Ben Franklin on Management

If you would not be forgotten as soon as you are dead and rotten, either write something worth reading or do things worth the writing. - Ben Franklin: America's Original Entrepreneur

How to Interview

So You Think You’re Making Your Hiring Decisions? Hiring managers may be surprised to find out that they often take the role of “auditor” rather than “decision maker” in hiring employees.  Many hiring managers audit a checklist to see if job candidates “match up” but they unwittingly end up relegating real hiring decisions to their competition; the applicant's last employer.

Here’s how some hiring managers evaluate a prospective employee: Ten years experience in a similar role at a competing firm we envy – check, Ivy League graduate – check, lives close by – check,  they seemed like a nice person in the interview – check; and hired. I challenge this thinking. A lot of middle managers and recruiters hire this way because it’s “safe” for them. However, it does little on its own to identify raw talent or to uncover the type of personalities that would best match what their company stands for vs. the competition.

So what if a candidate worked at Goldman Sachs and went to Harvard? So what if they had the exact role at a competitor for the last 10 years? These can be great accomplishments but, if managers make hiring decisions based on where someone previously worked or their tenure in the exact role, then they aren’t really the one making hiring decisions. Instead they are allowing the hiring manager from the candidate’s previous company to decide for them. Who’s to say the present hiring manager would have hired the candidate 10 years ago at that other company when the candidate didn’t have the 10 years experience?  Besides, there are plenty of people that got ahead in the past due to economic tailwinds and connections rather than from their own abilities. The point is, an interviewer must not lose their objectivity if they truly desire to uncover talent rather than just put cheeks in seats.

If you’re in a position to hire people, how do you know you’re doing a good job? Have you studied how to conduct interviews or is it something you just picked up along the way? Have you articulated the criteria you’re looking for? What assumptions led you to believe that your criterion is best for your organization?

I compiled a few tips that you may find useful in identifying talent.  For simplicity, I assume a hiring manager is not accidentally screening out qualified candidates due to limited resume keyword searches or due to outsourced recruiters with possibly different incentives than that of the company’s.

Interview Structure: Most professional interviews could use a dose of behavioral, functional, and case study interview styles. It’s important to not only hire for the role you’re trying to fill but to also inventory talent and skills for later use by the organization and to uncover the next generation of leadership. It can be good to encourage the candidate to evaluate the employer and vice a versa. Often interviewers want the prospect to “sell them” when it can be much more useful to search for an alignment of personal and organizational interests without the pretense.  Many prospects will try to “sell” the employer in today’s job market but they likely won’t stay around when a more aligned employment opportunity comes up in the future.

Sophisticated Questions: A lot of interviewers take only the resume to the interview and wing-it with their questions without a written agenda. Others have generic questions handed down to them by HR that were drafted by someone with no experience in the role being evaluated. These interviewers often fall back on canned questions such as, “What’s your weakness?” and thereby get canned responses. Here’s an example of how an astute interviewer can improve their questions and efficiency by asking one question and evaluating many deeper indications of talent:

What is the most common misperception your friends, family, or colleagues have about you? 

-Element of Truth: Typically there is an element of truth to how people are perceived. Often this question gets a candidate to unwittingly volunteer a more authentic response of a potential weakness.

-Think: Can the candidate creatively think of a response to a hard question quickly? Are they rattled when they don’t have an answer readily at hand? Are they in tune with their weaknesses?

-Articulate: Can the candidate put their response into a succinct framework that showcases their organizational abilities?

-Opportunity to Highlight: Has the candidate gone the extra mile to show how the misperception has been used to their advantage, or overcome, and how the experience has prepared them for the role being offered?

Ask it Again: Assuming the interviewer is well versed in Active Listening, the next level of interviewing uses sophisticated questions, in a series, related to core required attributes. For some reason, in verbal communication, the real picture seems to emerge after a few questions are asked.  The following example identifies a critical element of a job opening and has corresponding questions:

Identified Critical Skill for a Sales Role: The ability to determine how the customer vendor selection process is made and the ability to develop and communicate value propositions accordingly.

