Why do you believe that curiosity-based questions are the way to go, even in familiar terrain or when dealing with familiar people or issues?
Because otherwise we ask questions to which we think we know the answer already, or we ask questions that just focus on getting a particular piece of information that WE think is relevant. When we only ask questions like this, it significantly reduces the likelihood of getting new information, or of building a deeper relationship with the other person.

In your book, you talk about core competencies and how one of the most challenging aspects of creating core competencies is defining them behaviourally. Can you elaborate on this?
Yes. Let’s say that the senior managers of a company decide that one critical element of their success as an organisation is for all staff members to team well. So they select “team player” as one of their core competencies. Fair enough…but what does that really mean? What does it look like? If you asked each member of the management group that question, they might come up with completely different answers. One person might say being a team player means “always sharing credit for successes.” Another might say it means, “being willing to work extra hours to help a team member.” Yet a third might insist that the most important aspect of being a team player is “not complaining.” Very different understandings. So, agreeing on behavioral definitions for core competencies assures that everyone is talking about, managing to and being held accountable for the same things.

How do you see core competencies – as a set of behaviours or values or something else?
I see them as attributes. When an organisation establishes core competencies, they’re saying these are characteristics or attributes we require of every person in our organisation. Then, when you create “behavioral markers” for those attributes (as we discussed in the previous question), you’re making it clear to everyone how these attributes “show up” – how you expect them to be demonstrated in real life.

If core competencies can be seen as behavioural attributes, to what extent can we change certain behaviour that doesnt fit in with the culture of the organisation?
It’s a great question, and an important one. The short answer is: not that much. That’s why core competencies are so important – if you have them, you can use them as a screen for hiring. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen smart, capable people fail in organisations simply because they didn’t have the implicit core competencies required in that organisation. I’ll give you an example. Many years ago, I was working with an executive who had recently been hired to work in a company that didn’t have clearly-stated core competencies. Though her skills were a good fit for the job, and she was intelligent and well-intended, she failed miserably and was asked to leave after less than a year. Why? The organisation’s unstated core competencies included – from my observation – playfulness and risk-taking, combined with a high degree of collaboration. This executive was rigorous, planful, independent and serious. If the core competencies had been explicit, she never would have been hired. In my experience, when people say someone “isn’t a good fit for the culture,” this is what they mean: this person’s personal attributes aren’t lined up with our implicit core competencies.

What is the real value of a job description beyond the interview process?
It’s a map for success. A good job description says: if you use these attributes to achieve these results and create productive relationships with these people – you’ll succeed. It lets the employee know exactly what’s expected, and it gives the manager a stake in the ground for accountability and further development.

When looking for great employees at the recruitment stage, should one focus on core attributes, competencies you need, behaviour or character? Which should be prioritised? What do you look for?
Yes! All of the above. You’re looking for someone who will be a good fit for the culture of the organisation, who has the skills to do the job, and who is a trustworthy and ethical human being. I think all three are essential for a truly good “hire.”

In your opinion, what do you see as the primary purpose of the interview process? What do you think is a good way to interview someone, to elicit true responses, to really get a feel for who that person is?

The primary purpose of interviewing is to ascertain whether the candidate is and has the things I mention in the previous question. In Growing Great Employees I teach scenario-based interviewing as an effective way to do that. Most interviewers either talk way too much, or ask questions with obvious right answers – both of which make it hard to learn anything useful about the candidate. For instance, a non-scenario-based interviewer might ask something like, “Are you a self-motivated person?” (An all-too-common interview question, to which the completely obvious ‘right’ answer is some version of, “yes I am”). In scenario-based interviewing, you verbally set up a scenario, then ask the person how he or she would behave in that situation So, in the situation above, the interviewer might say, “The person in this position wouldn’t get a lot of direction. The overall job would be clear, but the manager is off-site and wouldn’t be assigning tasks on a day-to-day basis. How would you work to be successful in that situation?” You would be much more likely to get answers to that question that would tell you whether and to what extent the person was self-motivated, that is, how they would achieve results without step-by-step oversight.

In your blog, http://thesimplestthing.typepad.com/erikas_blog, you talked about the difference between knowing, knowing how and doing. How do you see this difference in the context of developing core competencies and effective listening?
“Knowing” means having an intellectual understanding of something – for example, being able to define core competencies and describe their purpose in an organisation, or to be able to say what good listening accomplishes, and why that’s important. “Knowing how” means actually having the skills and capabilities necessary to do something. For instance, actually being able to listen well – attending, inviting, questioning and restating. “Doing” means just that – implementing your knowledge and know-how to get results. People often assume that if someone “knows” something, they will automatically know how to do it, and then that they’ll do it. Of course, that’s not so (and it’s why so many people go to training programmes where they “learn” things and there’s no behaviour change as a result!). When someone knows something, knows how to do it, and – this is critical – believes that it’s important to them and beneficial for them – they’ll do it. That, for example, is when managers start listening: when they know what listening is and does, they know how to listen, and they believe that it will benefit them to listen.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For almost 20 years, Erika Andersen and her colleagues at Proteus International have been supporting such diverse clients as Comcast, Rockwell Automation, MTV Networks, MillerCoors, NBC Universal and the Union Square Hospitality Group to clarify and then move toward the future they envision for themselves and their organisations.

For more information about Erika’s book, please visit www.growinggreatemployees.com.