I recently had the pleasure of working with a selection task group from the Girl Scouts of the Central Coast of California as they conducted a series of interviews of CEO candidates. Sheila Dundon, HR/OD consultant and founder of the Priority Leadership Group lead the selection team and we collaborated on how we might support nine committee members from up and down the coast of California in coming to consensus and documenting their decision making.
By necessity the first round of interviews was done by phone. Candidates had already gone through several screening steps so this was to be a high powered interview. The aim was select four of seven candidates who will go on to face-to-face interviews and then two who will spend a half day on-site.
Sheila and I looked for ways in which online collaboration software (in this case FacilitatePro) could transform a rather awkward phone conversation with a candidate and nine interviewers to an engaging and efficient interaction. Components on the approach we explored included:
- Online introductions – candidates “met” the selection task group ahead of the interviews, seeing photos and introductions.
- Prepared interview questions – candidates were given a series of 6-10 interview questions the day before to put them at ease. [We initially considered asking candidates to answer online ahead of the interview making these answers will be available to the selection task group and allowing them to go beyond the initial inquiry with follow-up questions. The aim here was to allow for an in-depth interview and explore examples and experience in more detail than a normal one hour phone interview would allow. We eventually dropped this idea for a more simplified approach.]
- Online debrief by selection task group – at the end of each interview the task force members spent a few minutes of quiet reflection time capturing their comments about the candidates (pro and con) on a shared electronic flip chart. They will be able to see and build upon each other’s comments. The comments were organized around the prepared interview questions. Some of the committee typed their comments while the interview was going on.
- Online evaluation against pre-determined selection criteria – task group members rated each candidate in turn against a series of 15 criteria. The voting tools allow them to line up the candidates next to each other to get a clear (color-coded) comparison as they consider each candidates’s suitability for the CEO job.
- Review and Decision – after all the interviews are complete the task group reviewed and add to the online comments and finalized their scored evaluations. The voting results were immediately visible to the group and allowed them to see their collective picture of the candidates rated on all of the criteria and overall. After discussion the task group updated their votes for a final tally and decided on a voice vote on the candidates to move forward to the next phase in the process.
- Documentation – the whole process was fully documented with a complete report ready immediately to send on to the GSCCC board. This not only saved a lot of time but also provided a valuable archive and record of the selection task group’s deliberations should there be any questions later on.
Originally this process was set up to support the phone interviews. However, the process worked so well and saved so much time that the task group chose to follow a similar preparation and evaluation process even for the face to face interviews.
Key to the success of this process was once again in the preparation. Sheila and the task group paid a lot of attention to the questions that they would ask the candidates and the selection criteria that they would use. They were also very concerned with putting the candidates at ease with this group interview process while holding them to high standards of preparation and articulation. Without the visual cue (or distractions) they paid close attention what each candidate had to say, the tone of their voice and how they took charge of the conversation (or not). The technology used helped administer a well-thought through process and facilitate a complex decision-making process. The final decision was a matter of judgment among the group but having all the comments and evaluations quickly shared and available to all helped make an in-depth discussion and a quick decision possible.
This is another example of how an experienced facilitator and consultant (Sheila) can extend the reach of her expertise with the use of online collaboration tools. I wonder who else has been conducting virtual/phone interviews by committee and what tools and methods they are using to help this process run smoothly. Please share your experiences!
posted by Julia Young
Share/Save
08:36
Interesting approach that you took. The one aspect that I find challenging when working via technology (web/telephone)is the lack of eye contact and body language. (Yes, I know that webcams can help although I find that it works best one on one versus multiple cameras.) So, two questions: What is your sense of the impact of missing eye contact and body language? What techniques do you use to accomodate/overcome this?
Thanks,
Dan
15:52
Dan – Thanks for your comment and questions. I think that the lack of eye contact and body language is an interesting one. We have certainly come to rely on visual cues as facilitators and meeting participants – and perhaps we rely on this to the exclusion of other ways of listening. One of the things that I found interesting about the comments from the GSCCC interview committee was how closely they were listening to what each candidate was saying. By taking away the visual component their listening skills seemed to be heightened. Comments from the committee were concerned with the tone, energy and specific details of what each interviewee said.
So my sense is that while we might initially miss the visual cues we are used to there are many other equally effective ways in which we can tune in. I would actually go one step further and say that visual technology can sometimes get in the way. Unless done well video cams and slide presentations and online chat tools distract from the conversation – both talking and listening – rather than add to it. Done well a good video presentation just like a front-of-room presentation can help keep our attention as we listen to a speaker. However, if I am only seeing them sitting at their desk, staring at their screen with a bad angle of the top of their head, I would rather turn the camera off!
Regarding techniques to overcome the loss of visual cues I would say the first thing is to be aware that they are missing. Just by asking the question you have raised the awareness that we need to listen in a different way – that gets us half way there.
Another key for me is doing away with unnecessary visuals, especially technology ones. Our computer screens tend to be very distracting as they contain email and chat and our last project and… Distributing a handout ahead of time by email and asking people to have a copy at hand can be simple and less distracting. It also, by the way, allows people to take notes as they listen.
Another technique that I use is to move away from my desk to a comfy chair and simply listen to the call. Sometimes I even close my eyes. This way I am closely attuned to the tone of people’s voices and the content of what they are saying. I also generally keep my phone OFF mute so that I can jump in with a question or comment in the normal course of the conversation. This also prevents the temptation to hide behind the mute button and start multi-tasking.
Finally I try to pay close attention to my own level of attention to the meeting. If I am distracted there is usually a reason. I smile at catching myself out and refocus. If the meeting is not going well then I may choose to intervene. Taking responsibility for my own level of participation is important whether I am a participant or the facilitator.
Would love to hear some of your ideas too… – Julia Young, Facilitate.com