Latest / The Science of Leading / The Interview Isn’t About Candidates—It’s About Your System

Transcript

The Interview Isn’t About Candidates—It’s About Your System · The Science of Leading

• 0:00
  Welcome to the Science of Leading.
• 0:01
  I'm Claire Monroe with Edwin Carrington-and I want to start with a line
• 0:05
  that might make some hiring managers a little uncomfortable.
• 0:07
  The smartest candidate in the room is not just being evaluated... they're
• 0:11
  evaluating you.
• 0:13
  And in a tight talent market, that dynamic matters more than most teams
• 0:17
  are willing to admit.
• 0:17
  It does.
• 0:19
  Because the interview is not just an assessment tool anymore.
• 0:22
  It's a signal.
• 0:23
  Strong candidates are using it to reverse-engineer how your organization
• 0:27
  actually operates.
• 0:29
  And if your answers are vague,
• 0:31
  inconsistent, or overly polished,
• 0:33
  they don't just leave uncertain-they often opt out entirely.
• 0:33
  So this isn't
• 0:38
  just about asking better questions as a candidate.
• 0:40
  It's about realizing your answers are being audited in real time.
• 0:44
  Like-if someone asks, "How do you measure success in the first 90 days?"
• 0:49
  they're not asking for a feel-good answer.
• 0:51
  They're testing whether your onboarding and expectations are actually
• 0:54
  defined.
• 0:54
  Exactly.
• 0:56
  That question exposes operational clarity.
• 0:59
  A strong answer tends to be structured and time-bound-day 30,
• 1:03
  day 60, day 90.
• 1:05
  It signals that the role has been thought through.
• 1:08
  A weak answer-something like "just come in and make an impact"-usually
• 1:12
  indicates ambiguity.
• 1:14
  And in practice, that often turns into misaligned expectations and early
• 1:18
  attrition.
• 1:18
  So the kind of answer that sounds inspiring in the moment... is
• 1:23
  actually a red flag if you look at it closely.
• 1:25
  Because if you can't define what success looks like early on,
• 1:28
  the candidate is walking into guesswork.
• 1:28
  Into guesswork,
• 1:32
  yes.
• 1:33
  And that's one of the most common failure points in hiring.
• 1:36
  Not capability-clarity.
• 1:38
  When expectations are unclear,
• 1:40
  performance becomes subjective,
• 1:41
  and subjective performance tends to be judged harshly.
• 1:41
  Which explains
• 1:45
  why some hires "don't work out" even when they looked great in the interview.
• 1:49
  It's not always the person.
• 1:51
  Sometimes it's the role that was never clearly defined.
• 1:51
  That's correct.
• 1:55
  And candidates are increasingly aware of that risk.
• 1:58
  So when they ask, "What does great performance actually look like here?"
• 2:03
  they're not looking for values language.
• 2:05
  They're looking for operational truth.
• 2:05
  And that's where things can get
• 2:10
  revealing.
• 2:10
  Because if a manager says, "our best people are proactive and collaborative,"
• 2:14
  that's one kind of environment.
• 2:16
  If they say, "our best people respond quickly and wear multiple hats,"
• 2:20
  that's... a very different expectation.
• 2:20
  Yes,
• 2:24
  and those distinctions matter.
• 2:25
  One describes ownership and teamwork.
• 2:28
  The other may describe constant urgency and role sprawl.
• 2:32
  Neither is inherently wrong, but they imply very different working conditions.
• 2:32
  So
• 2:38
  from a hiring perspective, this flips the pressure.
• 2:40
  It's not just "can we assess the candidate well?" It's "can we describe
• 2:44
  the role honestly enough that the right candidates choose in?"Precisely.
• 2:48
  And this is where many organizations unintentionally filter out their
• 2:52
  best hires.
• 2:53
  Not because of compensation or brand-but because they can't clearly articulate
• 2:58
  how the role connects to real business outcomes.
• 2:58
  Right,
• 3:02
  because candidates are asking things like,
• 3:04
  "Why is this role open?" or "How does this role impact company goals
• 3:08
  this year?" And those are not casual questions.
• 3:10
  Those are structural questions.
• 3:10
  They are.
• 3:13
  And if those questions can't be answered clearly,
• 3:16
  it signals deeper issues-unclear priorities,
• 3:19
  reactive hiring, or a lack of alignment between leadership and execution.
• 3:23
  High-performing candidates tend to detect that quickly.
• 3:23
  So the irony is,
• 3:29
  the more sophisticated the candidate,
• 3:30
  the less impressed they are by surface-level perks.
• 3:33
  They're not optimizing for snacks or flexibility first.
