Competency-Based Interviews

When assessing a team, I use a simple framework: The Will vs. Skill Matrix. I've inherited teams as small as 120 people and as large as 834. And in every single case, within the first few months, I can sort everyone into one of four buckets. - High Will + High Skill. These are your stars. Protect them at all costs. They're hungry, they're capable, and they've probably been waiting for leadership that would actually let them do great work. Give them runway. Remove obstacles. Keep them engaged—because your competitors would love to hire them. - High Will + Low Skill. These are your potentials. They've got the drive, the grit, the hunger but they need development. I'll often assign them to leaders I trust or make them my chief of staff on special projects. Give them stretch assignments and see how they respond. Most of the time, they rise to the occasion. - Low Will + High Skill. This is the tricky bucket. They're talented, but they're checked out. Maybe they've been with the company 20 years and they're coasting to retirement. Maybe they're burned out from bad leadership. Maybe they just don't care anymore. You have to assess: Is this recoverable? Sometimes a new challenge reignites them. Sometimes it doesn't. - Low Will + Low Skill. This is the hard conversation. But it's necessary. You can't create change without making change. The first option I always give is a transfer - let's find you a role that's a better fit. But if that's not possible, we have to discuss a transition out. Here's the truth I've learned: You can teach skill. You can coach someone up. You can invest in their development. You cannot teach hunger. I'd take someone with drive and gaps over someone brilliant but complacent. Every single time. How do you assess the teams you inherit or build? 👇 #Leadership #TeamBuilding #Management #HiringTips #Culture #TalentManagement

Most resume advice tells you bullets must be short and punchy. Starting with an action verb and including a metric. That’s why most resumes sound like they were written by a committee of bored robots. When I started resume coaching, I followed the standard advice. I had learned this in a training on telling success stories in interviews. The structure was simple: • There was a problem worth solving. • I did something difficult and challenging to solve it. • As a result, there was an impact or transformation. That story framework works brilliantly for 200-word interview answers. But in the same training, they said use "<Results> by <solution>" for your bullet points. After trying this for many resumes, I could see that something broke when the problem disappeared. Without the problem, the bullets sounded like every other resume: generic, bloodless, impossible to care about. Functional, but forgettable. So I evolved my methodology. I went the opposite direction from conventional wisdom. I stopped stripping context out. I started writing 45-word mini-stories instead: problem + what you did + the transformation you created. The reaction from clients was immediate and visceral. “Wow.” “This finally sounds like me.” “I guess I’m kind of a badass.” "Stating the problem makes it a lot more clear." And when I ask, “If you were the hiring manager, which bullet makes you want to interview the person?” the vote is about 97% for the story version. Because once you include the problem, the impact becomes unmistakable. The old template capped their value. The story-based approach unlocked it. Example Traditional bullet: Executed schedule optimization project on behalf of Central Operations team within scope, time, budget and regulatory constraints, thus increasing district bottom-line by $100,000 in 2024. Story version: A flawed scheduling rollout led to staff pushback, overtime spikes, and compliance risks. I took over, educated staff, and established a clear, flexible schedule. The result: consistent staffing, improved client care, more than $100,000 savings, and full regulatory compliance across all facilities. The first bullet says, “I completed a task.” The second says, “I rescued a failing initiative and protected the business.” When you show the problem, you show the stakes. When you show the stakes, your work becomes meaningful. When your work is meaningful, you get interviews.

Recruitment is often seen as a rigid, process-driven task. But for me, it was anything but conventional. Here’s how I did it: 1️⃣ 𝐈 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐧 𝟑𝟎-𝟔𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐬 I believe it’s nearly impossible to truly judge someone in that short span. That’s why I mostly hired people I had been observing professionally. I kept an eye on their work, habits, tone, and even how they carried themselves on social media. 2️⃣ 𝐈 𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 Most of the folks I hired fell into one of two categories: - I approached them: When there were openings in the team, I reached out to people whose content or knowledge I admired on LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram, or even in WhatsApp groups. - They approached me: When candidates reached out, I often scanned their social media profiles before conducting formal interviews to get a sense of their personality and thinking. More often than not, one can get enough hints. Social media can be a double-edged sword, but can be used positively by candidates. 3️⃣ 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 I mostly used to conduct the final round. My interviews generally started with me explaining the role and that turned into a conversation. Very rarely I asked any technical questions. During this, I gauged: - Their expressions - The words they chose - Their keenness to listen - Their willingness to learn - The questions they asked at the end 4️⃣ 𝐂𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 I wasn’t looking just for skillsets, that earlier rounds have checked; I was looking for alignment with my team’s ideologies, hunger, and passion. I needed to feel that they could gel with me and the team. And yes, after years in the corporate world, I trusted my gut. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬? Many of my colleagues, and even HR, agreed that I had built one of the best teams in my company. And I take immense pride in that. 𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠; 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 When I committed to someone, I didn’t just think about their role with me. I thought about their entire career. I made sure they grew, even if it meant supporting them after they moved on. To me, they were more than team members - they became friends.

