27

Brainpower and the Interview Process

Let’s return to the interviewing process. Analytical skills are the most important, so therefore it is exactly those skills that the interviewer is looking for in a candidate during an interview. Unfortunately, some subjective judgment is involved and thus the outcome can vary with each interviewer. However, understanding how the interviewer is most likely to form a judgment will help mitigate such variability. The primary method used by interviewers is to test a candidate’s ability to reason.

How Interviewers Deduce “Analytical” Skills

Testing a candidate’s ability to reason is done by giving the candidate a problem to analyze and then to propose solutions. During this process, the interviewer will ask questions to see how well a candidate is able to adjust their thinking to different sets of conditions, and how broad or narrow their perspectives are. Each interviewer may have their own approach to determining the candidate’s analytical skills, but most use case studies. Practically any two-way conversation about any topic could accomplish the same. Personally, I only use case studies toward the end of the interviewing process, when there are a few candidates with an equal shot at being hired. The case study analysis is probably the most challenging from the candidate’s standpoint, and the most revealing from the interviewer’s standpoint.

The case study approach places tremendous pressure on a candidate during the interview, and a candidate may suffer self-doubt for weeks afterward if they feel they did not do well. I think this happens a lot and is unnecessary.

Just how challenging case studies are is illustrated by an experience of a friend of mine. When I graduated from Wharton, this friend was interviewing with an up-and-coming technology company. The founder and CEO asked him the following question: “What would you do if I asked you to tell me how many manholes there are in the United States?” (Remember, there was no Google, internet, or any search technologies at the time.) He told me that the question took him by surprise, and he could not answer in a satisfactory way. He was not invited back. When I heard the question, I was also at a loss and couldn’t think of a reasonable response, although now with more experience and knowledge, I can think of a number of ways one can answer such a question. I will come back to it later, when I discuss specific recommendations, as this example will serve well to illustrate some of what I plan to recommend.

You may have noticed that I have said nothing in my explanation of how the interview process works with regard to whether the answers, observations, or conclusions the candidates make are correct or not. Here we need to distinguish between category 1—interviews for graduating students—and category 2—interviews for a job with some specific prior experience. It is my observation that for category 1—graduating students—the interviewer rarely cares about right from wrong, or whether an answer is correct or not, unless the interviewer’s intention is that the candidate should reach a correct conclusion. In most cases, for nontechnical careers, the interviewer will ask difficult questions with no expectation that the candidate will be able to provide a correct answer. The interviewer is focusing on how the candidate’s mind assimilates and deals with complex, non-obvious scenarios. If all candidates are expected to reach correct answers and conclusions, then it would be difficult for the interviewer to differentiate between them, and the process would not be challenging enough to truly discern how a candidate’s mind works. This subtle point has profound implications and is a key factor in how a candidate may be able to influence the interviewer’s judgment. However, although the same observation is mostly true for category 2, there is a notable but important difference.

For category 2, in addition to the above, the interviewer would also try to ascertain just how much the candidate has been able to assimilate from their prior experience and how it has enriched their understanding and perspectives. The expectations are that the longer the experience, the more the candidate should be able to demonstrate a more complete and correct understanding and a broader perspective (together often referred to as “business maturity”). Here the interviewer will observe whether the candidate recognized most if not all the variables that need to be considered, and the soundness of the overall approach and methodology that the candidate utilized to arrive at potential conclusions. Just like in category 1, the accuracy of the conclusions themselves is not as important. The overall approach and methodology are of much greater importance.

Also, as mentioned earlier, there are some cases where the interviewer may test something different from the way a candidate “thinks” and intentionally expects correct answers. The very last category on the Priority List is such an example. For jobs that require comfort with basic math skills, the interviewer may present a “mini case study” in which specific numbers will be part of the input, and the interviewer expects some basic math manipulation to arrive at a correct answer. Consulting firms and financial and accounting jobs are examples of such positions. It is not a determinative dimension, but on the negative side it becomes a fatal flaw. (Note: Oftentimes, colloquially, quantitative skills may also be referred to as “analytical” skills. This book exclusively refers to analytical skills as the “way of thinking” and not as quantitative skills.)

Back to the more common case studies and measuring the candidate’s analytical skill. I have my favorite method, too. This method was shared with me by a very smart and creative thinker early in my career. I would first ask the interviewee to come up with a familiar case they had personally worked on. It could be an example from their school exercises or work history, but I wanted to build a discussion around a topic they knew well and in detail. Following the initial description of the case study, I would ask for the conclusion or outcome. I then asked the candidate to take me through the logic they used to reach their conclusions. I learned a lot from just the above; however, that wasn’t the real test.

I would then take the most important assumptions/facts the candidates used to arrive at their conclusions and change a factor or two. For example, I would ask the candidate to assume that one of those assumptions/facts showed exactly the opposite result from the one it showed in their study, and then ask them to tell me whether, and how, their recommendations would be affected. This method introduces a difficult mental challenge, because it takes something that the mind has accepted as valid and proven and then asks the mind to reject its validity.

