News

This Is How You Identify A-Players (In About 10 Minutes) During An Interview

This post was first shared with my private email list for founders. If you want to learn how to grow from small startup to thriving company (from someone that’s built 5 companies with $200M in total revenue), you should subscribe.

Over the last 15 years I’ve probably interviewed close to 1,000 people for all sorts of roles. From sales to marketing to engineering to customer service to management and even CEOs and board members.

When I started interviewing, I’d estimate my hit rate was right around 50%, which means only 1 in 2 candidates would be a good fit for the role. Over the years and as I continued to interview and hire, I started to see the “real life” impact of hiring A-players.

If you haven’t heard the term “A-players” before, don’t feel bad. Here’s a quick rundown — when it comes to people in the context of work, you can generally group them into 3 categories:

  • A-players: the top 5% of people. They work hard, go over and above, are well liked and respected and typically move “up the ranks” fast.
  • B-players: most people. They do the 9–5 thing, do their job well and are generally the “good not great” people.
  • C-players: the bottom 10%. They do just enough to scrape through, don’t volunteer to take on new projects, like (and cause) conflict and have little to no personal accountability or responsibility.

In terms of hiring, your managers are A/B/C players too, which means:

  • A-players love to hire other A-players and build teams of super smart people that love to win. They genuinely want to be the “dumbest” person in the room and love learning from those around them
  • B-players hire C-players because they’re worried about someone coming in and taking their job
  • C-players don’t really hire (too hard/too lazy), but if they do, they’ll pretty much take whoever comes along

So obviously you want to hire A-players, right? Good. I sat down earlier today and thought about all of the A-players I’ve been fortunate enough to hire over the years at my 5 previous companies — most of which are still in those companies today.

I thought about the commonalities between them and what “makes them tick” and I also thought about my actual interviews with them — even the interviews back in the early 2000s. When I asked myself “What do they all have in common that would form the foundation of an A-player?”, I came up with a series of personality traits and past experiences.

I then looked at it from another angle and came up with 7 questions you can use in your interview process to give you a much better chance of finding and hiring them.

Here are those 7 questions:

Q1: Have they been promoted at least once in a previous role?

A-players are great at what they do and good managers will pick up on that fast, offering them more responsibility and eventually a more challenging role. Look at their LinkedIn profile and see if, at any of their previous companies, they’ve been promoted. Once is great, twice is amazing and three times is out of this world.

Q2: Have they had to lead a big project in a previous role? How did they handle it?

A-players like to take on more responsibility over time, not less. Have they had a previous manager that was so confident in their abilities that they were given a large or important project to run on their own?

Q3: Is this the same role as a previous job or is it somewhat/completely different?

A-players love challenges. I found that most A-players don’t change companies so much as they change roles — because they like the challenge of constantly learning new things and being in new situations.

Q4: Can they speak about your company and tell you what they like and what they might change?

A-players do research on a company before an interview. They try to understand your strategy, what’s going well and even what’s not. Can they clearly articulate what they like about your company but also provide some constructive feedback on something you might want to change?

If they don’t know what your company does or they have no opinion (positive or negative) about it, that’s a red flag.

Q5: Are they confident without being cocky?

This is a fine line. A-players have great track records and you want someone who talks a lot about being on great teams and having great managers and mentors, not someone constantly saying “I this, I that”.

Q6: Are they committed to continual learning? Can they prove it?

A-players love learning new skills. Ask them what they learned in their previous role. Ask which book they’re currently reading. Ask what they plan to learn in the next 6–12 months and how they’ll go about doing that.

Q7: How would you rate the quality and quantity of questions they ask YOU during the interview?

A great interview is always a conversation — it’s never one-sided. Look at the quantity and quality of questions they ask YOU. A-players care about the team they’ll be on, their manager and where you want to take your company moving forward.

If you’d like to use these questions in your next interview, I’ve put together a swipe file which includes a 70-point rating system you can use to help you assess whether candidates are A-players or not. Download it here (look for the yellow box). It also includes the specific questions you can ask during the interview, for those of you who aren’t sure.

Remember, hiring A-players isn’t a science. There’s a lot more to it than asking the 7 questions above, but in my experience it’s a great place to start. You also need to trust your gut, check references, assess if they’re a great cultural fit and most importantly ask the people on the team they’ll be a part of whether they’d like to work with them or not.

