Appearances can be deceiving. You’re not a mind-reader; you have no way of knowing if half the things a candidate tells you in an interview or lists on a resume are true, since some things simply aren’t verifiable—such as when a candidate tells you she is willing to work night and day to turn your company into a world-class organization. But if you consider yourself a good judge of character, you may jump to certain conclusions based on the impression a candidate makes.
Most recruiters assess candidates, but you also have to assess your perceptions of these candidates. This means going deeper into assessment than you’ve gone before: You have to dig down beneath the specs to see what makes a person tick. Remember, every candidate is going to try and impress you; some will make great first impressions. But to figure out if someone will fit into your entrepreneurial culture, you have to see beyond that first impression. Is a candidate hiding something deliberately?
As you begin to recruit for a position—as you assemble a list of candidates and start interviewing—be aware that you’re going to make all sorts of subjective judgments based on what you read about and hear from candidates. You assume a candidate is brilliant because she went to Harvard. You assume that another candidate will be responsible and hard-working because he talks enthusiastically about his family and how devoted he is to doing things with his children. You assume a third candidate will not fit in because she has tattoos and seems too willing to take risks.
You may be right about all your assumptions, but you also may be wrong. That’s why you need to test your perceptions. Being aware of your perceptions and their realities is a second step for implementing the new philosophy of highly effective entrepreneurial recruiting (but remember that these four steps are not necessarily in order).
Consciously or not, job candidates aren’t always 100 percent honest. After all, they’re trying to sell themselves, and some of them don’t believe it’s in their best interest to communicate their weaknesses or admit that they’re unsure or lack knowledge about a topic. They may also be hiding a more deeply ingrained attitude or work style that is antithetical to your own. In other instances, candidates may not be hiding anything intentionally but are unaware of a particular weakness or knowledge deficit.
You can bring these hidden facets out into the open, but you can’t do so if you go into an interview winging it. It doesn’t matter if you’re perceptive about people or if you’ve hired lots of good employees in the past. While confidence is a good entrepreneurial quality, false confidence is not. It takes a process to discover the truth about people, a process that involves using the masks and blind spots that I discussed in Chapter 2. Now let’s look at how these terms fit into the Johari Window:
The Johari Window.
On the surface, the Johari Window is deceptively simple. It’s designed to assess your perceptions or lack thereof versus a candidate’s perceptions or lack thereof. The “You” and the “I” of the Johari Window refers to the entrepreneur (you) and the candidate (I).
In the “You See/I See upper left quadrant, your perceptions and those of the candidate are congruent. For instance, a VP Finance candidate tells you that he’s highly skilled at financial duties such as budgeting and tax issues, and his discussion of these issues combined with his resume assure you that what he says is aligned with what you perceive. This quadrant is termed “Arena” because it’s the area of a candidate’s most significant strength.
In the upper right quadrant—the You See/I Don’t See one—your VP Finance candidate claims to be adept at investor relations related to an initial public offering. But you don’t see a lot of SEC filings experience in his past and during your conversation he reveals inadvertently his lack of sophisticated knowledge on this subject because his corporate controller handled this set of responsibilities. The candidate isn’t trying to deceive you with his VP Finance experience; he is simply overestimating his ability or isn’t aware of his knowledge deficit. This quadrant is the “Blind Spot.”
The lower left quadrant—I See/You Don’t—is one where the candidate is deliberately hiding relevant information—usually information that reflects negatively on him. The VP Finance candidate doesn’t tell you that he has had complaints from employees about his unwillingness to help them learn and grow; that rather than spend the time to teach when they make mistakes, he takes on the task and completes it himself. The VP Finance candidate is aware that he is not a good teacher and tends to try and do everything himself, but he also recognizes that this might not help him get the job. If he senses that inspiring followership and mentoring are important to you, he will hide his lack of abilities in this quadrant, the “Mask.”
The lower right quadrant—I Don’t/You Don’t—refers to qualities that don’t seem particularly relevant to either of you. For instance, the VP Finance was a member of some social fraternity. Both of you are aware of this fact. On the surface, this isn’t a topic of discussion since it has nothing to do with qualifications for the job. But you are impressed that the VP Finance belonged to a social fraternity and you think to yourself, “This guy has potential because he must get along well with others.” The problem: This “unknown potential” factor results in candidates being hired or not hired (the other candidate you’re considering participated in different extracurricular organizations that actually could have more social skill attributes), when in reality, this factor should have no bearing on a hiring decision. Proven experience and known potential are much better considerations for selecting a hire than unknown potential.
