Anyone can look good on paper

For the first 3 decades of my career I purposely moved up to senior management positions in the pursuit of higher income.  As a result I often found myself hiring new people.  Thankfully shortly after becoming a mid-level supervisor I took a course in interviewing.  That course changed the way I conducted interviews.

The premise of the course was, “ask a theoretical question, and get a theoretical answer”.  By this I mean don’t ask a prospective candidate what they might do in a future situation.  Instead discuss what they actually did in a real situation in their past work history.   There is often a stark difference between what a candidate says they would do and what they actually do.

Because I was often hiring technical staff I found the easiest way was to ask them about things they had taken credit for on their resume.  I would ask them to go in to detail about how it started what their role was and what was the outcome.  What I found was that most people could not intelligently discuss things presented on their resume as accomplishments.  They were taking credit for things they were only peripherally involved in or at times had nothing to do with.

I now understand that most resumes should be classed as historical fiction.  I remember one particularly uncomfortable interview.  It was for a senior engineer position.  The candidate came highly recommended by people he had worked with, none of whom were engineers.  I will admit his resume did look very good.  He had a very impressive list of accomplishments.  The problem was they were all lies.

I did my usual shtick.  I found interesting things on his resume and tried to have a detailed conversation about them.  It did not go well.  The candidate could not provide details on anything and was continually evasive.  After about 20 minutes I thought this is getting embarrassing and I should shut up and just find a way to politely end the interview.

I did not, however, get a chance to find a polite way to end the interview.  The candidate jumped to his feet and angrily declared I had no right to question what was on his resume.  He informed me that the only purpose for an interview was for me to get to know him as a person.  He then stormed out of the room thereby letting me know exactly who he was as a person.

My point is that Resumes are often works of fiction.  Do not hire anyone based on what they look like on paper.  This is a lesson Canadians need to take to heart in the next federal election.  Our newly appointed prime Minister, Mark Carney, and the Mark Carney on his resume are 2 entirely different people.

But the truth is rather less glamorous. Over eight years at the Bank of England, Carney was at best an indifferent Governor, and, at worse, a disappointing failure. Despite his huge salary of more than £600,000 a year, more than any of his predecessors had been paid, he seemed to have little feel for the role. The City quickly nick-named him “the unreliable boyfriend” for his constant changes of direction on interest rates.

He printed too much money in the wake of the financial crisis, and then repeated the mistake all over again in the wake of the referendum on leaving the EU, responding as if he was in the middle of a financial emergency instead of dealing with a minor blip in trading relations.

Instead, Canada is going to get a self-regarding technocrat who may have plenty of connections but has left behind a trail of wreckage in every major job he has ever held.

I am certain that if I had the opportunity to interview Mark Carney for the job of Prime Minister it would end with Carney storming out of the room.