-Question 1: Once you uncover the need for your client, how do you supply your solution to meet their needs? (Price, product, speed, service, selection, etc)

-Question 2: Can you detail the elements of your solution and explain why they were selected? (Depth of knowledge, customer value creation)

-Question 3: If you were speaking with a new prospect right now, would you please list the four top reasons why they should work with you?  (Are the answers compelling and differentiated from competitors?)

-Question 4: On your last sale, how did the customer decide to go with you and who at their company was most directly responsible? (Depth of experience and communication)

Role Articulation: It’s my firm belief that if the employer can’t articulate how success on the job will be defined and rewarded for both achieving goals and exceeding them; then they haven’t done their job as the employer. Being successful in a role comes from more than a job description. It requires an alignment of expectations and the incentive to break past mediocrity into meritocracy. Similarly, a prospective employee needs to do their part by evaluating the opportunity and making sure they have a match in three critical areas:  1.) the right boss, 2.) the right job, and, 3.) the right company for them personally. A good interviewer will help encourage this part of the process.

Read and Forget the Resume: Hiring Managers would do well to show professional courtesy by studying the resume of the candidate prior to meeting with them.  Time in the interview should be spent purposely evaluating ability without overspending time on reviewing an already communicated career track.  A lot of interviewers go through a historical rehash of a person’s career whether the job was relevant to the open role or not. I’ve seen interviewers ask all kinds of operational questions for a sales position because that was the candidate’s last role so they thought they should talk about it.  So here’s the big tip, when done studying the resume; FORGET IT.  Take what you need and apply it to your agenda without getting caught up in an hour long biography. What abilities and skills are you trying to uncover in the next 60 minutes and how does the candidate measure up now and potentially in the future?

Personality Fit:  Are you really screening out people that don’t fit the culture? It’s quite common to recruit a key salesperson or key employee from a competitor and look past behavior alignment. A good practice is to articulate the values desired in a candidate and to have questions designed as a litmus test for identifying these espoused values.  For example, if interviewing a sales manager you might ask what they would do if their top salesperson consistently, after warnings, broke a value that is held dear to the hiring company.  You know if the interviewee would not suggest that they would eventually terminate this top salesperson, the company’s values may be in jeopardy of becoming mere platitudes if this person were hired. 

Check your Assumptions:  Do you screen out people that are really needed to diversify a myopic culture?  If you’re not paying attention, your subconscious mind will guide you to preconceived notions of people and you’ll naturally be drawn to what is familiar and comfortable for you. Even if you are in tune with your own biases, it’s so easy to get into a routine or formula of personality types that has worked out before. Be mindful of this. As someone who’s hired multiple cultures, personalities, and skills sets, I can tell you that you’re missing out if you try to put people in a box. Some of my best people were total surprises to me.  One vivid example was an awkward and kind of introverted person interviewing for a sales role. I had my hesitations but this person was very articulate about where and how they could succeed. It turned out; their authentic personality was the perfect match for the professional referral sources they called on who were tired of the flashy extrovert types. Breakthrough doesn’t usually come from what you expect or you probably would have done it already.

Set Expectations:  Setting expectations is critical. I think most would agree that if they took a job they were told would be a horrible experience but with a little more pay; they’d be inclined to stick-it-out since they accepted the trade-off. However, if you were told you’d have a great experience and really good compensation, and it turned out to a be horrible experience, you’d probably be placing a lot of blame as you became aware of your disappointment and would look for the first exit.  Accurately setting expectations places accountability on the person accepting the role and most people will live up to their word. It’s therefore better to under promise and over deliver when describing an open position.

So you can hire by audit and be safe but, if you really want to maximize the resources you put into every chair in your office, consider some of these tips. Talent is the one thing you can leverage in abundance without undue risk but, one must be masterful to first uncover it. 


For more tips on how to interview employees, click here. 

Managing Through Adversity

It is wise to remember that a securely grounded kite rises against the winds of adversity. 

Management Limitations

If one knows that they cannot know everything; then it would make sense to first know one’s limitations.

Empathy in Management

Empathy begins with an understanding that, for a great many, it is far easier to cast anger upon others than to confront their own sadness. 


A good book for a better understanding of this message is Conscious Loving: The Journey to Co-Commitment

EXECUTIVES vs. SMALL BIZ OWNERS; Who's the Better Manager?

