Judging Interpersonal Skills Is Key To Hiring In Industry

Author: LISA J. BAIN Date: February 8, 1993, pp.21 About five or 10 years ago, good scientific credentials were enough to land a job in industry, human resources experts say. But hiring managers report that times have changed. In today's high-technology companies, teamwork is the key to developing technological products and bringing them to market, they say. And effective teamwork requires the ability to communicate both vertically and horizontally through an organization. As a result, interpersonal skills are almost as important as technical competence. Assessing these skills, however, can be difficult, and requires managers to look beyond the obvious. Kirby Vosburgh knows this well. Vosburgh, manager of the Applied Physics Laboratory at the General Electric Research and Development Center in Schenectady, N.Y., recently hired two scientists to fill out a new research group doing advanced work in lighting systems. The people he hired "are both really sharp but very different," he says. "One is a retro-'70s hippie type. The other looks like he came out of business school. What they share is they are both excellent scientists. They have a good natural understanding of their field, they are good communicators, and can do [the science] well." Vosburgh interviewed 40 scientists before settling on these two disparate characters. Although the interviewing process was lengthy--including a seminar conducted by each candidate-- Vosburgh says that after 20 years with GE and lots of interviewing experience, he knows about 15 minutes into an interview whether a candidate is the right person for the job. Other scientist/managers interviewed for this article say much the same thing--that intuition plays an important role in making hiring decisions. But human resources professionals urge caution. "People often make decisions on their gut feelings, and that can be a costly mistake," says Melanie Graper, director of worldwide R&D employment for SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals in Philadelphia. Adds Paul Connolly, president of Performance Programs, a human resources consulting firm in Rowatan, Conn., "Typically, scientist-types tend to overhire on technical competence and underhire on personal characteristics. They tend to overestimate the importance of technical knowledge to overall job performance." As a result, in many companies, scientists screen candidates for technical competence and human resources professionals screen for personal characteristics such as self- motivation and initiative. But Connolly says that scientists can be trained to do this "personality" interviewing as well. "We call it behavior-based interviewing," he says. "It says that the past is the best predictor of the future." For example, an interviewer might ask questions about problems the candidate ran into during his or her research, and how the applicant went about solving the problems. The answer should help the interviewer discern some of the most important qualities he or she is looking for: not only technical competence, but also adaptability, flexibility, independence, and tenacity. Andrew Nichols, a research fellow in cardiovascular pharmacology at SmithKline Beecham, recently went through a training program for interviewers and found it "most useful. It highlighted how you can make mistakes if you don't do a careful job." Nichols recently finished interviewing for a Ph.D.-level research scientist. Through the training program, he realized he wasn't asking specific enough questions. "I was asking vague questions and getting vague answers that were open to interpretation and making assumptions," he says. As further evidence of the dangers of deficient interviewing, Nichols recalls a hiring decision made several years ago that proved to be a mistake: "We hired him very quickly, concentrated on technical abilities, and didn't look into how good he was at working with people. And he wasn't good at working with people." Indeed, interpersonal skills should be emphasized in an interview, scientist/managers say. "In an industrial concern, the ability to work well in a team and to share credit is absolutely critical," says Michael Montague, director of research operations for St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. There are people who seem spectacular but don't adapt well to an industrial environment, Montague says: "Some people are much better off working as individuals in academia." Kirby Vosburgh says that in a company such as GE, teamwork takes on an added dimension. "We're very diverse, with a broad span of technologies. A successful person may have to hold together scientists from five or six disciplines." For example, GE's recent development of a magnetic resonance microscope required expertise in several fields, including magnetic resonance imaging and high-temperature superconducting probes. "We like people with broad interests," says Vosburgh. "A lot of the commercial applications come at the boundaries between technologies. People have to be interested in communicating with people who wouldn't normally be seen as collaborators." Of course, technical competence is a major factor in hiring. But many scientist/managers say that specific skills are less important than a candidate's ability to adapt and learn. In biochemistry, enzymology, or protein purification, for example, the information and skills are readily transferable, says Monsanto's Mon-tague. Identifying the candidate who best fits the job profile takes time. Many employers start by placing ads in major publications. Others send recruiters out to interview candidates on college campuses. Still others rely on word of mouth. Technical people usually