• 3:36
  They're optimizing for clarity,
• 3:38
  stability, and meaningful work.
• 3:38
  Yes.
• 3:41
  Perks are secondary signals.
• 3:43
  Structure, leadership quality,
• 3:45
  and business relevance are primary ones.
• 3:47
  And those are harder to fake in a live conversation.
• 3:47
  Okay,
• 3:51
  let's go one layer deeper.
• 3:52
  When a candidate asks, "How do you handle growth and feedback?" what
• 3:56
  are they really testing?
• 3:56
  They're testing whether feedback is a system or
• 4:00
  a slogan.
• 4:00
  A vague answer-"we value open communication"-is culturally pleasant but
• 4:05
  operationally empty.
• 4:06
  A concrete answer includes cadence and ownership.
• 4:09
  For example, biweekly one-on-ones,
• 4:12
  quarterly goal reviews, and real-time feedback after key projects.
• 4:12
  So
• 4:18
  if a manager can't describe the rhythm,
• 4:19
  there probably isn't one.
• 4:21
  And feedback only shows up when something breaks.
• 4:21
  That's often the case.
• 4:26
  And delayed feedback is one of the fastest ways to degrade performance
• 4:30
  and engagement.
• 4:31
  Especially for high performers,
• 4:33
  who expect visibility and course correction.
• 4:33
  So from the company side,
• 4:37
  every answer is doing double duty.
• 4:39
  You're answering the question... and you're demonstrating how your system
• 4:42
  works.
• 4:42
  Exactly.
• 4:44
  I tend to evaluate interview responses through three lenses: competence,
• 4:49
  character, and credibility.
• 4:51
  Competence is whether the interviewer understands the role and the system
• 4:55
  well enough to explain it.
• 4:56
  Character is whether they're willing to acknowledge trade-offs.
• 5:00
  Credibility is whether the explanation holds up under detail.
• 5:00
  So competence
• 5:05
  is clarity, character is honesty,
• 5:07
  and credibility is consistency under pressure.
• 5:07
  That's a useful shorthand.
• 5:12
  And credibility is often where things break down.
• 5:15
  If someone says, "we promote quickly," but can't point to a recent example,
• 5:19
  the statement doesn't hold.
• 5:21
  Specifics are what make an answer believable.
• 5:21
  And candidates notice inconsistency
• 5:26
  too.
• 5:27
  If one interviewer describes a highly collaborative culture and another
• 5:31
  describes mostly independent work,
• 5:32
  that disconnect becomes part of the evaluation.
• 5:32
  Yes,
• 5:36
  because alignment is a proxy for organizational health.
• 5:39
  In well-run teams, descriptions may vary slightly,
• 5:43
  but the underlying system is consistent.
• 5:45
  In weaker ones, the narrative shifts depending on who you ask.
• 5:45
  So "fit"
• 5:50
  isn't really about likability.
• 5:52
  It's about whether the candidate can operate effectively inside the system
• 5:55
  you've built.
• 5:55
  Correct.
• 5:57
  Fit is about alignment with expectations,
• 6:00
  decision-making style, and leadership environment.
• 6:02
  Not personal affinity.
• 6:02
  Which puts a different kind of responsibility on
• 6:07
  hiring teams.
• 6:08
  You're not just selecting talent-you're defining the conditions under
• 6:11
  which that talent either succeeds or fails.
• 6:11
  That's exactly right.
• 6:16
  And better interview conversations improve both sides of that equation.
• 6:20
  You get stronger hiring decisions,
• 6:22
  and candidates make more informed choices.
• 6:22
  So the practical shift here
• 6:27
  is simple, but not easy.
• 6:29
  If you're running interviews, pressure-test your own answers.
• 6:32
  Can you clearly define success in 90 days?
• 6:34
  Can you explain how feedback actually works?
• 6:37
  Can you connect the role to business outcomes without improvising?
• 6:37
  And
• 6:41
  if not, that's where structure becomes valuable.
• 6:43
  Tools like OAD help teams formalize these elements-role clarity,
• 6:49
  behavioral expectations, and consistent evaluation-so the interview reflects
• 6:54
  reality instead of approximating it.
• 6:54
  Right,
• 6:58
  because otherwise you're relying on individual managers to explain a
• 7:01
  system that may not even be fully defined.
• 7:01
  Exactly.
• 7:05
  And if you're looking to make that shift,
• 7:07
  you can test OAD's tools-like behavioral assessments-for free at o-a-d-dot-a-i.
• 7:13
  It's a practical way to bring consistency and clarity into your hiring
• 7:17
  process.
• 7:17
  Which, ultimately, is what strong candidates are looking for anyway.
• 7:22
  Not just a good conversation-but a system that makes sense.
• 7:25
  Thanks for listening.