Want more stuff like this? Join my private email list for founders here.

Source: Medium

Read more

Prominent architects slam Vancouver’s planning and development

Comments coincide with plan to have separate managers of those two civic functions 

The city’s policy of protecting view corridors has had a negative effect on livability downtown and deprived the city of ‘billions’ of dollars in development cost charges that could be used for social good, said architect Richard Henriquez.

VANCOUVER — Vancouver’s planning and architecture have suffered over the long term from a lack of foresight by City Hall and heavy-handed management, three of the city’s prominent architects said Friday.

From a singular focus on protecting view corridors and restricting height limits downtown to the departure of experienced staff unhappy with the consolidation of power in the city manager’s office, Vancouver’s architectural and planning direction has drifted off course, said James Cheng, Richard Henriquez and Joost Bakker at an Urban Development Institute luncheon.

In comments at the event and in interviews later, the three said city council’s failure to hire a new director of planning and manager of development services since Brian Jackson retired last year has hurt the city.

“Without a planner and a manager of development services, every junior clerk is inventing a process to his job,” said Cheng, whose projects have included the Shangri-La, the Shaw Tower and adjacent Fairmont Pacific Rim Hotel.

Said Henriquez, the founding partner of Henriquez Partners Architects: “They are also not prepared to exercise any discretion because they don’t have the confidence, they don’t understand the principles on which the project is based. They rely back on the policies that are written.”

And Bakker, a partner in DIALOG, believes the parade of planning directors who have gone through the city since Ray Spaxman and Larry Beasley 20 years ago has not resulted in a consistent vision for the city.

“I don’t think it has helped us at all. You like to have some certainty, some consistency. You’d like to have a good long run so some ideas can manifest themselves,” he said.

The architects’ comments came on the same day the city finally made public a plan to divide in two the traditional role of planning director and manager of development services.

For all of its history Vancouver has relied upon the director of planning to also be responsible for managing development. But the decision to split the roles is an acknowledgment that they are now mutually exclusive and contain an inherent conflict, with daily development pressures impeding long-term city planning.

Bakker said the split also signals that the city has grown up enough to support the sophisticated and conflicting roles.

“I don’t think this city has seen anything yet,” he said. “People have no idea what is yet to come in the next 40 years and I think some of it is in a lot more exuberant, expensive buildings. We’re starting to see that appear. I think we are at the tip of a new iceberg.”

Under the new plan, the director of planning — a legislatively mandated job under the Vancouver Charter — will report to the new manager of development services.

“You need both a dreamer and an implementer,” said Cheng, who believes the lack of direction has also made it more costly for the average citizen. “It affected the cost of doing business in Vancouver, because everything takes longer. There is nobody there to make decisions,” he said, noting that a decade ago a homeowner might pay a few hundred dollars for a building permit. Now the pre-permit fees are nearly $15,000 just to get the mandatory geotechnical, arborist and environmental engineering reports.

“Think of the poor citizen who owns a 33-foot lot and has saved all his life to build his own house. Before he even gets started he is slapped with all these fees, plus all these months just to get a permit,” he said. “This is not helping affordable housing.”

Bakker said former City Manager Penny Ballem’s consolidation of power has left Vancouver with a lack of senior management with long institutional knowledge.

“The thing I find disconcerting is that … we’ve had a really powerful city manager and a lot of traffic has been directed out of that office,” he said. “You need strong departments. I think we’ve lost a lot of people who were disaffected and took off, and to build that back up is going to take time.”

The trio also weighed in on the city’s long-term policy of protecting downtown view corridors from the incursion of tall buildings. Cheng said in theory it may have been a good idea, but needs to be reviewed.

Henriquez was more direct. Such policies have had a negative effect on livability downtown and have deprived the city of “billions” of dollars in development cost charges that could be used for social good, he said.

“When you are increasing density and you are not increasing the height, you are curtailing the possibility of open spaces. It compromises the livability of the downtown by not having open space and having buildings closer together without enough privacy,” he said. “There is tremendous value in the space up top. If you rezone something overheight, you can use the development cost charges for social housing or whatever. There are billions, billions of dollars at issue.”