It’s easy to believe that performance hinges on individual brilliance. But in my experience working with teams, the real magic happens when team members complement each other. Not in the “let’s all be friends” kind of way, but in how their strengths, communication styles, and perspectives interact. 👇 Why does this matter? Because psychological safety—the biggest predictor of team performance—flourishes when team members feel their unique strengths are recognized and valued as part of a larger whole. 💡 Here are 3 ways leaders can check the complementarity of their team: 1️⃣ Observe how diverse experiences and strengths combine in action Watch how team members tackle complex problems. Do their skills and approaches enhance one another—or create friction? 2️⃣ Map out synergies Use tools like team canvases or strengths assessments to visualize where team members amplify—or duplicate—each other’s abilities. 3️⃣ Ask the right questions During team check-ins, ask:  “Where do you feel your diverse talents are best supported?” and “Where do we feel gaps when collaborating?”. Inclusive leaders don’t just assemble teams. They design ecosystems where people thrive together. 💫 Because your team, when well-led, can become your brightest star—shining brighter together than any individual ever could.

🎯 Don’t just prep for interviews. Map the decision-makers - and tailor your message for each one. This is where strong candidates become the clear choice. Because here’s the truth: Most people prep for the questions. Top performers prep for the audience. 👇 Here’s how: 👤 1. The Recruiter What they care about: → Are you qualified on paper and in person? → Are you aligned with salary and expectations? What to highlight: ✅ Relevant titles, skills, company types ✅ Clear communication and professionalism ✅ No red flags, good culture fit 💬 Example: “I’ve worked in similar fast-paced environments and understand the expectations around stakeholder management and delivery speed.” 👤 2. The Hiring Manager What they care about: → Can you solve their problems? → Will you make their life easier? What to highlight: ✅ Business results tied to your function ✅ Thought process behind decisions ✅ Experience with similar challenges 💬 Example: “When I joined X, we were struggling with [similar pain point]. I led [strategy] which resulted in [outcome] - and freed up my manager to focus on strategic work.” 👤 3. Cross-Functional Peers (Product, Ops, Finance) What they care about: → Will you collaborate well? → Do you understand their world? What to highlight: ✅ Communication style ✅ Experience working across silos ✅ Empathy and clarity 💬 Example: “I partnered closely with Finance to redesign our forecasting model - that alignment helped us prioritize more accurately and cut wasted spend by 18%.” 👤 4. Senior Leadership (VPs, C-level) What they care about: → Do you think like a leader? → Can you represent us externally and internally? What to highlight: ✅ Strategic thinking ✅ Business acumen ✅ Executive presence 💬 Example: “When our team hit a ceiling with user growth, I reframed the goal - shifting from acquisition to retention - and drove a cross-functional initiative that lifted net retention by 12 points.” 🧭 The mindset shift: - Don't prep the same way for every round. - Prep with stakeholder influence in mind. They’re not just evaluating your answers. They’re deciding: Can I see this person leading here, with us? 💬 Which type of stakeholder do you find most challenging to connect with in interviews? Follow me for more advanced job search strategies that help experienced professionals stand out - not burn out.