Don’t place too much emphasis on the Arena quadrant. You may be impressed by what you see—the experience and expertise of a candidate—and it may jibe perfectly with what the candidate tells you, but this area of perceptual agreement revolves around technical chops, and as I’ve emphasized in earlier chapters, it’s overemphasized by entrepreneurs. Certainly you want someone who is qualified for the job, but too often, emphasizing competence deem-phasizes other factors like beliefs and values.
At the same time, don’t squander a hire on someone in the lower right quadrant because you see potential based on something the candidate says or has done that has little direct bearing on her qualifications. She may have been a Girl Scout, have received an award from an industry trade group, have great recall of all the customer companies listed on your website, or have served in the Peace Corps, but none of this translates directly into superlative performance within your organization.
The upper right quadrant—Blind Spot—is where you want to find candidates. Most of the time, the future stars enter into your organization with a learning deficit. They don’t know everything they should to shine brightly. Don’t try to hire a perfect candidate—you’ll end up focusing on technical chops to the exclusion of all else. Recognize, too, that all of us are flawed, and you want people to hire individuals whose egos are not so big that they lie to hide their flaws. Instead, look for people who don’t realize that they are missing a skill or area of knowledge; who when you discuss this blind spot with them, don’t react defensively; who are curious about this area and ask questions and are willing to admit that “I don’t know.” These candidates usually possess authenticity, humility, and integrity—crucial ingredients for effectiveness in entrepreneurial organizations.
The Mask quadrant is where you’ll make your biggest mistakes. During interviews, people who are hiding something come off as supremely confident. They may make a great first impression. Many times, they’re excellent self-promoters. What you don’t see, however, is that they wear a mask as a survival mechanism and operate from a scarcity mindset. Lacking the confidence to be vulnerable and admit they have areas where they need to grow, they create a false impression of who they are.
Maria ran a small local chain of high-end clothing boutiques, and she wanted to create a website and use social media to grow her revenue beyond her five local retail outlets. As soon as she interviewed Jason, she was convinced she had found someone who would help her achieve this objective. Jason had helped three other small retail companies grow through digital strategies in the last ten years, and two of the heads of these companies provided sterling references, attesting to Jason’s great ability in this area. Jason made a convincing case that he thrived when presented with tough challenges, and that he loved taking responsibility for meeting those challenges.
Maria hired Jason, and his skill at helping the company convert their retail offerings to digital was off the charts; he knew what he was doing. The problem: Jason could only work well with people who were like him, who came from a tech background, who were men who had worked in Silicon Valley, and who enjoyed talking about technology. It wasn’t that he was hostile to other types of people; it was just that he was indifferent to them. As a result, he created morale problems. People accused him of playing favorites (other geeky tech guys like himself); and he created a site that was technologically superior but didn’t represent the brand—it conveyed little understanding of their current and prospective customers. Jason was well aware of his preference to work with like-minded people—it had gotten him in trouble at his previous employer—but he hid it from Maria and in their interview actually claimed that “I can work with anyone.”
This is just one example of the danger of masks. As an entrepreneur, be aware that people who are willing to deceive and who hide their weaknesses are walking time bombs. It may be that they have hidden their inability to work well with women; or they are rugged individualists who dislike collaboration; or they are closet bullies who lash out at and blame others when under stress.
And don’t rely on references. If you base a hire on sterling references, you’re basing it on highly subjective sources. We’re in the process of talking to a Harvard MBA for a CMO position at a fast-growing tech company, and our client wants to speak with a COO who worked with the candidate a few years ago. I dissuaded the CEO from doing so, explaining that we don’t know the COO’s motivation. The COO may have a grudge against the CMO candidate for any number of reasons; or the COO may have been a close friend who is hoping that the CMO will recommend him for a job wherever he lands. Referral sources rarely reveal masks, and that’s a critical goal.
In today’s workplace, you can’t tolerate these masks. Workplaces are increasingly diverse and dependent on collaboration. To introduce someone who is intolerant or arrogant or disingenuous into an inclusive entrepreneurial culture is asking for trouble.
Direct assessment is the best way to identify masks as well as blind spots; let’s examine how you can do so.
