Job Interview - Are we looking for a Hero? (Reflection on Dr. Edward Deming's teaching)

(This article is to be read in conjunction with "Are you still Pre-occupied with "Boxes" in your Organisation? as per homepage http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5621)

With the explosion of economic activities in the Asian region, job hunting and interview is also a very intensive activity. On the part of the employer or its representatives, they need more manpower. On the part of the potential new recruit, there is expectation of more prospective job and career.

A typical interview session can be summarised as looking for a suitable candidate. As we probe further into the underlying paradigm of the interview, "suitability" is defined, consciously or un-consciously a) Relevant experience suitable to the employer b) Responsibility and Accountability of the incumbent c) Past evidence of a good performance, c) the impression as portrayed by the interviewee.

a) Relevant experience suitable to the employer

Relevant experience is usually measured in term of quantity i.e. length of years in the named field of experience.

Dr. Edward Deming once said, "Examples without Theory teach us nothing". Similarly, many years of experience under the wrong theory does not make a person a profound knowledge worker, likewise, a person who practises and understands the profound knowledge, even with a short span of time, can be a real asset to the organisation. Hence it is important that the interviewer posses the profound knowledge to recognise and appreciate a potential candidate having the same profound knowledge. In another word, look for Quality not Quantity attributes.

b) Responsibility and Accountability of the incumbent

The scope and depth of the candidate present job are also explored, again judged by the quantity aspects. Hence the interviewers look for large reporting staff under the span of control of the incumbent, the size of the projects or department or function handled. Questions and discussion will somehow focus on "limit of authority" "Responsibility & Accountability" etc. Such line of interview is based on an underlying assumption that the larger the authority and responsibility previously or currently held by the candidate, the suitability criteria is better met. Does this underlying assumption constitute a sound theory?

Responsibility and accountability is associated with institutionalised authority mechanism. If follows a simple logic that a person given the authority, has to assume the responsibility "to get things done". This may be a sound logic for implementation or ensuring "things get done", but the reverse may not be true that a person with authority and long strings of responsibilities is a capable, effective person. However, in an interview, much focus is on the later.

It is a necessity that an authorisation system is required for approval or decision making on the quantity aspects of the business operations. For examples : financial limit, contractual commitment with other parties, investment, expenditure etc. But it is totally wrong to assume that a person has the authority over the "thinking" of another person : his or her staff or interacting party. In another word, the system of authorisation, no matter how elaborate and sophisticated, is never the key success factor for any quality outcome. We have witnessed countless emperors, dictators, head of government who rely on excessive authority mechanisms like secret agents, police force, army in the management of their jurisdictions, fail again and again.. Why then during job interview we continue to be impressed with long list of responsibility / accountability with entrusted authority. The basic paradigm is that if a person is entrusted with institutionalised authority he or she can be held responsible and the deliverables can be made. When we open our eyes, we see many visionary leaders, wise men, brilliant scientist, thinker, guru, .. who change or had changed the world for the better without institutionalised power. For examples: Gandhi, Bill Gates, Martin Luther King, Galileo .. the list goes on.

Dr. Edward Deming's teaching said "Drive out Fear". Is is certainly not the institutionalised authority that can drive out fear, more often then not, it instils fear among employee. Obviously, employer is not looking for person to instil fears in their organisation!

c) Past evidence of a good performance of the incumbent

Initiation to give past evidence of a good performance of the potential candidate can either be undertaken by the interviewers or interviewee. Interviewers may probe with questions for such evidence, or interviewee eagerly offers evidence of his or her good performance. Hence we hear "I am totally responsible for this large project, and the past performance shows such brilliant results", "Because of my good ideas and initiative, this is the success story ...". Such emphasis on personal good performance spells an underlying search for a hero in an entity, consciously or unconsciously.

Again, reflecting on Dr. Edward Deming's teaching, I could not recall the need for a hero. I can still vividly remember : "The manager's job is to dig - to learn what is going on, to see who needs special help, to understand inspection, to drive out fear so that control system work properly, ..." Not to become a hero at the expense of the rest of the staff or colleagues.

In this world of connectivity, inter-dependency and constant interaction, there is hardly a single piece of work that can be carried out entirely by one person. It depends on a group of people, who depend on another group, so on so forth, in a nested manner. Why then during interview, much time and energy is channelled to look for evidence of an individual glory or heroic act.

WHAT SHOULD JOB INTERVIEW BE LOOKING FOR?

There are two aspects a) Knowledge and b) Learning Person.

Knowledge in relation to the job requirement, which could include skill and know-how. For example, project engineer should have the knowledge in project management, engineering principle etc. Such knowledge in the form of specialities, disciplines, technology etc. are well established. Hence required knowledge can be specified and benchmarked against with. This is rather straight forward interviewing and verification exercise with the interviewee.

On the aspect of Learning Person, more effort should be put in to explore in depth. Learning ability, capability of that person is the real growing asset of the organisation, after satisfying the first aspect, the knowledge requirement. The learning arena should include the incumbent potential to acquire not only deeper specialised knowledge of the job requirement, but also the other knowledge essence of his or her co-workers or colleagues, who perform other different specialised tasks. This will lead to his or her ability to learn from a team, in which he or she is a team member. Eventually such learning will evolve into a knowledge in totality that is the driving force behind the business concerned.

Being a learning person, he or she much posses some basic skills in facilitation, coaching, teaching, listening, pattern analysis. He or she must have such quality attributes like humility to learn from co-workers, subordinates ; maturity to handle criticism, complaints ; open-mindedness to see other people views in order to understand systemic forces that can affect or contribute to the core business of the organisation. He or she will not try to be a hero, but totally devoted to team vision and goals.

(Note : More details of Learning Persons attributes and necessary environment are discussed in other articles).

End.