Hire Right in Procurement and Operations: Interview Approaches to Consider

Posted At : October 26, 2007 3:29 AM
Related Categories: Spend Management

Over on Supply Management's site, a contributor recently penned a blog that shares "crazy interview questions" which Google often uses in its interview process. For those that come from the management consulting world, these questions are pretty much the standard 'case interview' fare that we all spent time thinking about during the undergraduate or graduate recruiting process. Personally, while I think there's merit to case interview questions to discern analytical thinking skills and base-level intellectual horsepower, I think when taken alone they can provide a less than complete picture into how a candidate will perform in a real world setting. As I've written about before on Spend Matters, at FreeMarkets we used a modified case interview approach on occasion, dumping a bag of parts onto the conference table of an interview candidate and asking how they would source them. The secret to completing the case, in part, was figuring out an optimal lotting strategy.

But the challenge of case interviews even like this is that they can't tell you about a candidate's EQ, or emotional intelligence, another topic that I've offered up an opinion on in the past. For those not familiar with the term, emotional intelligence, which Michael Lamoureux has also written about, captures a person's interpersonal maturity and social judgment skills. To get a sense of what I mean by this, a good blackjack player obviously needs a strong IQ. A strong poker player, in contrast, also needs a high EQ to judge the actions and intentions of those around him.

In the Spend Management world, I'd argue that EQ is especially important when dealing with tough internal clients. Consider how the best sourcing strategies for marketing or legal spend might achieve savings, but you'll never be able to get to the RFQ phase -- let alone implement savings -- unless the stakeholders and business spend owners agree that it's in their best interest to play ball. High EQ can also be essential when working on supplier performance, development or quality initiatives and can play a critical role in global sourcing when the ability to perceive and react to subtleties in personality, intent, language and culture can make the difference between success and failure.

But how can you measure EQ in an interview? For one, I'd suggest asking for examples of past situations where soft-skills made the difference between success and failure. Here, as in a case interview, it's not just success that you're judging, but rather the thought process and approach the candidate went through and what they learned from it. But most important, the best way to measure EQ is through past performance from those who can speak to it. As an aside, those who have succeeded in sales roles in the past are often quite likely to have higher EQ levels than those coming from a technical or financial background (where IQ is often perceived to be more important than EQ).

- Jason Busch

Posted By : Admin | Comments (4) | Send | del.icio.us | Linking Blogs

Comments

[Add Comment]

These are all good points. Another strategy, though, is to build management confidence by using unobtrusive measures to achieve quick wins. We see increasing attention being paid to monitoring and benchmarking of incumbent suppliers. It is fairly easy in many cases to show that the incumbent is charging incorrectly, or otherwise not living up to the contract; or to show that the incumbent's price points, while perhaps once favorable, have now risen with respect to competitive suppliers.

One does not have to source a category to get the attention of an incumbent supplier. Suppliers are usually anxious to work with you to adjust pricing, make up for errors in billing or charging, and so on. These wins are "found money" in many cases, not just a vague promise that "if you change your behavior in these ways, then here are some theoretical savings that might be achievable." They are also easy wins that upset nobody, and require nobody's permission to pull off -- but they can be brought to management's attention to buttress arguments for more far-reaching measures.

So if your EQ is low, don't despair! Lower the bar with some easy wins first, and then perhaps it isn't necessary to be a master negotiator or manipulator to get further backing.

# Posted By Eric Strovink | 10/26/07 7:58 AM

i like to include these three interrelated questions -- if you come to work in my department, how will you make my department and my company more successful; how will you push yourself to become better; how will you push me, as your manager, to be better? i think that the answers to these questions convey a mix of IQ and EQ.

# Posted By ray broz | 10/26/07 8:02 AM

I have. Once in relation to this S&DC article, in fact:
http://www.sdcexec.com/web/online/In-Depth/The-EQ-...$9279
and another time to point out a favorite EQ genius. (Guess who!)

However, unfortunately, I don't think I've been as eloquent on the topic as you or how important it is going to be in solving your talent dilemma when you find yourself needing to do more with less staff because there just aren't enough qualified people to go around!

# Posted By the doctor | 10/26/07 8:47 AM

The EQ is an interesting measure but the big problem I see is with Math (statistics mainly). With Six Sigma, Risk Management and Supplier Performance Management the candidates need to have a good working knowledge of this subject…and currently, they don’t. Then you add in an understanding of business and economics (such as simple supply and demand logic), add in negotiation skills and an understanding of relationship management…and how about a global cultural understanding…all a pretty tall order for a single candidate.

My view is that the “Supply Network Manager” (the new buyer or commodity manager) is the challenging job of this decade

# Posted By Dr. Kevin McCormack | 10/28/07 3:48 AM

[Add Comment]