On the surface, it’s simple: You’re looking for people who have the capabilities to do the job but don’t realize exactly where it is they fall short. You’re looking for candidates who aren’t defensive about a weakness but are honestly interested in figuring out why and how they are weak and eager to learn and turn that weakness into a strength.
In practice, however, making this determination isn’t easy. People are complicated, and blind spots and masks both involve elements that are hidden from view. Differentiating who is hiding something purposefully versus someone who is doing so unknowingly can be challenging.
No matter how perceptive you might be about people—and as I’ve noted, entrepreneurs are often more astute in this area than most—you shouldn’t assume that you can read candidates just by having a casual interview conversation with them. Instead, rely on tactics to help you form pictures of individuals that will give you clues as to whether they possess a blind spot or a mask. Specifically, engage in conversations with candidates about their achievements and accomplishments and monitor their reactions.
It’s not just what they say but how they say it. Just about everyone you’ll interview for a managerial-level job is proud of something—of orchestrating an acquisition, of implementing a new process or policy, of solving a tricky problem, of building a team. Encourage people to talk about their accomplishments and how they achieved them. Ask questions such as:
Looking back at your last job and jobs throughout your career, what stands out as the accomplishment which you’re most proud of; what do you think was significant about achieving or exceeding a particular objective?
How much responsibility do you have for achieving this objective; did you do the bulk of the work yourself or did others deserve credit?
Thinking back to what you achieved, is there anything you might have done differently or better and achieved even greater results?
How do you feel about this accomplishment; what does it mean to you; beyond achieving a goal or solving a problem, do you have a deeper sense of the significance of this win?
People’s responses to these questions generally fall into two broad categories. Some will use the pronoun “I” frequently, take responsibility for most if not all of the achievement, and speak at length about related skills, knowledge, and achievements. In the other category, people will take credit for the achievement but also note the contributions of others. They will also admit that luck and other factors played a role in their success. And they will be open about their concerns early on in a given project, how they were anxious about whether they would succeed or at least uncertain about the outcome.
Pay attention to the candidate’s body language, tone of voice, and the entire gestalt of his response. Assess whether he’s an arrogant bragger or confident and humble. Is he gesturing aggressively and does he speak pedantically? Or does he possess a calm but purposeful demeanor and a sincere and measured tone of voice?
People with blind spots will readily admit that they don’t know something. But they will also demonstrate curiosity as you explore a topic where they may lack knowledge. They’ll ask you questions about what they might do to gain knowledge or experience; they will communicate a desire to learn.
People with masks will be defensive if you touch on an area where they have problems or lack knowledge. They won’t, however, admit to any type of weakness and instead will rationalize why something isn’t important for them to know or dismiss it as irrelevant; or they may even pretend to possess knowledge they lack. Perhaps more disturbingly, they’ll be uncomfortable if you start asking them about these areas or about past failures. It’s quite possible that they have convinced themselves they don’t need to learn and grow and will never fail, that they lack self-awareness. Whatever the reason, they don’t possess the agility and learning capacity that entrepreneurial organizations need from their key people.
As you’re reading this, you may be thinking to yourself that a candidate with a blind spot may not be that much better than one with a mask. If an individual doesn’t realize she isn’t good at something or has a particular weakness, won’t she be a liability rather than an asset? Entrepreneurs tend to want to get things done now, and they are understandably worried if a candidate lacks a skill or needs more expertise.
If you’re thinking in these terms, remind yourself that blind spots are easily remedied. They speak much more to a lack of exposure to an area of work or a lack of corporate maturity. If the candidate demonstrates an eagerness to learn, learning on the job combined with awareness of the gap is more than enough to do the trick.
A mask, on the other hand, can’t be remedied through awareness and development. In fact, you need to be especially vigilant for masks because behind them are five types of employees you don’t want anywhere near your business.
As you assess people who are applying for a position in your company, you and your selection team will probably encounter scores of seemingly qualified candidates, at least from the standpoint of job specs. You will also encounter a number of candidates who present well, who wear their masks so expertly that you won’t see what lurks behind them—at least at first glance.
To help you identify the five dangerous types who come to interviews wearing masks, let’s name and describe each and how you can spot them.