An executive’s career is often valued largely on perception because of their affiliation with a large company or by the privilege of graduating from a prestigious university.  A common thought is that hiring a person from the Ivy League or Fortune 500 group will spread some of the “Midas touch” around for a new employer.  The small business owner on the other hand is often perceived to be disastrous when let lose in a large firm.  After all, this precocious entrepreneur often does it “their way” and may have little schooling on professional management techniques.  I am stereotyping of course, but how much of the perception is reality and what are the favored characteristics and flaws from both groups?  What is it that will actually help these groups be winners in the game of business? I have had the privilege of working in both large and small businesses and I objectively share my observations with you.

Executives often have the prettiest PowerPoint presentations I have ever seen.  This group can put together amazingly complex spreadsheets and reports that would cost a small business their entire revenue stream.  The Executives also know teamwork and often sit on several cross-functional committees.  For as strong as these Executives are in these areas, it is often the company’s scale and business model set-up by its founders that carry the weight of so much administration rather than a direct return from their efforts.  Executives often put fires out and deal reactively to “manage” the ship rather than steer it.  I have met several Executives over the years that have held a skewed perspective on the significance and impact of their personal contributions.  In reality, many have never run a company and have not developed a cunning instinct for business as much as a set of internal cultural beliefs from their career. This limited view of the “big picture” often leads to waste, mediocrity, politics, scope creep, and a focus on “career” rather than “business”. 

The Small Business Owner on the other hand can have amazing laser-like focus on their customers really want and projects that really move the needle. Good Small Business Owners can be aggressive, decisive, and visionary in many regards; constantly propelling their companies forward.  There is something to be said for a manager that could go personally bankrupt if he makes the wrong decision on the job.  However revered these icons are, they often run into problems evolving into sustainable organizations beyond their own persona.  Ego and isolation as a sole decision maker can be blinding. Limited capital can lead to emotional decisions and mistakes can be made from being a little too aggressive and by not surrounding themselves with great talent. 

So who wins - Executives or Small Biz Owners?  As you can probably tell; it’s neither.  The best managers have the ability to combine multiple perspectives, to understand the big picture, to be decisive, to derive a vision, to effectively communicate it, to manage people, and to execute as an organization.  At the end of the day, these leaders are just people.  Regardless of background, they may have developed a well balanced set of professional management skills.  So, if “validating” a prospective employee’s skills, it would be wise to look past their prestigious titles and how many or how few employees were at their last company.  Instead, you might evaluate a person’s character and values first and then their conceptual and functional skills that will drive business results and not their own agendas!  

Prepare for Leadership

Those who aspire to stand in the light would do well to prepare for the ensuing shadow.

Einstein on Management

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius, and a sense of courage, to move in the opposite direction. - Albert Einstein

Negative Attribution Bias – What are you assuming?

Ever been enjoying a nice drive, blasting your favorite music, when you ended up stuck behind another driver at the intersection on a green light? Did you immediately think what an idiot the other driver was? Maybe your internal voice said, “Hey put down the phone, quit looking in the mirror, and stop acting like an entitled jerk who thinks the world revolves around you; the light’s green – let’s go!”  Acting on your frustration, did you lay into the horn to voice your objection to the sheer audacity of this nuisance to society…..…only to find out the driver was stopped to let a fire truck pass?  It happened to me once. Imagine how I felt when I realized I was the jerk who had his radio too loud and was too impatient to realize the other driver had a perspective greater than my own that benefited my own safety.

Humans by nature tend to have a bias to attribute negative meaning to circumstances. We often think we were cut-off in traffic because the other driver was careless rather than because they were distracted and rushing to the hospital to visit a critical loved one.  Leaders must be very cognizant of this bias.  It’s not uncommon for a CEO to think they’re smarter than everyone else around them and not realize that their own behavior discourages direct reports from disagreeing with him. The CEO negatively assumes a “yes man” equals ignorance rather than merely conditioned response to the CEO’s behavior. The sales manager may think sales are down because she assumes her staff is not making enough sales calls. She negatively assumes that the staff needs to be micromanaged when in reality she may be unaware of a shift in the marketplace or an internal systems failure that stretches the sales cycle.  The non-profit leader who asks for volunteers may attribute a lack of compassion when their request is rejected rather than assuming the other party is already overcommitted to other charities.