This is even more difficult when the new assumption/fact I ask the candidate to assume appears to make no sense. For example, let’s assume that the candidate says the challenge for the case study was how to turn around a company whose profitability is in decline. He then concludes that the best and easiest way to reverse the decline is by improving the margins for the product sold. He then describes very impressive analyses of the different ways margins could be affected, which of these ways would yield the best results, and which would be easiest to implement. Then he comes up with a trade-off between the different alternatives and recommends the one that optimizes the results.

I then ask the candidate to assume that improving margins would yield the exact opposite result and lead to an increase in losses, and to tell me how this scenario would change the conclusions that had been reached. Most candidates would have a hard time assimilating a conclusion that is counterintuitive and goes against common sense. How is it possible to have a situation where improving margins yields anything else but improved profits?

I have experienced a variety of responses from candidates. Some will suggest I’m illogical and that the way I have changed the scenario makes no sense. The smarter ones would try their best to create a completely different decision-tree in an attempt to answer the question. I only needed to see them attack the problem to be certain of their analytical skills. I built a reputation of being very good at evaluating a candidate’s analytical skills.

You may wonder whether there is any satisfactory answer to the dilemma I posed in this example. As I said, there didn’t have to be. To any candidate’s response, I would have offered a new assumption in order to gauge their reactions and determine the soundness of their logic. I can also tell you that if someone would have tested me in the same manner, by using the same example, I’m not sure I would have come up with any good answer. Had anybody come up with a reasonable answer, I would have been exceptionally impressed. However, now, with all the experience I’ve gained, I can think of a number of responses. For example, the following response from a candidate would have astounded me:

Now, it is counterintuitive to assume that increased margins will not yield improved profitability. You are asking me to make this assumption, regardless, correct? [Assume the interviewer agrees.] Okay! Clearly, there are multiple ways by which margins can be improved, such as by increasing the selling price of the product; reducing manufacturing costs; reducing overhead costs; redesigning the product with cheaper components; redesigning the whole product with fewer features, thereby reducing the overall cost; and any combinations thereof. As I described to you earlier, in this scenario, we evaluated eight different ways to improve margins and selected one of them for our final recommendation, because we viewed it to be the optimal one under the circumstances.

Now, you have proposed that an increase in profit margin yields decreased profitability. This triggers the following question: Because margin improvement can be accomplished by changing a set of independent variables, it then gives rise to the question of which of the variables gives rise to reduced profitability. If I can find the right variable, then I can check which of the eight options we came up with don’t rely on that variable. Those, therefore, may still prove to yield good recommendations. We then take those options and compare them to each other. The best of those remaining alternatives will then become the new recommended option.

Now, if there is no such variable that causes the counterintuitive results, and I need to assume that any and all margin improvements will result in decreased profitability per your scenario, then we need to eliminate all the alternatives we proposed and start from scratch.

The original challenge was to improve declining profits for the company. Margin is only one way to have done so, but is no longer an option now under the new scenario. So, we start looking at all the other ways that help improve profitability for the company without increasing product margins.

The most direct way is to increase sales. So, we’ll need to evaluate the best way in which the company can aggressively increase sales. Another way is to reduce overhead costs for the company as a whole. Another way is to reduce all other costs, which are not part of the product margins.

Now, let me continue with an answer that is a bit on the humorous side. Generally, if an assumption (A) leads to an outcome (B), then the opposite of the assumption should lead to the opposite of the outcome: (Not A) leads to (Not B). This implies that if the assumption you gave me—that increasing margins leads to reduced profitability—then reducing margins should improve profitability! If that is so, I could find thousands of ways to throw away money, thereby reducing margins and thus, per your scenario, improving profitability. But somehow, I didn’t think you would allow it as a valid assumption, so I didn’t bring it up right away.

The candidate would have completely thrown the logic right back at me, and I would have had to make up a different scenario. But I would be impressed as hell with the candidate and probably offered them a job on the spot.

Here’s another example, but this time a real one:

While at Booz Allen, I was sent to Wharton to help screen a list of candidates and decide whom to invite for additional in-office interviews. Those who were invited could generally expect between two and four additional in-person interviewing rounds, with four to six interviewers in each round. The final round would likely be with a few top-level executives who would make the final decision as to whether to extend an offer. I was scheduled to meet with about eight candidates we had picked from the resume book. One of the candidates was a very unusual one. He was only twenty-one years old when he was about to graduate from Wharton MBA. His academic track record was perfect—the best schools and perfect grades. He was always the top student. He had perfect grades at Wharton as well.

I asked him to describe a case study he was very familiar with. He happened to have been part of a four-student team that with the help of their professor was involved with a semester-long consulting assignment for a local company. That became the case study we discussed in the interview. I asked probing questions, raised simple challenges, and listened to his responses. They were very good.

I then, little by little, increased the challenges and the pressure by pointing out flaws in their analyses and conclusions. I proceeded to give him different assumptions and scenarios, and rebutted his answers. I wanted to see how quickly his mind could adjust to new assumptions and the quality of thinking that followed.