scrutinize the candidates' curriculum vitae. Montague says that experts in an applicant's particular field of science, from both inside and outside the company, may be called upon to evaluate the quality of the work, whether the research addressed good questions, and the sophistication of the scientific approach. "We're looking for evidence of the potential to be an independent investigator," says SmithKline Beecham's Nichols. Publications are important--how many, in what journals, and how many with first authorship. "We expect to see an average of at least three publications per year for an entry-level Ph.D. We also look to see whether they've gained independent funding. That's an indicator of how good they are." Nichols says the publication expectation is not a strict one. "If they have worked in a field that's technically very difficult or if they've had experience that we would really like to have, we might consider them even if their c.v. looks weak. For example, in vivo experiments can take much longer, and we would look at them slightly differently. But when [candidates] don't have many publications, we want to know why." Because of the importance placed on independent research experience, postdoctoral fellows are often the preferred candidates. But some people move about within the industry. At GE, says Kirby Vosburgh, "we apply the professional [yardstick] that's appropriate--publications if the person comes from academia and patents if he comes from industry." For lower-level scientists--technicians and B.S./M.S.-level junior researchers, the balance shifts somewhat, with more importance placed on technical skills and less on independent research. But even at this level, says Nichols, "someone who has initiative and independence makes life much easier." Once the field of candidates has been narrowed, the long interviewing process begins. "During the interview, we try to see whether our hunches are correct," says Nichols. Among other things, the interviewers will try to determine how much of a research project the candidate actually conducted himself or herself. Particularly when the person comes from a large lab, this may be difficult to ascertain. Many interviews may be scheduled, often with scientists from different areas. At SmithKline Beecham, the typical Ph.D.-level candidate will have eight to 10 interviews, says Graper. In addition, some less formal interactions, such as lunch meetings with peers, may be scheduled. This benefits both the employer and the candidate. "When a person comes in for an interview, they're interviewing us too," says Monsanto's Montague. "The chemistry has to be right." Adds another scientist/manager, speaking on condition of anonymity, "It can make or break your lab. A small lab can be destroyed by a personality problem." Managers say they commonly ask candidates to describe examples of things that went wrong in their research and about bad interactions they've had with other scientists. Nichols says it's a "sign of integrity" when a person can admit to things he or she couldn't do. Further, Nichols notes that people who say they have not had bad interactions are probably not being honest; and if they say they've had lots of bad interactions, they're probably difficult to work with. There are other qualities that are being assessed during the interviews. For Ph.D.-level scientists, leadership potential is important. "Is there an indication that the person provides seminal ideas for others?" asks Montague. Self-confidence is another important quality, as are closure skills--the ability to see a project through to completion. As part of the interviewing process, candidates are often asked to present seminars to groups of scientists at the company. This is where they can really be grilled. "We ask very aggressive questions to see how they respond and to see if they can get along with people," says Nichols. The third phase of the evaluation process involves reference checking. Nichols says that at SmithKline Beecham, letters are written to all people named on a candidate's reference list asking for comments about the applicant's technical abilities, initiative, interpersonal skills, motivations, and strong and weak points. "If something comes up in the reference that we didn't pick up in the interview, we'd want to explore that further," says Nichols. Connolly says that human resources professionals are less likely than scientist/managers to step into legal problems when asking questions that pertain to personal circumstances. "You have to show that your question is job-related. You have to tell them about the job's expectations." For example, if a job requires extensive traveling, asking candidates if they are able to travel is all right; but asking what they'll do with their children if they have to travel is "clearly out of bounds." Connolly says that hiring scientists is not much different from hiring other types of professionals, nor is there much difference among scientific disciplines. "The content of the answers might shift, depending on the discipline, but the approach is basically the same." In all cases, he says, the standard interviewing advice is identical. There are three factors to consider, he says: " `Can do'--that's technical; `Will do'--that's motivational; and `Fit'--that's cultural." Adds GE's Vosburgh: "Some people like industry, but they don't like big bureaucracies. And they may have difficulty adjusting to different motivations for doing industrial research. The work is the same, but the motivation is different--product, not publication." Lisa J. Bain is a freelance science writer based in Philadelphia.

Judging Interpersonal Skills Is Key To Hiring In Industry

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of