The underlying elements that permit negative attribution bias to flourish often stem from a lack of self awareness (of the stresses and inputs influencing behavior) and a lack of self confidence (the calm assertive force that maintains objectivity in light of said influences).   The CEO’s stress to meet quarterly earnings may cause a degree of impatience and frustrated reactions to bad news that undermines their effectiveness to lead and to maximize the utilization of their direct reports. The sales manager, unconsciously reacting to the stress of the CEO and fearful for her job, might react with negative assumptions on her team’s performance. Rather than objectively evaluate the business environment or individual team member contributions, it’s likely the manager will react to what she interprets as her boss’ expectations. This can lead to condescending behavior, frustration, and micromanagement rather than trust and leadership benchmarked to the realities of a changing marketplace.  She spreads fear rather than possibility and expends energy rather than energizing others.  Ask yourself, what are you assuming? Are you reacting or creating?




Merchant Cash Advance from Shearson Capital

Star Trek: A Model to Unleash the Power of Your Business!

It’s undeniable; Star Trek has had a universal and sustainable appeal for generations of fans. Yes, I may be revealing my inner nerd but, I have a theory on why Star Trek is so appealing and it has potential opportunity for business leaders to create high performance cultures.  The cornerstone of my theory relies on the assumption that audiences are finding something they can identify with in the franchise.  While I think basic elements such as exploration, technology, equality, and adventure are important elements; they can readily be found in other franchises that have not been sustained. I think there’s something deeper.  I believe that people are identifying with characters that are representative of their natural abilities.  I think these unique abilities are often oppressed, underappreciated, or not fully expressed in many people’s lives and it feels good for them to watch a relatable character exercise their talents in a rewarding environment. Star Trek makes the Chief Science Officer, Chief Engineer, and Medical Officer something cool.  Audiences aren’t limited to aspire to be the Captain; there are other experts vital to the mission in roles just as prominent.  There is always a challenge that unifies the crew behind a common cause that requires the unique skills of several experts to resolve it. Contributions are transparent to all of the team and politics are non-existent.  The Captain doesn’t run around like he is the smartest person in the room, stealing all the limelight, and publishing a memoir on why he was solely responsible for the turnaround of the situation (aka General Motors).

Think about the potential of this Star Trek culture in a workplace. What if everyone was tested for their greatest aptitude and prepared to reach that potential? What if every participant showed up to work with people they admired and performed a job doing what they love? What if the entire team had the singular clarity of purpose brought about by something worth fighting for? On the Enterprise, the organization of each expert’s role creates a wide range of freedom to exercise authority within their role; even for the Captain. The Captain’s chief job is to make smart and objective decisions, often under great pressure and with limited information. As such, the Captain contributes to the team by bringing his expertise in decision making in support of his peers, not over them. The Captain values the input from his experts and serves to inspire their best input. To elicit the input and analyze information, the Captain himself must be a master generalist in several areas of expertise and managerial excellence. This support sustains the integrity of the organization which gains its power from the utilization of each member’s contributions. It may sound ideal, but I’m not one to settle. I’d say such a work environment would be the most rewarding professional experience a person could enjoy. 

Applied Wisdom: Essential Critical Thinking

In the course of an average day in the company of mediocrity, I feel the need to share a word or two on the subject of wisdom.  The applied knowledge of today’s middle manager reminds me of the story of the drunk pulled over by the police. The officer checking the sobriety of his suspect inquires how many years education the man has, to which the drunk replies, “twenty years; I took the tenth grade twice”.  While the drunk’s arithmetic is technically sound, it’s horribly misapplied. 

In the workplace, such interactions tend to be much less humorous and yet are just as serious as a drunk behind the wheel. Here’s an example. A salesperson that does really well selling widgets in an era of tailwinds may be promoted to a management position. Full of confidence from their success and presented with the opportunity for advancement and increased compensation; the salesperson would rarely turndown the offer.  It would be especially difficult to resist the offer in a corporate culture that does not provide the same accolades for subject matter expertise and craftsmanship as it does to the management career track of the corporate ladder.  The newly minted manager would rarely evaluate their skills as an effective leader to check for areas of improvement let alone consider whether management itself is the best application of their talents. Furthermore, the company would rarely set feedback systems outside of the reporting chain to evaluate the new manager’s skills.  Still in an era of tailwinds without proper benchmarks, the new manager excels on the labor of their direct reports.  As the new manager acclimates to their role, they began to apply what’s always worked for them in the past, the cornerstone of attribution error. They reach into their toolbox of skills, find a lone hammer, and readily apply their myopic view to every problem as if the whole world were a nail.

