Fit is super important to me, we have an awesome group culture and I like to maintain that. Everyone has each other's backs, there is no "my staffing vs. your staffing", no back biting or undercutting. Everyone I work with genuinely supports and uplifts the rest. The last thing I want is the cut throat competitive type who'll throw this off balance.
I usually leave the introductory and technical interviews to the young'uns and rubber stamp on that feedback plus my gauge of fit. A lot comes out in casual conversation but naturally a lot of that is also canned and prepped. I do my best but I'd say I'm wrong just as often as I get get the right read.
How do you go about getting a read on a candidate to understand the kind of person they are in the context of a 30-45 minute conversation? Assuming they are technically proficient, smart and hard working.
following
Best proxy of desirable character for me is a competitive sports background... checks many boxes. Without that I try to figure out if they are well traveled and use that conversation to figure out if they are haughty or humble (doesn’t matter if they are well traveled or not). Then I use greek life or some other social club to see how they communicate around social experiences. I also always keep “that question” ready just in case it makes sense
lol that would make it hard for someone whos neither in greeklife nor competitive sport team and also not well traveled like me
The above is just what I’ve seen is pretty common and where I can touch some ground so those qualities are helpful proxies for me. If I didn’t see any of this on your resume I would just ask you how you like to spend your free time and hopefully learn something new through your experiences. Interviewing is a toss-up so you may get someome you share nothing in common with and yes, that is what makes it more difficult / why it’s a crapshoot.
Haha idk why this got so much ms. Maybe the "well traveled" part? I was thrown off at first but I think I get what you mean by it with the humble comment. Honestly these seem like a pretty good gauges to me, although I would check all of these boxes so I may be biased. I guess the nerds/geeds ms you aren't getting that you're looking at 3 things: ability to excel in high pressure situations, humble (not a douche), and good social skills.
I can agree with sports, but greek life is really ridiculous. I have never heard of anyone using that as a "gauge" or "proxy".
Like any investment you have to take on some risk to justify return. I think this rule still applies to human capital as well. You can only try your best to get a read on a person, but really I feel like you will never know a person until you start working in the trenches. If you make a wrong decision then you will have to cut losses and fire the individual. The one thing about applicants I find though is many are malleable and people can often change. I think a lot of people forget this when interviewing candidates.
For me, I look for integrity, honesty, curiosity and hunger.
Curiosity is the easiest to gauge. You can tell by the questions the candidate asks at the end of the interivew, when you say "do you have any questions for me regarding the role, team or our firm". The quality of the questions should give you a sense of whether the candidate critically thinks, which is important whether you are hiring for a buyside or sellside role.
Gauge on hunger is purely intuitive (in my opinion) and this typically comes across from HOW the candidate communicates. You want the hungry but confident type. How they answer questions will be very important. Maybe I'm not making a lot of sense, and it's all fluffy commentary, but it's really not an empirical science and a lot has to do with your feel. You need to trust your instincts when hiring.
If you interview enough candidates, you can tell when someone is lying or misrepresenting something. I typically choose between the following two: (a) write them off completely, cut the interview short and don't waste my own time, OR, (b) drill down on what they said and create a second opportuinty for them to be honest with you. But, typically, for me, I would say that, if someone lies (about anything), they are not a good fit. You do have to delineate between them trying to make something (weak or negative) sound better than it is, or straight up lying though. It's human-nature to try to not make yourself sound too bad. So, sometimes, you need to empathize.
I also personally like candidates that show vulnerability. Over-confident candidates that try to make themselves seem like superhumans, brainiacs, machines or perfect beings don't really float my boat. I want to work with real people, and real people have weaknesses. In an interview, you can ask them what their weaknesses are. What they say and how they answer will be important. Admitting shortfalls or weaknesses is also a sign of transparency and honesty. It also reveals how honest they are with themselves, and how much self reflection they have.
Dont let your candidate game you.
Apologies, but I wanted to add one more thing.
I always ask a candidate "how would you describe yourself". It's a very telling question, what and how a candidate decides to say. If a candidate voluntarily admits to shortfalls/weaknesses when answering this question, I automatically like them more (regardless of whether they are smart enough to know that they should show vulnerability, or that they are truly transparent and honest by nature). If they give some well-rehearsed boilerplate response, they are also boilerplate plugs that probably can only execute like a task machine. If they speak very highly of themselves, or only highlight their strengths, they are also not being real with you or themselves, and you probably don't want them, since they are probably much worse than what they think of themselves. Sort of repeating what I said above, I like it when people reveal vulnerability. It ticks a few boxes for me.
Disclaimer: my style is very transparent and honest. That might not be your style and not what you value, so above advice might be irrelevant to you. But, at least, that's what I think could be helpful in a 30-45min interview.
Modi libero non quaerat earum aut est. Corrupti sint nemo neque ut eum similique.
Id facilis minima consequatur quia. Molestiae magni tempora omnis eum sapiente est rerum mollitia. Sint dolorum id non quasi earum modi. Sint porro et tempora.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...