Tips & Tricks

  • Reference calls

    I’ve found recruiting managers have varying views on reference calls: proponents swear they provide insight into making the right hire and critics believe a reference shared by a potential candidate is almost certainly going to be a sugar-coated positive call and can’t be relied upon.

    Many years ago, Amin introduced me to a variant of the reference call, which I have found to be consistently high value: the post-hire reference call or maybe better described as the “set up for success” call. This involves asking a HIRED candidate (i.e., post job offer signed) for 2 references, ideally their most recent bosses. I’ve done this for every senior (VP) level hire we’ve made for the past six years, and it’s been a unanimously positive experience.

    A “set up for success” call begins by stablishing with the reference that the candidate has already been hired and anything shared will have zero impact on their prospects of joining the company. This takes away the fear of negatively impacting a former direct report’s career opportunity, which most people don’t want to negatively influence, regardless of whether they like them or not. Instead, you explicitly state your intent to set this person up for success and seek feedback on their strengths, opportunities for improvement, and look to better understand how to manage them from someone who has already had that opportunity.

    Most former bosses want to help their ex-employees, particularly at the executive level. As a result, I have found people particularly forthright about watch outs and strengths, which genuinely help set someone up for success as part of their onboarding. Even now, looking back at notes from previous calls I’ve participated in, I believe much of what was shared reflected accurately upon finally working with those individuals. Onboarding new employees is a critical determinant of their ability to be successful and a ‘set up for success’ call is an excellent tool to incorporate in the process.

  • Anonymoose Trolling

    With the growing prevalence of virtual meetings over the last five years, I’ve had the debate many times on whether anonymous Q&A should be provided. I’ve had this debate at Avanti and with other companies and leadership teams. Providing an anonymous submission option can surface a lot of Q’s. Leadership teams are generally hesitant or explicitly uncomfortable with anonymous Q&A because they worry the anonymity will lead to people trying to throw “gotcha’s” in, or even blatantly trolling the presenter or company. And those concerns are warranted. We’ve been offering anonymous Q&A during virtual townhalls and company wide meetings for years and we’ve had some pretty gnarly and aggressive loaded questions come through. Not always and not consistently but on multiple occasions.

    Despite that, I am adamant in my belief that it’s always worth providing the option for anonymous Q&A. My rationale is if someone is willing to submit a trolling question in the Q&A, they are almost certainly willing to say that same comment behind closed doors to their peers and colleagues. I’d prefer the opportunity to address a harsh comment publicly and provide my own position on the topic, even if it’s uncomfortable, then allow it to circulate privately.

    Over time, I’ve come to believe there are two approaches to take when someone puts a loaded question in that has the obvious intent of being hurtful or insinuating something negative. Either you ignore the clearly cynical intent and address the comment head on without becoming disturbed by it OR you must be aggressive in defending whatever topic, objective, or team is clearly being attacked. Anything in between comes off poorly. I’ve only taken the “defend aggressively” approach once and consider it a tool for a particularly offensive question.

    To use an example, let’s say someone makes a comment clearly intended to discredit a specific team and the work they are doing. Perhaps one team has an important goal, is working exceptionally hard, but hasn’t made as much public progress as you would like. And someone says something like “is it even realistic to believe team A achieves their goal by the end of this quarter?” You know the whole company knows the answer to the question so it’s probably not coming from a place of curiosity but a desire to highlight the team’s miss. I would accept the concern and speak to the situation transparently, acknowledge the shortfall, discuss why you believe it occurred, and what steps you believe can fix it (e.g., “No. I don’t think the team will accomplish their goal by the end of the quarter. With the benefit of hindsight, we set the wrong goal. Here’s why. Here’s what we’re doing about it”).

  • Share your thinking

    Over the past 5 years, I shifted to working in an almost exclusively virtual environment. One of my observations is that people (myself included) tend to share less of the ‘why’ behind their decision making and thinking than they might otherwise do when in person. It is easier for most people to explain something verbally than it is to communicate it in writing. This has a cost.

    One of the critical ways employees learn from their colleagues and bosses is by understanding the thinking that goes into decisions. It’s harder to develop mental models and expertise without understanding the frameworks and rationale people use to make conclusions. This applies to simple and daily tactical questions (e.g., how should we price this project? Should we accept this job or not? Is that person the right candidate for the role?), as well as strategic ones.

    When responding to a question in Teams/Slack, it’s much easier to give direction or the answer and takes a more deliberate and intentional effort to add in something like “and here’s how I came to that decision” or “this is the rationale I’m basing my choice on”. I’ve started to make a better effort to include that and have noticed an immediate positive impact.

    It’s not only for the benefit of employees who are learning and developing. It also aids in discussion among peers and within the team. If you explain your rationale, it opens the door for reactions and counter-points or considerations you may not have thought of. You’re going to come to better decisions with input from others and you’re going to receive better input if you create the circumstance that invites it.

    And here’s the best part: I’ve noticed if you CAN make it a point to include your rationale in writing, the discussion is often even better than it would be verbally in person. Putting it in writing forces you to be more articulate, it creates a record to refer to, and it gives the recipient(s) additional time to contemplate and respond, which they may be unable to do if it’s occurring real-time during a verbal conversation.