This type is characterized by excessive pride, hubris, and envy. In organizations, these executives never admit they’ve made mistakes and will cover them up rather than face these errors and fix them. Secretly insecure, they are terrified of being exposed, so they will project false confidence and never admit to doing anything wrong. They envy other people’s success and like nothing better than taking people down a peg with snide remarks behind their backs. Perhaps the most devastating consequence of having a Poser/Pretender in your organization is that they allow problems to spiral out of control. If they feel like they might be blamed for something, they will hide or ignore it rather than address it before it gets worse.
In interviews, however, Posers/Pretenders may come across as supremely confident. It may appear as if they rarely make mistakes. Entrepreneurs are especially likely to hire these individuals for leadership positions, since they project traditional leadership qualities—decisiveness, control, confidence. But their mask may slip if you press them on problems that occurred under their watch at previous employers. If they become defensive or scapegoat others, that’s a sign that they’re hiding something behind their leadership mask.
As the name implies, Political Beasts are game players and power lovers. They seek the most influential people in an organization, aligning themselves with powerbrokers. They eschew hard work, preferring to manipulate others into doing the work for them. Because entrepreneurs often run smaller companies where good morale and work habits are crucial, Political Beasts can have a devastating effect. Employees may spot a Political Beast long before an owner does, and the Beast’s behavior is alienating: Employees wonder about the entrepreneur’s judgment and how she could have been so naïve as to hire this individual.
It’s not naivete as much as the convincing mask this candidate wears during the recruitment and selection process. In many cases, Political Beasts have gone to the best schools—they have MBAs from top schools, for instance. They also know how to play all types of games, including the interview game. They understand how to curry favor and make a good impression; they have plenty of charm when they want to use it.
During interviews, though, you may be able to spot a Political Beast. People who name-drop are likely to be political animals. While you’re talking to them, they “casually” mention that they know a CEO of a big company, a celebrity, a professional athlete. Another telling sign: They express enthusiasm only for high-level tasks like “strategy” and little enthusiasm for rolling up their sleeves and for the less glamorous aspects of managerial life (like developing people). A third sign: They betray an elitist, entitled sensibility. They may articulate this subtly during the recruitment process—dismissing less prestigious jobs and companies, acting as if they deserve the job rather than that they have to make a case for themselves—but if you sense that they act like they’re better than others, they may well be Political Beasts.
These individuals are overly judgmental and blame others when things go wrong. They’re the people in a company who exacerbate rather than manage conflict between two of their team members. They like pitting people against each other. They’re the ones who will say to you, “We’ve got to get rid of Mary; she’s the one that’s causing the team to underperform,” even when Mary isn’t at fault. They are not team players. Instead, they like to create tension and manufacture problems; they get bored when things are going smoothly.
When you’re recruiting a Troublemaker, you may be impressed by their judgments. They have opinions about everyone and every process and policy. They may even articulate these judgments well and make a good case for why a policy is outmoded or why the head of accounting is behind the times. If they have a skill, it’s the ability to point out flaws. But the mask they wear is one of competence, when in fact they are only adept at pointing out things that are wrong. They are terrible at managing people and helping achieve consensus. And they’re especially inept when it comes to seeing people’s strengths and helping them succeed.
Beware the candidate who tells you all the things that are wrong with his former employer or with your company. It may seem as if he’s perceptive and analytical, but really, all he wants to do is create turmoil.
This type is especially appealing to many entrepreneurs, in that they seem to embody the rugged individualist spirit that classic entrepreneurs possess. While they may be rugged individualists, they are also me-first people who don’t listen to others. If you’re looking for someone who is inclusive and sees organizations as familial, Lone Wolves are not your people. They romanticize themselves, believing that they and they alone are capable of achieving a goal. They have their own personal agendas, and they’ll drive toward them ruthlessly, ignoring the larger organizational mission. Lone Wolves may be able to function effectively in certain positions, as long as they don’t have to work closely with others and they’re closely supervised.
If you interview a Lone Wolf, she may come across as assertive, and she may try to align her personal agenda with the larger entrepreneurial one. Initially, she may seem perfectly agreeable, but if you push her, you’ll discover the anger beneath the surface. Ask suspected Lone Wolves tough questions and push them on their answers. Can they maintain their equanimity? Or do you see them start to seethe? They’re going to try and hide that anger from you, but you’ll glimpse it if you push. Also, question them about their work styles. Do they like to work in teams? Are they able to relate to a diverse group of customers? Can they provide an example from their past in which they were members of a great team that achieved great things? If they keep bringing their answers back to what “I” accomplished or how they prefer to function autonomously, then you’re probably looking at a Lone Wolf.
