Part 3: Creating a Values-based interview framework [Part 1] [2]
Step 1: Have Values
Got values? As in company values? Odds are you do but if not, formulate some. This is a great exercise, fun and socially binding, for an internal workshop or seasonal get-together by the way.
Pick 3-to-5 (and 3 is better than 5). While there’s an infinite number of positive things that could be values, but there’s only room for a finite set in someone’s head to be a compass, certainly not before they start becoming contradictory. We’re not trying to say thing X doesn’t matter to us, we’re just try to come up with a practical guide to what matters most.
Be real. Don’t worry about perfect wording, but whatever you do ensure it’s you actually doing it, not a consultancy and definitely not chatGPT. Your values.
For this example let’s imagine an ACME company with a set of values which includes “Openness” amongst others.
╔═════════════════╦═════════╦═════════╗
║ Openness ║ Value 2 ║ Value 3 ║
╚═════════════════╩═════════╩═════════╝Step 2: Identify how you currently live that value
Ok, so we value openness do we? If that’s really true, we would see openness reflected in how we behave now. So, looking around, thinking about it: how do we currently see that being exemplified in our day-to-day? What does openness tangibly mean right now in our company culture?
Well how about last week when Jimbob said they were struggling with a task and needed some help.
Or the way Bobbi always gently reminds us to move private discussions into the whole-team channel.
Or the fact that Bobitha¹ goes through the sales numbers in every Friday all-hands, even in the dry spells.
Generative, shared experience. I think it’s quite a nice side-benefit to actually be able to call out real colleagues real actions for praise here btw.
If we can’t readily cite these things, or we quibble if they are openness or some other trait then this probably isn’t really our value and we should go back to the start.
But assuming we’re good and had a nice little team-moment there, we now have a set of specific example behaviours. Cut to a top three of these to move forward. Forget perfect (again), we just need some immediacy to capture a start point: this is what we like to see and we want more of it. Turning up the good as Woody Zuill puts it.
Note that Bobbi’s behaviour creates openness (which we value) but isn’t about her own personal openness. That’s good — it’s about behaviour that fosters the value, and equally valid if the behaviour is external OR internal to the individual action. So think broadly when generating, and as always focus on the outcome part.
Step 3: From behaviour to traits
“Jimbob said they were struggling with a task and needed some help.”
What’s the keyword there? The bit we like?
Struggle? No, sadism wasn’t the value. Interrogate the behaviour for the value. Prompt: Jimbob was open to … what?
I see two facets:
- Jimbob was open to… recognise a personal vulnerability, and
- Jimbob was open to… share that with others,
But it’s the second part which is active — if Jimbob recognised the weakness and tried to deal with it themselves that removes the openness, but the opposite isn’t true.
For sure, there’s a bit of courage and humility there too, and if those are also values we should consider if we have too many and one of them has primacy, or if this behaviour fits better elsewhere. If you’re doing this as a group exercise pinning post it notes around and moving them will reveal this to the group. But let’s not overthink it and just continue with it as a kind of openness (which it is).
If we repeat this for all of our behaviours, we will have extrapolated a set of general characteristics for our specific behaviours. My quick take, ymmv:
- Jimbob -> readily asking for help when they need it
- Bobbi -> creates shared spaces
- Bobitha -> transparent with data, good or bad
Optional Step 3a: Catchy Names
The first time I did this, after the first interview we used it on, it became obvious that referring to “readily asking for help” and so on was a little clunky in our post-interview discussions. Just too many words to say to know you meant the same trait.
The simple human remedy is labels, and I found inspiration in the way RPG’s² do the same (e.g. Fallout, Starfield) or fantasy characters epithets or Icelandic Saga’s or whatever. Have fun with it but don’t be obfuscating, the point isn’t the label itself³ it’s that the label speeds up conversation down the line.
Might look like this:
- readily asking for help when they need it -> Help-Seeker
- creates shared spaces -> Maker-of-spaces
- transparent with data, good or bad -> Transparent
Step 4: Sketch out a canvas
Repeat Steps 2 & 3 for each of your values, and then it’s time to capture and review. Draw a simple table of your values and your traits, like so:
╔═════════════════╦═════════╦═════════╗
║ Openness ║ Value 2 ║ Value 3 ║
╠═════════════════╬═════════╬═════════╣
║ Help-Seeker ║ Trait A ║ Trait X ║
║ Maker-of-spaces ║ Trait B ║ Trait Y ║
║ Transparent ║ Trait C ║ Trait Z ║
╚═════════════════╩═════════╩═════════╝At this point you now have a v1.0 representation of your organisational culture, and — crucially — a reusable artifact for our interviewers to use.
I recommend Miro / Airtable / etc for this, but it can be done in a spreadsheet or a document if you prefer. Know that in use it will attract notes and scribbles and it may or may not want to be printed out, depending on how people use it (which I’ll cover in part 4).
Step 5: Quick Review
You’ll have had plenty of discussion by this point and having thought to o much about it you’re possibly feeling a bit word-blind. So let’s step back a sec before we finish up.
Does this make sense? Does your table feel right? Anything egregious missing? Anything that feels just a bit weak sauce?
It still doesn’t need to be perfect but now is the time for a quick iteration if one of the points isn’t sticking. We were looking for what matters most. Well culture matters most. This is your culture laid out now. Are we happy with this expression?
Check for buy-in, then move on.
Step 6: Opening the Mutation Door
Last thing then. The often used phrase for what we’ve been solving for is the “Cultural fit” interview, but that term has really been awkward for some time now. It’s problematic from an inclusivity point of view, but it’s also not actually desirable.
See, the thing is monocultures, homogeneity, standardisation, fascism even… it’s how systems die. Unlike love, a healthy system is one that can readily alter when alteration finds.
These are our values sure, and we want to build on them, but we also require people who surprise us, bring something different to the conversation, who can help break us out of our culture when it becomes thought-limiting. For long-term survival you must value Diversity.
So, we’re going to create space for that — you can flex on the naming for what feels right for your organisation, but add one more box and one more trait:
╔═════════════════╦═════════╦═════════╦═══════════╗
║ Openness ║ Value 2 ║ Value 3 ║ Diversity ║
╠═════════════════╬═════════╬═════════╬═══════════╣
║ Help-Seeker ║ Trait A ║ Trait X ║ Heretic ║
║ Maker-of-spaces ║ Trait B ║ Trait Y ║ ║
║ Transparent ║ Trait C ║ Trait Z ║ ║
╚═════════════════╩═════════╩═════════╩═══════════╝Half-time Summary
Let’s summarise where we are so far:
- we’ve recognised a need to maximise the efficacy of interviews,
- we’ve asserted our values are our compass to what good looks like
- we’ve extrapolated from our values some recognisable behavioural traits that make each value lived
- we captured that in a lightweight canvas (merely a table really).
Next time, we’ll break from this and go to general principles before bringing it all together again. So until next time, we’re done.
[1] Yes, I am using Sneaky Sasquatch names.
[2] Although I had hoped to make these into cool laptop stickers too…
[3] Heretic, Challenger, Disruptor, Change-Agent, Radical, Rebel, Outspoken, whatever — something that conveys the sense of some difference of opinion from your norm.
