There has been much discussed about the use of social networking sites in doing background checks of candidates.  I’m still on the fence, but I am leaning towards using them.  Here is an actual example I heard on Friday.

An owner of a medium-sized company had a problem with a previous executive assistant – let’s just say it was far too personal.  She was dismissed from the role and the company looked to hire a new assistant.

The hiring process for her replacement involved the owner’s wife who was going to spend 1 hour interviewing each candidate.  Also, the new executive assistant would not be allowed on the company plane – she would have to fly commercial.  You get the picture.

One of the final candidates being considered turns out was a former topless dancer.  The candidate shared this information with the recruiter who could have found this information on a social network site (she looked later).  Now, this candidate may have had the right skills, but would it be wise to place her in this position?  Clearly if she was willing to share this private information in an interview and on a social network site, how long would she have been in the role before sharing her past with others?

The owner’s wife would dismiss her as soon as she heard about her past.

So who benefits from silence or a lack of a social network search in this situation?  The strong candidate would have to explain a short tenure at this company.  The owner would still be in need of an executive assistant.

The example is wrought with legal complexities, but in a real-world sense I think the best scenario is to use the social networks in the background check, discover the information and pursue a different candidate.

Comments(0)

We’ve been on this topic a bit lately, but it is mission-critical to successful selling.  Asking questions…asking the right questions is tantamount to qualifying prospects.  Most sales managers know this, yet we often see them displaying selective amnesia when it comes to interviewing sales candidates.

Case in point:  Lee often observes sales managers who are underwhelmed with a candidate because the candidate didn’t “wow” them.  That’s understandable, but many times the manager isn’t wowed because the candidate is qualifying the opportunity instead of spewing feature/benefits.  It is at this point that Lee has to mention the different questions that the candidate asked in their responses and the information that candidate gathered in the interview.  What ends up happening is that the sales manager is answering questions and doesn’t pay as much attention to the question pattern of the candidate.

After the manager recounts the questions, they tend to be impressed with the candidate’s subtle ability.  Clearly there is more to it than just asking questions. Candidates need to be able to use the information they gather in an effective manner otherwise it is all for naught.  Yet, success starts with their questioning ability.

ManageSmarter.com offers a strong article titled Three Mistakes Every Sales Rep Makes Every Day.  From Mistake #2:

Prospects and clients share one commonality across all industries: they have a problem (or they wouldn’t be talking to you) and they are looking for help (a solution to that problem). The key to identifying a prospect’s “pain” is questions, questions and more questions. Going into a sales call/presentation, a customer/prospect expects the “pitch”—they expect that you will try and sell them on your product/service. What most don’t expect—and what separates the No.1 rep from the No. 10—is that you have a vested interest in not only their company’s success, but also their personal success. Prospects and clients love to talk about their company and its successes/struggles; you just have to open the door.

Perfect.  The personal success point is an important distinction within the paragraph.

Comments(0)