Where 'Future-Speak' Fails

I got surprised yesterday...twice.

My first surprise was in a conversation I had with my Vistage Chair. She mentioned that she had read my last post on conversations that are future-focused. Mind you, it was a pleasant surprise that she would read it at all. In a nutshell, I determined to apply this 'Future-Speak' method to guide my one-to-one conversations with my managers. My intention in doing so was to help them clarify a vision of their contribution and value within the company. It certainly has made for more active and vibrant and engaging coaching opportunities that I don't have to manipulate or coerce.

The second surprise came in the same conversation when she challenged my broad application of the practice. She said, "There is one critical area of business where talking about the future can actually hurt your business...and it's a mistake that many managers and CEO's make."

I leaned forward and braced myself.

"It doesn't work when you are interviewing candidates to work for your company."

Yep. She was right, and I knew it, because I had learned it and practiced it. I was first exposed to a seemingly counter-intuitive way of approaching hiring from a 30-year recruiting expert that spoke to my Vistage group (http://www.vistage.com). His name is Barry Shamis, and not only isn't his approach counter-intuitive, it is brilliantly simple common sense. You can successfully self-educate at his website http://www.selectingwinners.com, but better if you can hear him speak.

His premise is that when hiring, seeing how a candidate answers a future-focused question is not only a poor indicator, it is no indicator of future success at a company. The better questions not only explore past experiences they've had, they examine them exhaustively.

Example of a poor question: How will you manage projects if we hire you (Hang on as they dither on).

Example of a better question: How did you put together the project plan for XYZ Company? (From this question follows a dozen more that drill down to the specific, fact-based detail).

Why does this matter?

To give one of many very good reasons (you can go to Barry's site for more): It makes your reference calls more meaningful in that you can substantiate not only the candidates credentials and qualifications, but you can verify their very specific contributions they have shared with you (What? You've never been lied to in an interview? A candidate has never embellished their work?)

The most surprising thing about this down-and-dirty 'tell me how you did it' approach with job candidates? No surprises...