All three of the architects were born outside of Canada but chose to make the Vancouver area their home.

Cheng, born in Hong Kong and educated at the University of Washington and Harvard, apprenticed under another Canadian architectural icon, Arthur Erickson. Cheng’s penchant for concrete construction and green glass facades became one of his signatures.

Henriquez, born in Jamaica, had a major hand in formulating some of the striking architecture that has changed Vancouver. He took the old Vancouver Post Office downtown and created Sinclair Centre, and designed the first housing for the re-colonized former industrial lands in False Creek. He also designed the Justice Institute in New Westminster, as well as the Environmental Sciences building at Trent University. With his son Gregory, Henriquez’ company has put an indelible stamp on Vancouver architecture, including the redesign of Woodward’s, the Telus Garden complex and the planned redevelopment of Oakridge Centre.

Bakker, who was born in Curaçao, studied economics and architecture at the University of Toronto. His views of urban issues were influenced by Toronto architect George Baird. His architectural influence is seen in his co-authorship with Norm Hotson of the Granville Island redevelopment, the planned new Student Union Building at the University of B.C., and Richmond City Hall, which won a Governor General’s Medal for architecture.

Source: The Vancouver Sun

 

Read more

5 Hiring Trends To Watch In 2016

As 2016 gets into full swing, we’re beginning to see several key hiring trends develop. Based on my insights as a former recruiter, I believe these themes bode well for job seekers looking to make the most of their career this year by finding a new job. Here are five trends job seekers can leverage in finding their next great role:

1. Job offers will include more perks and benefits. According to Mercer, salary increases this year are projected to be 2.9%. So, if you’re planning on remaining in your current job, chances are your raise will not be significant (if you receive one at all).

As such, job seekers looking to increase their earning power by pursuing external opportunities should also focus on negotiating more bells and whistles in their offer. In light of the current talent shortage, employers are generally hungry for quality candidates. Seekers should leverage this not only in negotiating financial benefits like base compensation, a sign-on bonus and relocation allowance – which may be more difficult to attain in the current economic climate – but also for perks like flexible work schedules and additional time off. Candidates can expect to see offers that include ramped up benefits like unlimited personal time and extended maternity and personal leaves.

2. Increased interest in boomerangs. The trend of employees considering returning to their former employers is on the rise. In a recent Monster poll, more than half of participants revealed that they’d consider returning to a former employer.

To that point, an additional 28% reported that they are already boomerangs. As more recruiters (and therefore employers) tap into this potential gold mine of rehires, they’re discovering the benefits of a former employee: boomerangs already know the company culture and infrastructure, which can help reduce their time to hire as well as their ramp up period.

We can expect to see more companies hosting in-person and virtual alumni events to network and re-establish rapport with their former employees, and, most importantly, build a pipeline of valuable potential rehires.

3. Social media will be increasingly used to find candidates. Back in the day, employers could only rely on resumes and cover letters to get a sense of a candidate’s qualifications. As we all know, the Internet and social media have made it much easier for them to find and research potential candidates – especially elusive talent that may not be actively looking for a job.

While resumes and cover letters are still staples of the process, expect recruiters to check out your online profiles in addition to what you have submitted – or even before you submit anything at all.

The really good news? Whether you’re looking for a job, applying or simply networking, having an active, polished online presence can make it easier for recruiters to find you and reach out about opportunities you may not have even known existed. Be reachable and, more importantly, be responsive to their emails, even if you’re not interested at the time.

4. More lucrative employee referral programs – and beyond. When I worked in corporate recruiting, all of my hiring managers shared one common hiring metric: the number one source of new hires was employee referrals.

In 2016, it’s likely employers will ramp up their referral programs for employees, as well as start extending referral bonuses externally, such as offering $100 to $500 to friends of the company and former employees. As the war for talent heats up, keep your eyes open for opportunities to refer friends and colleagues.

5. More offers will include flexibility. Until recently, it was common for candidates to be nervous about asking potential employers for flexible work arrangements.

Now more and more employers are offering flexibility as part of their employment package up front. And the options will continue to expand this year – from occasional telecommuting to staggering work hours and more. As the workplace continues to evolve, hiring practices will change along with them.

Source: Forbes

 

Read more

Post comment