These individuals seem like the most benign of all the types, since they are very nice people who no one will say a bad word about. Unfortunately, they’re the people who are satisfied to work at 30 percent capacity. They don’t engage fully when working on a project and never extend themselves or take on stretch assignments. Many times, Wallflowers are paradoxically engaged and active in their social lives; they may have a hobby that they love and where they are fully engaged. Work, though, is just a means to an end—to a fabulous vacation or early retirement. Even more insidious, Wallflowers bring out the worst in others. They’re the ones that convince fellow employees to take longer-than-normal lunch breaks, to waste time watching YouTube videos when they should be working.
The masks Wallflowers wear are composed of affability, tolerance, and open-mindedness. During interviews, you immediately like them and think your people will also like them. They seem made for teams, and even if they don’t strike you as dynamos, you assume that they’ll become more engaged as they become comfortable working for the company.
Here’s a test that will help you identify a Wallflower. During interviews, ask him how he feels about having to work on weekends or describe a project in which your people worked around the clock to meet a deadline. If you see hesitancy on the part of the candidate—he tells you that sometimes he can’t work weekends because he helps take care of his elderly mother—then it may be a sign of a Wallflower. Similarly, if he starts rationalizing why it’s not necessary to work as hard as you’re suggesting (“I’ve always found I can get my work done twice as fast as most people”), then he may be a Wallflower.
Don’t turn interviews into inquisitions. If a candidate feels like you’re skeptical and suspicious or even that you’re relentless and indifferent to her feelings, she probably won’t respond honestly. Remember, candidates will deceive you, consciously or not. You need to create an environment where you give them the opportunity to be honest during the interview, where they feel they won’t be punished by revealing something about themselves that they perceive to be unflattering. They may not reveal a mask or blind spot explicitly, but they will tell you something that gives you a clue as to whether it’s a mask or a blind spot and whether they are humble, authentic individuals or arrogant poseurs.
It would be nice if you just come out and ask, “Are you wearing a mask?” or “Are you being genuine?” But direct questions such as these rarely work. Instead, you need to create an atmosphere in which candidates are encouraged to be honest and open. You can create this atmosphere in the following ways:
•Focus on having a conversation rather than an interrogation. Don’t keep firing questions at candidates. Encourage them to ask you questions. Don’t lock into a formal process or a series of questions that you have to get answered. Instead, create a dialogue that more closely resembles a conversation you’d have with a good friend than a stilted, scripted interview. Be sufficiently relaxed to let the conversation go in whatever direction it may. This will relax the candidate and help him be more willing to disclose his experiences and feelings, closing the gap between what you see versus what he sees.
•Practice the art of being soft and subtle (and not just hard and provocative). Think of a lawyer cross-examining a hostile witness—that’s the model you don’t want to adopt. There can be value in asking tough questions and pushing people to get them to think hard and deeply about a subject, but if this is your default setting, you’ll cause most candidates to be defensive or combative and learn little of value. Instead, try to learn about candidates by getting them to tell a few of their stories. Everyone has stories—both about their triumphs and about their failures—and they offer glimpses into blind spots and masks. Ask a candidate to tell you a story about her worst work experience, a time when she faced a career crisis, a situation in which she faced a right-versus-right decision.
•Don’t limit the conversation to work. People reveal what drives them—their mission and values—not just when they talk about work but when they talk about all aspects of their lives. “What’s lighting you up these days?” is a great opener. Do they participate in philanthropic efforts—if so, why? Why did they choose this particular field/career; did they have other aspirations when they were younger? What kind of legacy do they want to leave their children? The next chapter will go into much more detail on mission and values, but here I want to be sure you open up the discussion so that it goes beyond business. In fact, when I first meet prospective candidates, I often postpone business talk for as long as possible and focus instead on the things that interest them, based on my research for a given candidate. This helps build rapport, makes them feel safe and comfortable, and helps us find as much common ground as possible. Shared interests and commonalities bring people together. No one wants a relationship to fail and I make it clear to candidates that I am interested in learning as much as possible about them so I can assist them now and in the future—and relate the discussion to a given position in the present or their future career trajectory. Getting as much information as possible and drawing a complete picture is helpful to recruiters and candidates alike.
