We see it, right? Hiring is becoming increasingly difficult, but we also have to realize that as organizations, we have complete autonomy over who we bring into our building. So many mistakes are made simply because people cannot get the basics of hiring right. People are a monolith in the sense that we have basic fundamental needs that are relatively uniform. Where things split off is in the individual and what each person brings to the table.

An interview is about getting information, as I discussed in my series back in Q4 2023. The more information you have, the easier it is to make an informed decision, and that’s true in any situation. It’s an art, it’s a science, and should be rooted in a philosophy that is intertwined with your organization’s objectives.

So where does it all go wrong? It starts with not committing to your own philosophy. When evaluating anything, it has to be done through the lens of evaluation. It takes time to know someone, and while it is difficult to get all of the information on someone, we owe it to ourselves to get as much as possible when determining how to build a team.

Personality Tests: I’ve taken plenty of these, and there is some question about their ethics and validity. If you are making a decision on someone solely based on a personality test, you shouldn’t be in a position to hire. However, something like this can create a baseline for a bigger conversation.

https://www.16personalities.com — This is probably my favorite one, and I used it when recruiting players. It’s rooted in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Is it an absolute? No, however, it can provide insight into a person. It’s lengthy and pretty accurate. My type is INTJ-T, and I will include the link at the end for that.

https://easydamus.com/alignmenttest.html — Another interesting one. I do not play Dungeons & Dragons, but I am familiar with the alignment chart. This can be interpreted in many different ways, but the nine alignments hold validity into what people truly value in their everyday lives. I am chaotic neutral, and I will include that at the end as well.

There are many different types of tests, and the importance lies less on the test itself and more on the information you want from it. These are also relatively lengthy tests, so the likelihood that someone trying to lie their way through it won’t put in the effort. It is also easy to cross-reference answers to interview questions with the information they provide via these tests.

Better Questions, Better Answers, Better Information: Interviews are stale in 2024. A scripted list of questions will get scripted answers. Or worse, fake answers that sound better than they are. I personally have things I want to know based on what I already know about someone, but I try not to have a script. I want a conversation. However, if you do have specific questions you want to ask, keep them broad so the answer is organic in the moment. Reframing basic questions can be the difference in making the right or wrong hire.

Standard: Tell me about yourself.

Revised: Tell me your story in the three most important chapters up to the present day.

Just asking someone to tell them about themselves isn’t a great question because what is being asked? Is that work? Is that personal? Long? Short? It has elevator speech tones as well. If the goal is to get information about the person, encourage them to give it to you. The second question gives a framework and a template; you could get some great insight into the individual that could allow for some higher-level inquiry into the person.

Standard: How did you hear about this position?

Revised: What interests you in these types of positions?

Remove the company angle because it could distort the answer. This question shouldn’t elicit a response that comes across as a pitch to why a prospect liked this role at this organization. It should give information as to why this role or title is of interest.

Standard: What do you consider to be your weaknesses?

Revised: What are three things you have historically struggled with and why?

I don’t love the strengths/weaknesses question just because it’s easy to get scripted answers with little depth. We know what pushes us out of our comfort zones, and we often know why we struggle with certain situations. Make them think about the answers they give because that’s valuable information you can use to really assess fit.

Standard: Tell me about a time you demonstrated leadership skills.

Revised: Who is someone that you would want to be led by?

It’s easy to make up a story about leadership. But think about the person who is trying to become a leader. What if they don’t have that experience yet and do not have an answer? They may know of a person who is a great leader, and their insight as to why they like that style could give better insight into the kind of leader they would want to be.

Standard: Tell me about a time you made a mistake.

Revised: How do you define accountability?

We all make mistakes, and it’s easy to script the answer. The first question is too broad as well. This is a question that can be layered in a few ways. Just asking for their definition of accountability will tell you most of what you need to know. If you want to add an additional part to it, follow up with how their definition of accountability would be applied to a mistake they made in the past.

Standard: Where do you see yourself in five years?

Revised: I don’t have one. Don’t ask this.

Whenever I get asked this question, I reply with “Alive.” Seriously, what is the goal with this one? The likelihood that someone you interview is in their current role after two years is unlikely, let alone where they will be in five. We make the mistake of thinking we have to have it mapped out or planned in a way that makes us seem like we have it all together. We don’t, and asking someone about the next five years when most of us are just trying to survive the day isn’t a good question to ask, especially if the job is entry-level.

INTJ-T

Chaotic Neutral