The new manager, with their limited tools, decidedly micromanages employees rather than selecting appropriate talent and offering the opportunity for failure. They hire new people from known companies because they have not the skill to uncover raw talent on their own terms. They require without the slightest hint on how to inspire. They measure without a tether to the reality of the marketplace. And for all of this poor behavior; they are often richly rewarded so long as the market continues to make them successful despite themselves. Soon new opportunity is upon them. They move up in the company and hire their replacement; the loyalist that never challenged them. Throw in a couple of mergers and now this person is responsible for a large P&L, their tenure lends credibility to their stature, and the mirage becomes perceived reality. Next, the incentive biased search consultant comes a calling and applies his own attribution error by applying the track record of the industry to that of the person sitting in front of him. Now we may call this, once middle manager, CEO.  Thousands of families’ livelihoods depend on this manager that is ignorant of their own weaknesses and that the company’s leadership ranks are filled with his dysfunctional replicates.  A few years ago we called these companies Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco.  One only has to look to today’s headlines and the careers of Lee Abrams and Randy Michaels from the Tribune Company to realize that several leadership ranks are still filled with this cancer.

Applied wisdom requires new leaders to avoid attribution error and man with a hammer syndrome while taking on intense personal evaluation and vast interdisciplinary study to fill their toolboxes with various skills.  Therefore, to ensure leaders have no resemblance to the drunk of this story, we must apply our wisdom with fastidious mental awareness and humility. A leader must think and therefore have command of multiple mental models built upon a framework of resilient confidence and self-awareness. To do so will be going against the grain. The good news is that new leaders have two things going for them.  First, the tide has receded and poor managers are exposed. Secondly, career advancement and pay aren't as they once were, new leaders have much less to lose when challenging the folly of their predecessors!  Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger would be proud if you were to adopt such thinking.


Charlie Munger

The Fundamental Flaw of Capitalism – Authored by a Capitalist

There’s a lot of blame to go around in our Nation’s financial crisis. In my humble opinion, a lot of blame has been thrown around with a bit of a myopic viewpoint that fails to account for the underpinnings of a capitalistic system and the psychology of its participants.  Now keep in mind, this is written from an ardent capitalist and in no way suggests a “progressive” or socialist agenda; merely something that patriots of a capitalistic society should focus on.

I wanted to write this after seeing so many politicians use the age old fallacy of false dichotomy to push through their hidden agendas. An example of arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two is, “if we don’t pass this bill right now with our solution we’ll have financial Armageddon”. Some would argue that this thinking results in rash actions with many unintended consequences. Yet, this is not what I’m taking issue with here. What I take issue with is that Republicans, Libertarians and capitalists have not succinctly articulated the core issue at hand; the one issue, that without it, all other measures will have diluted impact. We don’t hear about the many options available to us and we don’t hear the conservatives speaking-out against dichotomy fallacies; they use such fallacies as masterfully as anyone for their own agendas. What we do hear from “fiscally conservative” leaders is that socialism is wrong and, if they offer a solution of any kind, it is often a compromise of regulatory reform or a call for further deregulation. I just think this falls short; I want one simple message that guides decisions in an ever changing market system. I don’t want the kind of deregulation that leads to Enron or the overregulation that creates so much legalese that no human can possibly synthesize the information. I want a smart and simple solution that hits the nail on the head.

So what is the fundamental flaw of a capitalistic system? Well, it starts with the psychology of incentive based bias.  This means that an industry with perverse incentives to make short-term profits will likely have at least one participant do so and wittingly or not, will sacrifice long-term stability. But that’s not the problem. The systemic issue is that if the sound and reasonable competitors do not follow, they may very likely face going out of business themselves. We saw this in the mortgage industry; if you did not offer low doc, adjustable, Alt-A, or subprime loans – you simply were not relevant or competitive in the marketplace. You can blame the greed and behavior of consumers, mortgage brokers, banks, and Wall Street all you want – and you’d be right. However, the overarching theme is; if all the incentives run the wrong way through all of the industry participants, who can put an end to the madness?  The simple answer is the regulator.

