peterosborn.com

Organisations tend to end up with people who're tolerated because they're so nice, and people who're tolerated because they perform. You can only build performance with people who perform, so it's best to make sure that you can live with a candidates faults.

By the time a candidate arrives for interview, their apparent skills should be obvious; these attributes are what has justified them being considered. Early on in the interview, you will have to wheedle out the charlatans - the ones that over sold themselves.

The world doesn't have many lovely people who are high performers, so it's safe to say that you're unlikely to be interviewing any of these. Unpleasant non-performers ought to be easy to spot. If not, get yourself a new interviewer!

So you will be left with candidates in two categories: the ones who're obviously charming but you worry if they'll perform, and the people you'd never want to meet socially but can clearly do what you need. Either way, you have to work out whether you can live with their faults.

The Charmers are easy to get on with, you know they'll get on well with the others in your organisation. Don't be beguiled. With the Charmers, you'll have to live with continual disappointment. The Rottweilers can obviously perform, but at the cost of management effort and collateral damage.

Which to go for? Either way, you have to work out if you can live with their faults, and this is where interview effort should be focused. Is the problem with this nice person that they just don't deliver? Can you really cope with the mayhem that this performer will cause?

Many interviews I've sat in on over the years, have been preoccupied with finding out more about the candidates good side. If he doesn't have one, he shouldn't be there. It's the negatives that drive whether this person will remain in your business, and that's the place to focus.

(c) 2010, 2011 Peter G. Osborn