I’ve got myself involved in discussions about the recruitment of the next England football team manager.
One of the outstanding candidates is Martin O’Neill and I read that the reason he did not get the job 15 months ago was because he had a ‘bad’ interview. It got me thinking about how much importance we should or should not place on an interview.
I’ve always taken the view we should recruit for attitude and train for skills which is the opposite of the perceived wisdom in business for the last 200 years. We traditionally look at the CV to check everything looks ok on paper. Then we draw up a shortlist of candidates; we have an interview in front of a panel; then we come to a decision.
Where the CV and qualifications are much the same between candidates the clincher is the interview. I have to ask myself is that really the best way?
I would like to see more emphasis placed on the personality of the candidate and what passion they will bring to the organisation.
Martin O’Neill obviously did not impress at his interview but most football fans know his record is superb and his passion is obvious.
I would ask questions about the qualifications of the interview panel who decided to appoint Steve McLaren ahead of Martin O’Neill. McLaren was a failure and resigned after 15 months. So much for selection based on interview.
We will never know what might have happened had Martin O’Neill been appointed but one thing is certain – if a ‘bad’ interview was the reason he didn’t get the job 15 months ago then please don’t use that same criteria again.
What are your opinions about how to select the best person for a job?