The notion that an industry will police itself is ridiculous to me. Try to call your competitor who’s making more money than you (even though jeopardizing his long-term viability) and convince him that he should stop what’s working so well for him; good luck. I’d love to see some capitalistic leaders calling for a truly independent regulator (not financed by the industry participants) that is sufficiently staffed with high caliber, richly rewarded employees that have the authority to stop short-term practices dead in their tracks. Such a solution merely requires the enforcement of ending practices that are foolish in the marketplace and a regulator that will be accountable and sign-off on appropriate practices. We don’t need thousands of pages of reform that lead to loopholes and uncertainty as to what are legal practices. I realize that this is an “ideal” proposal set against a backdrop of political compromise but, as a capitalist, complacency isn’t my strong suit. In a world of “progressive” solutions being enacted with thousands of pages of regulatory reform, I have to ask – where’s the common sense mission statement that can stand as a litmus test to ensure we’re on the right track? Where are the leaders who can provide a simple core message that all the participants can rally behind? Have we not learned our lesson?

What is a Strategic Plan?

Strategy is one of those topics that volumes of books have been written on using various and often “fuzzy” words such as initiatives, critical success factors, objectives, mission, balanced scorecard, control systems, and the value proposition.  While each of these items can certainly be an integral part of a sound strategic methodology, they can also overwhelm management with “process” and inadvertently dilute the development of an acute strategy.  So, when building a crisp and high impact strategy, what is it that management should stay grounded to?

The core principal of a strategic plan is simply this; how do you play your hand with the cards you’re dealt?  Strategy, at its simplest, is allocating resources. But a lot goes into creating a good strategy; one that your unique organization has the ability to do well at given the environment it operates in.  It sounds simple but there is a lot that goes into it, right down to the values and beliefs of the leadership.  To help in the malaise of these details, it is good practice to stay focused on the core principal of resource allocation. The actual formation of a good strategy can be thought of as part art and part science, each of these elements contributing to the most efficient allocation of resources.

The science of strategy development takes many forms but at a high level it consists of the typical SWOT analysis, time horizons, and perspectives.  The SWOT is simply matching the internal strengths and weaknesses of the organization to the external environment’s opportunities and threats.  Brutally honest analysis is the key to effectiveness in this process.   The science comes in developing an effective framework to avoid “analysis paralysis” and in using professional analytical techniques to avoid personal bias and assumptions in the data.  When viewing the results and developing the strategy, an organization must also consider its short, mid, and long-term focus.  Should a company focus only on near term results, it unwittingly is still making a long-term strategy without deliberately thinking about it.  Another aspect of a well balanced strategy is in considering the multiple perspectives of the organization such as financial, corporate, customers, employees, etc.  As an example, a growth strategy may include the value proposition the salespeople employ, but from a corporate perspective, it could also mean acquiring competing companies.

As for the art form of strategy development, we will forgo the standard football analogies and use music as a reference.  It has been said that you can pick up just about any instrument and play a couple of good notes, even if by accident.  However, as a person learns to read and write music along with proper technique, they often struggle with finding the “feel” of making music.  To rectify this, teachers often encourage their students to forget what they have learned, to let the music move them, and to just play.  So what does this all have to do with the strategy for a company?  Forming a strategy is not about rigid methodology and word-smithing.  Strategy is about being in-tune with the psychology of your clients and employees, letting your subconscious synthesize all of the available information for analysis with a holistic cognitive perception, and going with your gut to form a vision of what could be.  The challenge and the fun come in distilling the information down to a few key themes and matching the internal and external information for the highest probability of success. It is best to not get caught up in formal presentations and too much structure that might obstruct robust debate and creativity. You know you have a hit when your strategy is just what your client wanted, or even better.......what they didn't yet know they wanted!

Managing in Tough Times....

It is wise to remember that a securely grounded kite rises against the winds of adversity.

Leadership Problems

All rivers and some men are crooked because they follow the path of least resistance

Retooling an Organization

The organization that needs a new tool or talent and hasn't bought it yet is likely already paying for it.