Insights

It’s an odd thing, but hiring managers often underestimate the importance of how a candidate presents and behaves in a job search. They’ll sense when a candidate does something admirable or jarring, but they can’t always articulate why, or they struggle to assign proportionate meaning to the moment.

 

This is the first of three articles that highlights (through contrast) how top talent distinguish themselves in their journey to secure a new job. The intended audience is hiring managers (wishing to make better hiring decisions) and job seekers (wishing to benchmark themselves against top talent).

 

This first article looks at the characteristics & behaviours of top talent (in bold) in a selection process.

 

 

Initial Approach & Interview

 

Proactive listening, crisp communication, and balanced exchange.

Poor listening, often verbose leading to an imbalanced exchange.

 

Quick to get to key points, whilst being courteous.

Content to have winding discussions without tackling key points.

 

Recognise that job descriptions sacrifice detail for brevity; seek & triangulate diverse data points to weigh the opportunity.

Tend to be presumptive; see a title or job description as providing enough detail to weigh an opportunity.

 

Prepared and researched, to the extent that they stimulate & elevate each discussion.

Unprepared and unresearched; tendency to wing it. Discussions tend to be stuck in fundamental points.

 

Proud of their performance & achievements and eager to dive into detail. Let their achievements do the talking.

Tendency to narrate at a high-level, cherry-picking talking points and avoiding diving into detail. Tendency to portray themselves through self-opinion rather than through achievements.

 

Provide detailed examples of where they'd moved the needle, stretching their organisation to achieve bolder outcomes.

Are critical of their organisational constraints and unable to overcome or mitigate them.

 

Preference to be interviewed thoroughly, to have expertise & contribution fully understood. See different interviewers as opportunity to gather different perspectives. Enthused by diligent hiring.

Preference to minimise the interview process; the faster and lighter, the better.

 

Well considered when putting forward opinions and call out when they don't know or don't have enough data or expertise to answer.

(Often strong) opinions are based on flimsy data or are poorly constructed.

 

Readily recall detail on performance, achievements, etc. over long periods.

Selectively able to recall detail on performance, achievements, etc. Foggy around contentious areas, such as short tenures.

 

Readily discusses mistakes or failures, which are accompanied with salutary learnings.

Tendency to avoid discussing mistakes or failures, and attribute blame elsewhere when pressed.

 

Assertions and data points align. Volunteers information that accurately contextualises their achievements, even if that means giving credit elsewhere. No suggestion of air brushing.

Assertions and data points become watery under scrutiny. Doesn't volunteer information that accurately contextualises their achievements, particularly if that means assigning credit elsewhere. Strong suggestions of air brushing.

 

Sees recruitment process as two-sided in terms of transparency and qualification.

Sees recruitment process as one-sided in terms of transparency and qualification.

 

Deliberate, efficient and respectful opportunity qualification, weighted toward potential to create an impact and grow.

Superficial qualification beyond company brand, title and remuneration. Status orientation.

 

Tendency to anticipate how their space is evolving and how to position themselves accordingly.

Tendency to assess companies on past performance or ubiquity. Often open to fading companies and closed to emerging ones.

 

Clear about career milestones and aspirations and criteria for (at least) their next move.

Beyond company brand and remuneration, career aspirations and criteria for their next move is made up on the fly.

 

Reference Checks

 

Offers a range of employer, peer, customer, etc. referees, which have close visibility of their achievements.

Offers a limited range of referees, which may / may not have close visibility of their achievements.

 

Readily accommodates request to speak with interviewer-stipulated referees of interest.

Obstructs request to speak with interviewer-stipulated referees of interest. Often the name-dropping from early discussions, is undermined at this stage.

 

Encourages open and thorough referee discussions.

Narrows or puts caveats around referee discussions.

 

Referees provide crisp feedback with insights supported by detailed examples.

Referee feedback often lacks relevance or meaningful detail.

 

Offer

 

Clearly articulates the appeal of the opportunity in terms of environment, company strengths and impact & growth potential.

Unable to articulate the appeal of the opportunity, beyond incremental remuneration.

 

Shares current remuneration packaging in detail.

Avoids sharing current remuneration packaging or is selective on detail.

 

Expected remuneration packaging is weighed & positioned as part of overall opportunity assessment.

Expected remuneration packaging is weighed & positioned in isolation, typically as an incremental step-up in line with an extrinsic marker, 'my former colleague received a 20% increase when they joined NewCo'.

 

Justification for remuneration expectation is framed in terms of clear outcomes delivered, capability & experience being brought, and contextualised with objective market data.

Justification for remuneration expectation is framed as an increment above current or past remuneration high points or outlier reference points.

 

Remuneration is a hygiene factor.

Remuneration is a motivation factor.

 

Factual about their situation (restraints, pending promotion, competing offers, etc.) and shares risk factors that may prevent them from accepting an offer.

Often opaque or inconsistent in describing their situation or intent. Sometimes manufactures competing offers to try to influence process or outcome.