But others ran with this and we get behavioral interviewing, trying to get at whether someone performed in the past as we would like them to perform/behave in the future. All well and good, except we do not then measure them on these behaviors (the HOWS). Most of us just measure the outcome and deal with the fallout from the HOWS/behaviors in the aftermath.

So if you want to truly measure quality of hire then you have to understand the behaviors you want, measure the use of them and measure the outcome or goal achievement.

Seriously, although it was obtuse, the point is in there, and very worth considering. It is perplexing to me how “skilled” interviewers fail to explore the “HOW” after they have an understanding of the “WHAT”. While many experts decry the interview as a source of selection, I decry the interviewer as the problem within selection. Any candidate who claims to have successfully and repeatedly achieved good results should have no problem describing how, in convincing terms that are clear to the interviewer, they achieved the results. Candidate feedback I receive overwhelmingly indicates that the “HOW” element of the equation is virtually ignored.

As long as businesses focus inordinate attention on the “WHAT” (bottom line, end result, EBITDA, or stock performance), it will be difficult for Managers (Hiring Managers) to focus appropriately on the “HOW”.