It was late in the afternoon, and I was feeling the weight of the day when I heard a soft knock on my door. I glanced at my calendar and realized I still had three more meetings, and all three were interviews for a senior leadership position.
I quickly pulled out the file and before I could say anything, the door opened and Candidate #1 walked in holding a big stack of files and papers. She sat down, anxious, fiddling her pen and rearranging her stack of clipped papers. After getting pleasantries out of the way, we got into the specifics of the position.
I asked the usual questions about vision, philosophy, experiences and leadership style. I heard all the right words – “visionary, loyal, full of integrity, strategic, collaborative, consensus-builder, and decisive.” Throughout the interview, she kept writing down parts of my questions as if afraid to forget something critical. Several times, she searched through her files and pulled out brochures to show them to me as proof of her experience. Clearly, she had methodically prepared for this interview.
At that point, I threw her a curve ball. Handing her a piece of paper with a very short paragraph describing a project, I said, “I have this great idea. Would you be able to implement it for me?”
She read it eagerly and said, “You are my role model. I believe in your vision. It will be an honor to do whatever you tell me to do. I will gather more information on the idea, talk to whoever I need to talk to and will get it done ASAP.” I smiled. The interview was over.
Next came Candidate #2. In contrast to the first candidate, he walked in empty-handed, sat down comfortably and leaned back. He must have had a pen and paper in the inner pocket of his jacket, but made no attempt to take them out. I asked him the same usual questions and got the same usual answers using the same usual words. I challenged one of his facts, hoping to see if his posture or attitude changed. But he stayed casual and confident.
Then came the time to throw my curve ball. He read the paragraph, put the sheet back in front of me (as if he had already memorized it but I might need to refer to it) and said, “I have implemented a very similar idea before, and it should be possible to do it here as long as I can get the needed resources.” I smiled. This interview was also over.
By the time, Candidate #3 walked in, I was getting disheartened. He rested his briefcase near the chair and sat down on the edge of the chair, engaged and alert. I asked the same usual questions fully expecting the same usual answers. But that was not the case. His answers stretched the conversation to a whole new level. For instance, when I asked about his leadership style, instead of describing it theoretically, he started with a description of where my organization was and what kind of leadership style was best suited for it at this point in time and then concluded by saying he was sure he had those traits. Pretty clever, I thought! He had done his homework and knew how to show it.
Toward the end, I threw my curve ball again, but unlike the other two, he took longer than usual to read the paragraph (as if reading it twice). Then he put the paper down, still facing toward him, looked up and said, “May I ask if it is really your idea?”
“Excuse me?” I hardly expected this line of questioning.
“I am sorry but from everything I have read about you, it does not sound like you would want it this way. I realize this is an interview, but in order to be successful, you need my expertise more than my yes-manship. Would you be willing to reconsider a different strategy?” he said, turning the paper around so now it was facing me. Before I knew it, he was drawing lines and circles and developing his idea. Then he looked up and said, “The goal that you have in mind can be accomplished, but I will need some flexibility to come up with the right strategy.”
I nodded. The interview was over.
During my 15 years in central administration, I have had the privilege of hiring many who were leaders and meeting many others who thought they were. In this case, all three candidates could manage the job, but not all three could move the needle.
Candidate #1 was blindly loyal and because of it, she would be the easiest one to work with. She would gladly do whatever she was told to do.
Candidate #2 was calm and content and because of these traits, he would be the safest one to have around. He would only do whatever he could safely undertake and complete.
Candidate #3, on other hand, was hungry and even arrogant. But it was what I consider positive arrogance. He believed in his ability to find the right solution, showed courage to question a given decision, and he put his brain to work to find an alternate solution. It was clear that he would care for the organization, but most importantly, it was clear that he would prevent me from making mistakes.
In the end, I knew that life could be easy (with Candidate #1) or safe (with Candidate #2), but if I wanted it to be rewarding, I had only one choice: Candidate #3.