Play to get a job

At many companies, job interviews are limited to a pretty single-sided meeting of talking heads:
The candidate is interviewed by several people from the employer-to-be, and struggles to present himself in a good light.

At play4agile 2014, a conference aiming to introduce playfulness to the workspace, we challenged that premise, wondering how make these get-togethers more bilateral - and less talk.

The first thought came quickly: Represent strengths by picking one out of a number of super-heroes, represent your weakness by picking a super-villain to match. To spur imagination, the organizers could bring a set of collectible cards representing the individual characters, so the less-geeky have a chance to be part of the ensuing conversation.
We iterated over a number of ideas on that pattern, but stuck with the issue of one-sidedness:
It always felt like the candidate was up for inspection, with the company and managers kept their secrets to themselves.
With questions like "How will you possibly fail us?" and "Why did you quit your last job?" up for discussion, we felt like few candidates were trusting enough to answer honestly.

An ice-breaker was called for, and we found in the form of physical games:
Something like the Columbian Hypnotist will speed things along greatly, allowing both the candidate and the organizers to let go of their preconceptions and find harmony in synchronized movement.

Afterwards, we focused on meeting the candidate on equal footing, with the company or one particular manager giving something of himself for everything that the candidate is asked to give.
Exploring his possible weaknesses as a team member? Offer your weakness as a leader first, and tell him how you are addressing that weakness right now.
Exploring issues with his last job? Be plain about issues at your company and how you are improving things.
To keep the spirit of playfulness, we enjoyed the thought of building this dialogue in Lego, forming a physical interface for the candidate to connect to.

Innovation Games are a great source of inspiration as well, with the "Product Box" a particular favourite of ours:
Ask candidates to build a box representing them to the team or company, while you build one for the respective containers.
This one not only offers points to talk about and greases your thoughts in an entertaining way, it also gives you a physical artifact you could use for a bi-lateral review some months in - possibly to amend it, and review it again at later point.

At the end of either exercise, you can ask the candidate to present the result to a camera for later discussion, giving him the option to take something home with him for later improvement (while keeping your treasured bricks).
The product boxes of successful hires might also make a great gallery for a team room or website!

How do you like these techniques? What are your favorite thoughts for lightening up an interview?
Please leave a comment!

Varoufakis on Valve: Hire and Fire

Yanis Varoufakis, ein griechischer Wirtschaftswissenschaftler, hat vor einiger Zeit mit econtalk gesprochen - es ging vor allem um seine Arbeit mit Valve.
Im zweiten Anlauf, euch zu erzählen, was ich gehört habe, verwerfe ich die Idee, ein blow-by-blow zu schreiben und sortiere meine Gedanken lieber thematisch in mehrere Artikel.

In diesem ersten dreht es sich um Anstellungsverhältnisse und Vergütung, in einem weiteren wird es um die managerlose Organisation gehen.

Den ganzen Podcast (60+ Minuten) gibt es hier.

Hire and Fire

Das erste Thema nach der Vorstellung aller Akteure war der Anstellungsprozess und das Gehalt. Wie stellt ein anarchosyndikalistischer Laden ohne willige Manager neue Leute ein?

Anstellungen, erzählt Varoufakis, finden statt, wenn Mitarbeiter in einem Projekt Bedarf nach einer Fähigkeit haben, aber niemanden in der Firma finden, der mit ihnen zusammenarbeiten will.
Sie treffen sich mit interessanten Leuten, das ganze dauert durchaus einen Tag pro Person - und währenddessen diskutiert und entscheidet die ganze Firma online mit, so dass jeder Einfluss auf die Entscheidung nehmen kann.

Das Gehalt entsteht genauso: Das Gehalt, dass man bei der Einstellung vereinbart, sei nur ein kleiner Teil, sagt er - viel entscheidender der Bonus, der ohne feste Obergrenze von den Mitarbeitern untereinander in einem "complicated peer review process" festgelegt wird. Weit später fügt er noch ein interessantes Detail hinzu: Bei der Bonus-Bestimmung darf niemand für sich selbst stimmen:

"Das ist das einzig Gute, was uns der Eurovision Song Contest gelehrt hat."

Das Resultat ist, dass jeder bekommt, was die anderen für fair erachten - und das ist in Ordnung, denn die Mitarbeiter respektieren sich untereinander

5-6fache des Grundgehalts sei nicht unerhört, sagt Varoufakis dazu, und später merkt er an, dass aus seiner Sicht die Einkommensverteilung beinahe sozialistisch sei - er meint, dass niemand nur aufgrund seiner Position bezahlt werde, sondern das Geld vom Verdienst abhängt. 

Und was, wenn jemand gehen soll?

Varoufakis konzentriert sich in seiner Antwort auf den Umstand, dass Kollegen nicht mit der führerlosen Umgebung klarkommen - und das kommt wohl immer wieder vor.
Dann folgt eine Reihe von Gesprächen, mit dem Ziel, eine Übereinkunft zu finden - mein Verständnis war, dass sich Valve dabei bemüht, den Mitarbeiter zu behalten, aber das hat er so klar nicht gesagt.
Wenn sonst keine andere Option bleibt, will man wenigstens Freunde bleiben und schnürt ein attraktives Abfindungspaket.

Und ungenügende Leistung, gar Drückebergertum? Erlaubt die Organisation, dass ich mich verstecke und zum Beispiel in keinem der Teams richtig mitmache?
Nein, sagt er, das kommt nicht vor. Wer durch das System fällt, fällt auf.

Allerdings sei das selten ein Problem, denn jeder Mitarbeiter sei "hand-picked to be an asset."
Das find ich toll - bist Du das auch, ein "asset" für Deine Firma? Was braucht es, um das zu sein?

Überrascht Dich irgendetwas von dem, was er erzählt? Was, und warum?
Was kann Deine Firma daraus lernen und für sich adaptieren?

Ich freue mich auf Deinen Kommentar!

Hiring, two at a time

Lately, I've been thinking about good ways to find the right people to work with.
In other words, how to conduct job interviews so you get just the people you want.

In a timeless piece of advice, Dee Hock of Visa put it this way:

"Hire and promote first on the basis of integrity; second, motivation; third, capacity; fourth, understanding; fifth, knowledge; and last and least, experience.
“Without integrity, motivation is dangerous; without motivation, capacity is impotent; without capacity, understanding is limited; without understanding, knowledge is meaningless; without knowledge, experience is blind. Experience is easy to provide and quickly put to good use by people with all the other qualities.”

The authors of  "Tribal Leadership" translated that thought to looking for values and mindset first, because their research showed that only shared values and a common cause to strive for gave companies a culture that could overcome any challenge.

To me, a high focus on teamwork, collaboration and treating my colleagues as I would treat myself is part of those things, and so I found myself wondering about this:

Instead of interviewing (and subsequently, hiring) people one at a time, you could tell candidates to wait another moment, and only invite them when you have at least two people willing to join you - and could actually imagine to hire both.
Invite both of them and conduct an interview with both at the same time - and afterwards, give the room to them, with one single task: Writing a letter of advice about the qualities of the other guy and why to hire that person for your company.
Answer their questions and leave, observing them from outside, and meditate on whether you would hire none, one or both of them - but don't make a decision until you get their letters of recommendation and have observed them at work with what might well be their competitor.

I guess you could learn a lot from your observations in that hour - and if all goes well, you can hire two people who already know each other and have worked as a impromptu-team right on the spot, with demonstrated qualities in teamwork and in assessing another person's qualities.


What do you think of this?
Would it contribute to your hiring process?

Do you know of a company with interesting, successful procedures in hiring?
Please share.