Warm reminder: Click the blue text above “FMCG Distributor Professional Consulting” to learn more about marketing and distributor internal management.

How can bosses identify and select talent during recruitment to reduce the risk of choosing the wrong manager? Among several candidates, how to see correctly and accurately is the most perplexing problem for bosses. Is there a good strategy in interview practice? Based on years of practical experience (the author has participated in many corporate interviews during consulting practice), the following points are summarized for reference.

Manager's Experience

Generally speaking, well-educated, impressively credentialed, and moderately polished professionals can easily "fool" some bosses. They often say things like "How do foreign companies do it?" or "How do American companies do it?" which can indeed "intimidate" people.

Practice leads to true knowledge. Enterprise management is a practical process; the test of practice is not based on theoretical soundness or logical rigor, but on results. This is crucial, especially when recruiting for comprehensive senior positions (e.g., General Manager, Operations Director). Human resources experts summarize three points:

1) Having similar successful experience It is difficult to judge a person's ability from a resume; ability must be proven by their own success stories. When bosses emphasize similar successful experience for senior positions, they are actually controlling risk. Think about what the tasks of the position are. Once you clarify the tasks, you should prioritize candidates with similar successful experience, as this minimizes risk.

2) Having succeeded before "Once you've seen the vast ocean, it's hard to be satisfied with mere streams; once you've seen the clouds of Mount Wu, it's hard to be impressed by other clouds." Some positions or businesses are "new things," making it hard to find someone with similar successful experience. In such cases, you should settle for the next best: a candidate who has succeeded before. Past success reflects a person's ability from a different angle. Having succeeded before indicates they have the capability to get things done; such a person is generally mature, knows compromise and tolerance, and knows how to push things forward positively, rather than always finding faults or proving things can't be done. Choosing someone who has succeeded before generally keeps risk manageable.

Within a company, when selecting a suitable person for a new important position, you must choose those whose performance has proven their strong ability—that is, those who did well in other positions. If you choose someone whose ability has not been proven, the risk is relatively high.

In practice, we often encounter people who are older and highly educated (they have been studying all along but lack practical work experience). Such people find it hard to thrive in the workplace. Knowledge that has not been tested by practice is "dead" knowledge. "Knowing" is not the same as "being able to do"; this "ability" must be acquired through practice.

Here's a seemingly "off-topic" point. We often talk about a person's "learning" (xuewen). Actually, the original meaning of "learning" is connected with practical action, so-called virtue. A person with good learning must have good virtue, unity of knowledge and action, and good practice, only then can they be said to truly have learning. Traditional Chinese culture advocates "cultivate oneself, regulate the family, govern the state, and bring peace to the world," which has some truth. Nowadays, China often calls someone a "master" with great learning, but in fact, we often find that this master cannot handle family life well and is not good at interacting with others. Such "masters," according to traditional concepts, cannot be considered to have good learning because their practice is poor; at best, they are "bookworms." In recent years, some so-called "academic stars" have become famous through television media. They teach people how to behave and plan their lives on TV (or in books), as if they were mentors to young people. In front of audiences and readers, they are gentle, eloquent, and well-behaved, but in reality, they have poor relationships with colleagues and subordinates, often calling people "idiots" or "trash." Such "academic stars" actually have little real learning; they are showing off their eloquence, "clever talk and ingratiating manner," and in reality, most are unreliable.

3) Choosing newcomers to start new businesses Having a newcomer in a new position is like gambling; the odds of success are relatively small. This should be avoided in practice. Many excellent companies, during business development, would rather slow down if they lack suitable human resources support. If bosses (or senior executives) do not have sufficient understanding of the new business and its manager, and rashly choose a newcomer to start a new business, the risk is high.

In practice, successful experience can be understood broadly. For example, if a boss selects someone to be the company's top leader, and that person has no experience as a top leader, that counts as lacking similar successful experience. If a manager has not personally experienced and played a major role in growing a business from small to large, or managing a department from chaos to order, then they also lack successful experience in leading the company to a higher level or leading change.