2026 For TalentMatched.com is getting very interesting....... We’re not building “better matching.” We’re rebuilding how hiring decisions are made. Most hiring tech still does the same thing it’s done for 20 years: Match keywords. Count years. Rank CVs. That’s not intelligence. That’s pattern-matching with a UI. So here’s what we’re actually building at TalentMatched 👇 1️⃣ Contextual Matching (Not Keywords) Our refined matching doesn’t ask: “Does this CV look like the job description?” It asks: “Does this person actually fit what the role needs?” We assess: 🔵Depth of experience (not just years) 🔵Skill adjacency and transferability 🔵Role complexity vs candidate capability 🔵Seniority alignment (including over-qualification risk) 🔵Real-world context, not CV formatting tricks Result: 👉 Shortlists that make sense 👉 Fewer false positives 👉 Fewer great candidates missed 2️⃣ HTI Score™ — Hidden Talent Index This is where it gets interesting. The HTI Score identifies potential, not polish. We surface candidates who don’t always “look right” on paper but show signals of: 🔵Fast career trajectory 🔵Strong learning velocity 🔵Academic or cognitive indicators 🔵Adaptability across roles or industries 🔵Early responsibility or accelerated growth 🔵Multi-dimensional intelligence (not just job titles) This is how you stop hiring the obvious candidate …and start finding the right one. 3️⃣ Profiling & Cultural Alignment (Without the Pseudoscience) Culture fit shouldn’t be: ❌ Vibes ❌ Gut feel ❌ “Would I grab a beer with them?” We’re building clear, explainable profiles for: 🔵Candidates 🔵Hiring managers 🔵Existing teams So you can see: 🔵Where people naturally align 🔵Where friction might occur 🔵How different personalities actually work together 🔵Whether a hire will stabilise or disrupt a team (good or bad) Not to clone teams. But to build balanced ones. Why this matters Hiring is still one of the most: 🔵Subjective 🔵Inconsistent 🔵Risk-heavy decisions businesses make We’re turning it into something else: ✔️ Consistent ✔️ Explainable ✔️ Bias-neutral ✔️ Scalable Not replacing recruiters. Not replacing ATSs. Becoming the intelligence layer between applications and decisions. That’s what we’re building. And we’re just getting started.

Interviewers Care More About How You Think Than What You Know There is a moment in most IB interviews where the technicals stop being the point. You give a correct answer. And the interviewer still looks unconvinced. That is usually when they are no longer testing knowledge. They are testing how your head works. Because in the job, knowledge is cheap. You can learn it in a week. A messy thinking style is expensive. It shows up every night, on every model, in every deck. Here is what they are really watching for. 1) Do you start with a point, or do you start with a search? - Some candidates begin answering while still figuring out the question. - It sounds like fog. - A stronger candidate takes a second, lands on a view, then speaks. - Even if the view is simple. 2) Do you follow an order that makes sense? - Three statements, valuation, accounting, anything. - They want to see a natural sequence. - Not because there is only one right sequence. - Because a person with an order is easier to trust on a live deal. 3) Can you explain cause and effect without hiding behind terms? - If margins fall, what moves next? - If working capital increases, where does the cash go? - Good candidates explain it like they are talking to a teammate, not like they are reading notes. 4) What do you do when you are not sure? - This is the one that changes outcomes. - Weak response: panic, guessing, random facts. - Strong response: ask one clarifying question, state an assumption, walk through logic, and stop. - That is how real work happens. You rarely have perfect data. 5) Do you notice what matters, or do you notice everything? - The best analysts do not say more. - They say the right things. - They cut through noise and land on the few drivers that move value. 6) Can you take pushback without losing your balance? - Interviewers challenge you on purpose. - They want to see if you can adjust your reasoning without getting defensive or collapsing. - Because deals change. Assumptions break. Seniors disagree. - You still have to keep thinking. 7) Can you connect numbers to business reality? - You can know DCF. You can know multiples. - But can you tell whether the story makes sense? - If revenue is rising but cash is falling, do you get curious? - Or do you keep calculating? - If you want the honest truth, most candidates do not fail because they are not smart. - They fail because their thinking is scattered when pressure arrives. Knowledge can be taught. A thinking style takes longer. It is harder to clean up quickly. That is why interviewers listen to how you answer, not only what you answer. If you are preparing right now, practise one habit: Take any technical question and explain your steps out loud, slowly, in order. Not to sound polished. To sound reliable. Next Live Cohort starts from Feb 15th. Dr. Bhumi Wizenius - Be Deal Ready