If you follow these three suggestions, you’ll gain a much greater appreciation for a candidate’s hidden weaknesses as well as whether that person is deliberately deceiving you about some aspect of his knowledge or work attitudes and practices. In this environment, you’ll also have more freedom to use a technique I’ve found particularly useful—giving a candidate the opportunity to challenge something you say.
For instance, I’m interviewing a candidate for a sales leadership role where it’s absolutely essential to meet or exceed set quotas. During the interview, I might say something like, “I know a lot of companies have strict policies on quotas, but at some companies, if you miss a quota every now and then, it’s not a big deal.”
What I want is for the candidate to respond that she’s never missed a quota, that if you have a lax attitude and miss one, you’re likely to miss another, and that it sends a negative signal to salespeople. In the right interview environment, a candidate will feel she has sufficient freedom to voice such an opinion (assuming, of course, that she believes it’s not okay to miss quotas). In an inquisition-like environment, however, the candidate will probably just go along with whatever I say, fearing that if she contradicts me, it will rule her out as a candidate.
In the old days, this “high-level” quality was known as character. It referred to someone who possessed strong values, who did the right thing consistently, who was committed and loyal, who was comfortable in his skin. Entrepreneurs have always depended on people with character to help run and manage their companies; they know that in businesses that can be volatile and where risks sometimes must be taken, having individuals who are honest and steady and who work well with others is critical.
Even more now than in the past, entrepreneurs need these high-level people.
Today, we’ve developed a more sophisticated, psychologically acute understanding of people who possess character. This understanding can guide you as you recruit people for positions of responsibility in your business. As you search for individuals who fall into the upper right quadrant of the matrix and as you attempt to weed out the masked candidates who exhibit any of the five deadly sins, use the following three screens to help find high-level employees:
Maslow believed that there is a hierarchy of human needs, as pictured on the next page:
The higher up you go on the pyramid, the better you can satisfy your own needs and contribute to teams and the larger business. When you interview people, try and place them on the pyramid. Most candidates will be able to satisfy needs on the first two levels, and a significant percentage will be at the third level. Candidates at the fourth and fifth levels are likely to be terrific employees and managers and leaders as well.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
If you’re interviewing people for a leadership position, pay attention to Jim Collins, author of Good to Great. Notice that Collins’s Level 5 executive is a “paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will.” If you’re interviewing someone and you notice this paradox—someone comes across as self-effacing yet also seems to have an indomitable drive to get things done—then you’re probably interviewing a viable candidate.
Jim Collins’s Level 5 Leadership.
Carol Dweck, a Stanford University psychology professor, discovered “fixed” and “growth” mindsets while studying the behavior of schoolkids in the early 2000s. She found that starting from childhood, people often fall into two outlooks on intelligence: a fixed mindset or a growth mindset. Those with a fixed mindset think that success is based upon fixed traits—they believe that they are either born smart or flawed, and their entire lives are defined by a set amount of intelligence and capability. They are often learning- and risk-averse, preferring tasks that they already do well.
On the other hand, those with a growth mindset know that excellent performance depends upon perseverance, hard work, and learning from failure. For those with a growth mindset, life is ripe with opportunities and there is no failure—only challenges to overcome on the path to mastery.
Therefore, watch for how candidates respond to questions about learning and failure. While no one is going to say, “I hate to learn new things” or “I never take risks,” some people will prefer work that’s in their sweet spot and not be particularly interested in taking on stretch assignments or tackling projects with high risk of failure. Conversely, some people love to learn, not just at work but in life; they’re signing up for courses, trying new hobbies, and reading all sorts of books.
As I noted at the start of the chapter, you have to perceive deeper if you want to hire a great employee. Stephen Prothero, a Boston University professor and authority on world religions, has written about how atheists and others ask him why religion is important, and he responds that it’s not important what you believe, but that you recognize that most other people have different beliefs than you do. Most critically, he makes the point that if you want to lead and influence others, you need to understand their beliefs.
This means going deeper in your assessment process. Here, I’ve helped you take the plunge, but now it’s time to start evaluating what motivates people at their core, what they believe in fervently, and what they want to accomplish at work and in their lives. In other words, what are their values and what is their mission? What is their “why”?