why I have earned the right to have an opinion on this topic. My career (30 years and counting) has been in both Sales and Marketing (almost 50-50), and I have received my fair share of credit and blame; for right or for wrong, I feel I have some insight worth considering. Academically, marketing is the business discipline that encompasses "Product", "Price", "Place" and "Promotion" (The 4 Ps); within the "Promotional Mix" is the sales channel... and make no mistake, this channel is extremely important — Why you may ask? It's because sales is one of very few groups in business that has an intimate and personal understanding of the customer, and is able to communicate complicated messages to generate revenue.   

And for anyone who doesn't think revenue is king, you should go ask any investor(s) you have to offer some insight regarding this point.

In my mind, the only thing that is different between Sales and Marketing is the levers available to each group, and maybe the degrees of separation their activities can be from revenue generation. The objectives of Sales and Marketing are the same — Engage with the customer, offer the appropriate product(s) and/or service(s) to meet the customer's need(s), and generate revenue. I very much appreciate the complexity to do all of this, but in the end it does boil down to this.

Many years ago a Sales Leader* was at a marketing retreat and was asked to speak about the relationship between Sales and Marketing. He was elegant, insightful, complimented his marketing partners, and offered insights on the sales team. At one point he compared sales to a "brochure" that talked back, had opinions, and offered ideas. He went on to say that some in marketing see themselves as "the great orchestrators of all things marketing, and frankly don't like rebuttal from one of their channels". He very eloquently suggested that this was the wrong perspective and that the sales team was a wealth of customer insight and ideas, and it's crucial to work together for success. Besides he went on to ask, "Don't we all have the same objective to engage with customers, offer the appropriate product(s) and/or service(s) to meet the customer's need(s), and generate revenue?" Fifteen years later his perspective still resonates for me —The narrative should always be Sales and Marketing.

So if your narrative is Sales versus Marketing, I strongly suggest you work to change this because no one wins when there is a dysfunctional relationship between Sales and Marketing, It's hard enough to generate revenue at the best of times.. just ask anyone in either Sales or Marketing. And if you're asking how to go about changing the narrative, I suggest you start with Sales and Marketing Leadership because in the end this is a leadership issue... on both sides. 

Let's not even get into those finance people who ask us about our latest expense report.

iamgpe

* His title was Sales Leader but in reality he was just a Great Leader... full stop.