I’ve received many requests for tips on interviewing for a UX role at Google, so I thought I’d share a few. 𝗗𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄, 𝗱𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻𝘀. 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 & 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁  We want to understand your entire design process. • The problem you were trying to solve and why it mattered. • Your specific role and contributions, especially in team projects. • The process you followed (research, ideation, prototyping, testing, iteration). • The challenges you faced and how you overcame them (e.g., technical constraints, ambiguous requirements, conflicting feedback). • The rationale behind your key design decisions. • The impact of your work. How did you measure success? Use metrics or qualitative evidence if possible. 𝗕𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲: The purpose of a Design Challenge is to assess your problem-solving skills, design thinking, and collaboration abilities in real-time. • 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩: Clarify the ask, define the user(s) and their goals, brainstorm solutions, sketch key flows/screens, and discuss trade-offs. • 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘥: I can’t stress this one enough. Articulate your thought process constantly. Don’t worry about crafting a perfect solution, that’s not what we are assessing. We want to know how you think while solving problems. • 𝘊𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦: Treat the interviewer like a teammate. Don’t hesitate to ask clarifying questions, bounce ideas off them, and incorporate their feedback. 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 "𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗴𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀" • Google highly values collaboration. Be ready with examples of how you've effectively worked with Product Managers, Engineers, Researchers, Writers, and other stakeholders. • Highlight instances where you handled constructive criticism, navigated disagreements, influenced others, and contributed to a positive team environment. • "Googliness" refers to traits like comfort with ambiguity, a bias towards action, intellectual curiosity, and a collaborative spirit. Think about how your experiences demonstrate these qualities. Be ready to discuss how you learn, tackle unfamiliar problems, and handle failure. 𝗦𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗴𝗹𝗲'𝘀 𝗦𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁: • Demonstrate that you understand the unique challenges and opportunities of designing for Google's scale (Billions!). Consider accessibility, internationalization, and performance in your thinking. • Research the specific product area or team you're interviewing for. Use their product if it is available to you. Understand their users, goals, and challenges. • Prepare thoughtful questions for your interviewers about the team, the role, the challenges, and the culture. We learn a lot from your questions, not just your answers. I hope these are helpful, even to those interviewing elsewhere. Good luck!

Here's how I prepared before I interviewed people to join my team in June. A lot of companies overcomplicate hiring. Another one for employers.  A lot of companies, big and small, overcomplicate hiring. Too many rounds. Too many decision makers. But no improvements made along the way. After being a hiring manager for 15 years, I can say with certainty that it takes a long time to fill positions because hiring teams aren't aligned on what they're looking for.  Even when some teams find great candidates, they keep looking to see if someone better is out there.  In June, I needed to fill a position, and I didn't have time or resources to let the process go on indefinitely. Plus, I don't want to keep anyone in limbo.  To avoid falling into that trap myself, I clearly defined what I was looking for in a candidate and which criteria were the most important to me.  I did that by creating a rubric that listed five categories I cared about. Then I defined scores for each one. I went with a rating system from 1 to 5. 1 is poor. 5 is excellent. Then I defined what each score meant. For example, communication. 1 - poor: trouble answering simple questions  2 - answered simple questions without examples 3 - good: easily answers questions and provides examples  When I interviewed each candidate, I scored them based on my definitions. A person that answers questions and provides examples gets three points. I added all points from all criteria. I picked the candidate with the highest score. I interviewed five candidates in total. The entire process was three steps: resume review, interview, decision. All done in one week.   I was upfront about rates, schedule, and responsibilities. I sent rejection emails. No ghosting. Anyone I didn't choose got a tailored rejection. Now, if I can do that with limited resources, what's the excuse for companies with superior resources?  A lot of what I did could be easily automated to scale to hundreds, or thousands of candidates. I know because I used to build those sorts of systems. -- #techjobs #employers

We hired a Senior developer with an impeccable resume and brilliant technical skills. Within three months, two team members were threatening to quit. The technical interview had been flawless—our new hire solved complex problems with elegant solutions, knew our tech stack inside out, and had an impressive portfolio. What we failed to evaluate was cultural fit. The issues emerged quickly: 😒 refused to participate in code reviews unless forced 😒 regularly interrupted junior team members during discussions 😒 worked in isolation, creating solutions without consulting stakeholders 😒 dismissed design documentation as "a waste of time" Despite technical brilliance, the team's velocity actually decreased. The collaborative environment we'd built was deteriorating. The painful lesson: technical excellence without cultural alignment is ultimately destructive. Now, client's cultural fit assessment is as rigorous as their technical evaluation. Some approaches that have worked for us: ✅ include diverse team members in the interview process ✅ create scenarios that test collaboration, not just technical knowledge >> "How would you approach onboarding a new junior developer to your project?" >> "Tell me about a time you received feedback on your code that you disagreed with." ✅ be explicit about your values and expectations ✅ have candidates walk through how they've handled specific situations that align with your team's challenges What strategies have you found effective for evaluating cultural fit in technical hires? Have you ever experienced a similar situation? #TechHiring #CulturalFit #TechTeams