He started to literally sweat in the interview, but I would not let up. I kept on challenging him. After a while, he realized and admitted that their recommendations to the company might have been wrong and that they really did not have enough information to definitively draw the conclusions they had reached. The interview lasted two hours, while it was scheduled for only one. When we parted, he was practically shaking. He looked at me and said, “I am so embarrassed. I can’t believe how wrong I was and how many mistakes I have made.”

When I returned to the office, I immediately went to a senior executive partner and told him that I came across an unbelievable candidate. I knew our competitors would make an offer, so I recommended that we fly this candidate to Chicago as soon as possible and let him interview with a team of eight people. I asked that at the conclusion of the interviews the head of the office talk to the team and be ready to extend an offer. I also recommended an unusually attractive offer, so that the candidate would be motivated to accept it and give no further consideration to any other alternatives. The managing partner of the Chicago office agreed.

I called the candidate that day and invited him to fly to Chicago the following week. He actually said that he was shocked that I even got back to him. He flew in the following week, interviewed with everybody, and at the end of the day the managing partner made him a very attractive offer, which he soon accepted.

I was his job manager for the first three assignments, which spanned about seven months. He was a superb talent. At the end of his second assignment, I gave him the customary performance appraisal. After I was done, he asked, “David, can I ask you a question that has been bothering me for a while?”

“Sure,” I said.

He continued, “I did so badly on our first interview; I was wrong with practically every single answer. I never felt so stupid in my life. I was sure I’d blown the interview and would never hear back from Booz Allen. Yet, you called back, and now I’m here. How could it be possible?”

My answer was much longer than what I will state here, but in essence I told him that his answers were not wrong. I didn’t care whether the answers were right or wrong. I wanted to understand how his mind worked and how analytical he was. He went on to have an impressive career at Booz Allen until his departure, at which point I lost track of his career progression.

How Interviewers Deduce “Liabilities”

Unlike the analytical skills, the liabilities are completely driven by proxies, which are random and hard to predict. Worse, they can be easily misinterpreted and viewed both in a positive or negative way, at the same time, and by different interviewers. Unlike the analytical skills, there are no methodologies or techniques that are somewhat common, and therefore easier to make you aware of them. The only way to help you avoid them is by listing the most common potential gaffes or blunders candidates innocently fall into during interviews.

The bad news is that an interviewer can easily incorrectly construe a candidate’s comment or observation, however innocent. Worse, the interviewer may infer conclusions from a single statement that raises multiple liabilities at the same time. The good news is that interviewers have almost no ability to influence you. Thus, you have total control and can easily avoid making potential mistakes by being aware of the potential pitfalls.

Below is a list of the most generic mistakes interviewees make. I have seen interviewees, even experienced professionals and higher-level managers, make these mistakes while being interviewed:

•Negative comments of any kind about coworkers, managers, team members, departments, or the company overall will damage one’s chances at having a successful outcome. Examples:

“My coworkers were not as hardworking . . .” is a comment that may lead the interviewer to think that you:

○are potentially not a good team player.

○may be poor fit with employees.

○are apt to be overly critical and have a negative attitude.

“I didn’t agree with my boss . . .” is a comment that may lead the interviewer to think that you are potentially difficult to manage.

“People working for that company are not very happy . . . ” is a comment that may lead the interviewer to think that you:

○may be a difficult and unhappy employee.

○may have a negative attitude.

“I was trying to tell them, but they didn’t listen to me . . .” is a comment that may lead the interviewer to think that you:

○may not be a good team player.

○may potentially be difficult to manage.

○may be a person who is too sure of yourself.

○may be a person who has problems compromising.

○may not be capable of persuading coworkers when you actually have a better idea.

•Using the word “I” too often may lead the interviewer to think that you:

○are not a team player.

○are self-absorbed.

○may be a poor fit with other employees.

•Strongly maintaining an original opinion after being challenged by a question from an interviewer can lead to a negative outcome. Examples:

“I hear you, but I still think that I am right . . .” If the interviewer thinks you should have been open to a different perspective, then they may conclude that you:

○have weak logic or analytical skills.

○are stubborn, argumentative, closed-minded, and arrogant.

○are likely not a team player.

However, if the interviewer believes that you held your ground based on sound logical reasons, then some positive points may be given. Maintaining an original opinion even after the second challenge will trigger the same two potentially opposite responses, but with greater conviction.

•Using extreme, definitive words such as “I know,” “I’m sure,” “always,” “never,” “absolutely,” “definitely,” “there is no way,” “the best,” “the greatest,” “the most,” “the least,” “the worst,” and so on may suggest to the interviewer that you are closed-minded, arrogant, and too sure of yourself.

•Trying to show that you are smart, even if subtle, may suggest to the interviewer that you:

○are immature.

○are arrogant and a show-off.

○are potentially an unproductive team player.

•Obvious self-promotion or self-compliments of any kind, without specifically being asked to give such comments during an interview, may suggest to the interviewer that you are a show-off and potentially a poor team player.

•“Dropping names” more than once may suggest to the interviewer that you are a show-off and immature.