Salesperson interviewing and assessment

I've never been a bit fan of assessments or scripted questions for the following reasons.

Assessments:

• Easy to Fake & Score High (If you understand the methodology)
• Many Answer (often wrongly) What They Think They Should Not The Truth
• At Best The Tell About Traits Not Strengths/Weaknesses

People often don't believe me on the first one. I used to have this discussion with Managers above me and they would retort back, "But you Scored ____". To which I would just give a knowing look. All these test score is how well you know how to take them as very few will answer truthfully. And those who do will be weeded out because many of the questions give a negative value to the honest answer. They are asking one thing but score it as if it means another.


Example (Really Used on Many Tests)

Question: "People steal from their jobs"
Honest Answer: Yes because we all know people steal from their jobs.
What it is actually asking: "Do you steal from your job"
Correct Answer: No because even though other people steal it is hiding the true question.


What about assessments that have no right or wrong answers? Well all they tell you is base traits. Just because someone has a trait that shows they like to talk to people doesn't mean they are good at it. In fact many introverts are actually better at talking to people even though they don't like it. You want strengths and weaknesses not base traits. Assessments as they are normally designed will not do that.

Scripted Interviews:

• Good Interviewers Know How to Ace Them (Like all Tests they can be learned)
• Bad Interviewers Fail Them (Ask yourself, is answering questions what you are hiring for?)
• They Open The Company To Lawsuits (despite being designed to avoid them)

Scripted interviews like assessments are touted as some great magic weapon to finding the best people. They are not. All they do is show you how good or bad that person is at answering questions. Questions I might add that are so common that like an SAT they can be studied for.


What To Use Instead:

• Direct Observation Of Desired Skills
• Conversations (Especially Long Ones)
• Hiring Managers' Instincts
• Trial Periods

Direct Observation Of Desired Skills:

How does one use direct observation in hiring? The easiest and smartest way is to actively recruit vs. having people apply. If you are proactive in finding the people you need you can hunt them out. They will not be looking for jobs. The best normally are not. Now all you have to do is sell them on why they should work for you instead.

This is incredible effective in hiring inside sales people (non phone) as they can be observed in the wild. Also you can target businesses that you know will pay less than yours. An Auto Sales Manager might target people selling Furniture or Appliances. Maybe even shoe sales people.

But what if what you are hiring for is not easily observable in the wild? Well first always be on the lookout for good people. You may not need a receptionist today but if you find a great one make a note of it so when you do need on you can go back and talk to her about the opportunity you now have open.

Also post interview can you find a way to observe the person in the real world? I beat you can. So stop calling references that legally will tell you jack shit and start finding ways to observe the person.

The trial period below works as well but we will discuss that later.

Conversations (Especially Long Ones):

This is a personal favorite of mine. My interviews will hit a few basic questions but beyond that we are going to talk and see where it takes us. You want to get a feel for the person and scripted is never going to do that.

Why do I say long? Because it will take you often over an hour to break down the barrier the person put up. You want to see the real person and not the mask they put up.

I'm good at breaking these barriers so I don't need the time for that. Yet I still will never hire anyone unless the interview goes 30 to 60 mins. Why? Simple if I can't stand to talk to this person for that long why would I want to hire them. Cultural fit matters and this helps you find it out.

And finally somewhere just north of 45 mins is where they usually say something really dumb. You want that moment of weakness as it is likely the most revealing thing you will find. I've literally been ready to hire someone but at the 65th min they reveal something that likely would have taken me weeks or months to learn in the normal work environment. And that saved me headaches later. I've also hired people with two short of interviews and found that item out later and had it blow up on me.

Long Conversations are the only way to truly know the person you are hiring. Would you schedule a first date of 10 mins? Of course not and hiring someone is closer to marriage than a 2nd date so if you don't put as much effort into hiring as a first date you need to stop and think about that.

Hiring Managers' Instincts:

The person doing the hiring needs to have specific skills and one of those is a damn good gut. Most managers don't have this which is why we have assessments and scripted interviews. But if the problem is bad hiring managers why don't we fix that vs. trying to pull the vital human element out?

So make sure that whoever you have doing the hiring is someone who you trust to find the best person. They need to have a method and you need to ask them about their method. If it's hire only people who score 98% on the assessment fire that hiring manager as they have no clue.

A good gut will beat an assessment all day. That is because a gut isn't some random thing. It is based on that hiring manager's experience and people reading skills. They are not hiring the blond because she is hot. They are hiring her because she will be amazing at the position they are looking to fill. These guys are the managers that always have the best staff and the lowest turn over. But you can't copy what they do to other managers. There isn't a system there is a skill. To replicate their success you need to put them in charge of hiring for all locations.

Trial Periods:

I'm not talking 90 days and corporate crap like that. I am talking literally giving them a chance to do the job as a trial as a temp. Let them do one project or work a few days. When you can't observe them in the wild put them into a maze and let them run it. It may not be the wild but it is often nearly the same.

Why did I add this as separate from Direct Observation? Because it can be so much more. Here you can see them really doing the job you would hire them for. Even as a brand new hire they should be able to do the basics and do them well. Also they and you could decide it just doesn't work. They can do the job but they simply don't fit.

I'm surprised how few employers use this. You know all those employees who quite 3, 6, or 9 months later? They would have quit here if you let them. I love Zappos' method where they literally pay the person to leave. Never tried it myself but may add it to my list. Because you know only those who truly want to work that position will stay and give up the money. Human nature is to take the reward now vs. later.

Good, thorough post, Aaron.

The best assessment is one I've personally taken. The developer and I talk about it in this interview.

Personality tests only take you so far. We talked about "Drive", for example. Well your CFO (Chief Financial Officer, or head accountant) has "Drive". But does that make him or her a great salesperson?

Are they coachable?

Are they trainable?

Will they sell?

These are the things a salesperson assessment should tell you, not personal qualities. Many behavioral and personality tests have merely been "re-wrapped" up as sales assessments, but their results are not accurate. The OMG Assessment is very accurate. It also has a reliability factor to test whether the assessment is being "gamed" by the candidate.

We need to test for things like money tolerance. Is a person hung up on money? What dollar amount do they think is "a lot"? If they think $10,000 is "a lot of money", they will constantly get nervous and screw up deals over that amount.

There is a whole lot more to selling and selling skills than personality.

I also like the idea of a trial period to flush out drug, alcohol, criminal,
and any other offensive behavior you don't want in your culture.
Assessment checks, references, background checks may miss such stuff.

On the other side of the coin, I've been very doubtful of some managers
abilities to interpret tests. Especially if they rely upon the tests only, or
a lot more than conversations and their gut reactions.

Dan

I think you can do a hybrid of both, but ultimately as a sales manager you have to go with your gut. Considering you'll be managing this person, you want to feel at ease and comfortable with this new hire.

Gotta disagree about "gut", guys.

It's NOT a good indicator.

In fact, stats show (this was quoted in What Color Is Your Parachute?) employers would do better picking a name out of a hat for hires than going with who they like.

Ask a question, "Tell me about a time you..."

And they answer! You're starting to like this candidate already!

Most people THINK they're good at interviewing. "I'm a good judge of human nature," is a phrase I've heard from employers over and over in the past two decades. Truth is they are terrible at it. What they are good at is talking themselves into things.

What about your "gut" telling you to walk away from something? How many times have people been dead wrong, and if they stuck around a bit longer or got some expert advice, they would have found success?

I'm as intuitive as they come (Myers-Briggs I'm an ENTP, and that 'NT' is a huge intuitive powerhouse) but there's no substitute for expertise. And as far as interviewing skills go, most people do not have that expertise.