Of course, the above three points summarized by HR experts are also empirical, relative, not absolute, and represent a concept of risk. Bosses may avoid some risk by referring to these three points when selecting talent.

Manager's "Clever Talk" and "Parroting"

The Analects say, "Clever talk and ingratiating manner are seldom found in a virtuous person." The general idea is that people who are good at talking and pleasing others are not virtuous. In real life, people who talk too well often cannot be relied upon. Young girls in love often cannot resist "sweet words," thinking they have found their ideal partner, but in the end, they find a "heartless man."

In enterprise management practice, "clever talk" refers to speaking full of book knowledge, sounding reasonable and universally applicable, but unable to guide practical action. I have participated in many manager interviews. Whenever I ask a candidate to elaborate on a certain issue, they can always speak eloquently in a textbook manner, giving a "scientific answer" that lacks "texture" and comes more from books. It's like a carpenter talking at length about how to use a "plane," but the customer needs a "table." If you encounter a manager who claims to have superb "plane skills," bosses should be cautious.

I remember an experienced HR director saying that if a person with more than five years of experience cannot offer some profound insights (different from books) about their field, then either they are not diligent in their work or their practical performance is not outstanding. This view is very reasonable. A young person just entering the workplace may not have insights, and some "parroting" is understandable, but a manager with many years in the workplace without insights indicates their level may be limited. In the current management craze, the concept of leadership seems fashionable. In fact, you can judge a person's leadership level by whether they have their own insights and ideas about things. Those with profound insights and the ability to quickly grasp the essence of problems often have higher leadership levels.

When bosses select managers, they need to choose those with profound insights in their field, not those who speak beautifully or correctly. When I interview a manager, I often ask: "You have worked in this field for several years; what insights have you gained?" Based on the answer (whether it has profound insights), I can roughly judge the person's true level.

Manager's Tenure

It is difficult to judge a manager's ability from a resume alone, but there is some information that bosses can refer to. For example, if someone holds a senior position at a company for less than two complete calendar years (or fiscal years) and then leaves, it is more likely that they were "driven away" by the boss. Experienced HR directors often advise managers that if they join a new company, either they should not stay for even a month, or they must stay for three years and achieve some highlights before leaving. Such advice is empirical.

Managers who join a company must create value for the company. The value of a manager is to create greater value; they cannot have a "coasting" mentality, nor can they take things one step at a time; they must achieve performance goals. If a manager feels the company is not suitable for their development, they should leave immediately; if they choose to stay, they must have perseverance and do some outstanding work to add luster to their career.

If a boss reviews a manager's resume and finds that the manager's tenure in a senior position at the previous company was too short (did not experience two complete calendar or fiscal years), then they should be cautious in deciding whether to hire.

How bosses choose managers is a difficult part of enterprise management practice, and it cannot be explained in a few words.

The above empirical advice is mainly based on the initial contact between managers and bosses, summarized from an observable and judgmental perspective. It may be incomplete, but these empirical tips are highly operational and have been validated to some extent.

There is another issue that can be confusing. Should bosses choose a candidate manager who haggles over salary in detail or seems to value money highly? This question is hard to answer and cannot be generalized. Should we think that a manager who talks about compensation is materialistic and should not be hired? Or that a manager who does not proactively discuss compensation must have a higher level of consciousness? I think whether a manager talks about compensation is not strongly related to their level of consciousness. How to discuss compensation is related to regional culture, boss style, and manager style.

From my consulting practice, I have observed and summarized: regardless of whether the manager talks about salary requirements, the boss should clearly explain the compensation rules.

Like this article? Feel free to click the top right corner to share it to your Moments;

About us: WeChat name: FMCG Distributor Professional Consulting Management Account introduction: 20 years of FMCG distributor operation and management experience, professionally addressing distributor internal issues:

Click the "Read the original" below to enter our micro-community for interactive communication and questions.

Learning and exchange QQ group: 344257092

Reply 1 to enter the micro official website to view historical messages.