必要的惡 別把面試公式化

I spend much of my working life trying to identify new talent to hire, or take on as partners. Inevitably this means lots of personal interviews of one sort or another. Yet I am ashamed to say my techniques are not exactly very scientific. I should be more rigorous and systematic in my questioning and recording of answers — especially since the price of getting an interview wrong goes up all the time.

我大部分的工作時間用來甄別新的人才，或是爲了招募員工，或是爲了結成合作夥伴。這意味着我必然要進行不同類型的面試。然而我得慚愧地說，我的方法並不是特別科學。我提問以及記錄答案的方式應該更加系統嚴謹，特別是考慮到面試出錯的代價正在不斷上升。

In my defence, many of the most important cross-examinations I conduct are not job interviews. They are discussions with entrepreneurs that might eventually lead to a business partnership. So they are much more of a mutual screening process than a conventional recruitment exercise. Typically, these are self-made founders who do not want to work for anyone else: instead they are looking for a financial backer who can add value.

讓我爲自己辯解一下，我進行的許多最重要的提問環節並非招聘面試，而是與企業家展開討論，最終結果或許是達成商業合作關係。因此這種問答更像是一種雙向的審查過程，而不是常規性的招聘環節。通常情況下，這些人是依靠自身奮鬥起家的創始人，他們不想爲其他任何人工作：相反，他們尋找的是能夠增加企業價值的財務支持者。

When the world is awash with capital, exceptional companies can pick and choose whose investment cash to take — hence it is often, in effect, me being interviewed. I rather enjoy the challenge of convincing someone to want to work with us, as long as I genuinely believe there is chemistry. If the deal seems like a lost cause, I can be poor at going through the motions.

當今世界資本充盈，傑出的企業能夠挑選要接受哪個投資方的資金，因此事實上經常是我接受別人的面試。只要我真心認爲我和對方契合，我相當享受說服對方與我們達成合作意向的挑戰。如果合作似乎註定要失敗，我也不擅長與對方虛與委蛇。

I prefer one-to-one interviews. Panel interviews are typically more formal, stilted and less revealing. I accept they are the method by which institutions, for example, make appointment decisions, since governance protocol and logistics dictate that roles such as the CEO can only be approved by a committee. These sorts of organisations are also much more aware of what a legal minefield employment law represents, and are thus careful to avoid any possible accusations of discrimination.

我更喜歡一對一的面試。小組面試通常更加正式和生硬，透露出的信息也更少。不過我同意，在諸如做出任命決定等情況下，組織應該採取這種方式，因爲公司治理和人事組織方面的規章都規定首席執行官等職位的任命只能由委員會來通過。使用這種面試方式的組織對僱傭法的雷區更加警覺，因此會謹慎地避免任何可能的歧視指責。

The internet has made many interviews an increasingly formulaic and charmless ritual. Candidates churning out prefabricated answers scraped from career websites can turn the whole meeting into a ghastly role-play. But while personal information is usually off-limits, I do want to explore the character of the individual sitting in front of me. What motivates them? What are their strengths and weaknesses? What were their triumphs and disasters? How resourceful are they? Is there anything they are trying to hide? How hungry are they? Any interview where the applicant trots out rehearsed lines is a waste of time.

互聯網讓許多面試變成了越來越公式化和無趣的儀式。候選人滔滔不絕地念出從求職網站上預先搜刮的答案，這會讓整個面談過程變成一種令人反感的角色扮演。儘管通常不允許討論私人信息，我的確希望探查坐在我面前的人的性格特質。激勵他們的是什麼？他們的長處和短處是什麼？他們做過什麼成功和失敗的事情？他們是否足智多謀？他們是否試圖隱瞞什麼事情？他們有多渴求成功？如果求職者只是在重複預先排練好的臺詞，這場面試就完全是浪費時間。

I also want precision and detail where appropriate: exact tasks in previous jobs; a specific pay package. Interviews are almost as artificial as exams in judging people — but short of taking on staff on a trial basis, there is no better practical method I know to select the right human capital.

在適當的時候，我也希望聽到精確的描述和細節：比如之前職位的具體職責；具體的薪酬組成。在評判人方面，面試幾乎和考試一樣武斷，但是除了對員工進行試用以外，據我所知沒有什麼更好的辦法來甄選合適的人才。

In contrast to corporate interviews, encounters with entrepreneurs tend to be more uninhibited and blunt, but also more informative. The talk will not be about whether the interviewee’s face fits the organisation: instead I will be trying to judge if we can trust each other and make money together.

與企業面試相比，與企業家面談常常更無所禁忌，更直率一些，同時也能透露出更多信息。面談不是爲了確定對方的面孔是否與組織契合：相反我會嘗試判斷雙方是否能夠相互信任並共同創造財富。

One of my all-time heroes, the inventor Thomas Edison, was a hard taskmaster at interview. The New York Times in 1921 published a list of some of the roughly 150 questions he fired at potential recruits: “‘Victims’ of his method said ‘Only a walking encyclopedia could answer the questionnaire’,” it wrote. But his laboratory got results, so he must have employed able assistants.

我一直很崇敬的人之一——發明家托馬斯•愛迪生(Thomas Edison)是一個在面試時不斷髮難的人。1921年的《紐約時報》(New York Times)羅列了愛迪生在面試候選人時提出的大概150個問題中的一些。文章寫道：“他的面試方法的‘受害人’說‘只有一部活字典才能答出問卷’。”但是愛迪生的實驗室的確做出了成就，因此他必然是招募到了能幹的助手。

Of course detailed, multiple references are paramount; verifying a CV is essential in these litigious times.

詳盡的、多種多樣的證明資料當然至關重要；在這個好打官司的時代，驗證簡歷的真僞非常關鍵。

I have engaged specialist background checking firms to confirm qualifications, solvency and possible criminal pasts. I have never used polygraph testing, but several employers I know swear by psychometric testing and behavioural profiling — not just for new workers, but for existing team members, especially those seeking new responsibilities.

我聘用專業的背景調查公司來驗證候選人的資歷、負債情況和可能的犯罪記錄。我從未使用過測謊儀測試，但我認識的幾位僱主非常信賴心理測試和行爲分析，他們不僅將這些方法用於新員工，也對現有的團隊成員使用，尤其是那些希望改變職位的人。

Certain executives are great at interview but hopeless in the job. Such a breed typically embellishes their resume as well. The huge advantage of cultivating talent and promoting from within is that these are co-workers you have witnessed in action rather than the theoretical pitch and promise of an interview, and a CV that might be full of misrepresentation.

有一些高管在接受面試時得心應手，但工作表現很差勁。這種類型的人通常會美化他們的簡歷。培養人才和內部提拔的巨大優勢在於，這些人都是你能在實際工作中觀察的同僚，而不是面試時虛無縹緲地自吹和承諾、簡歷也可能充斥着失實陳述的人。

Ultimately interviews are a necessary evil of the workplace, and usually the least bad option when it comes to finding the right brainpower.

總而言之，面試是工作中“必要的惡”，通常也是在尋找合適的人才時害處最小的選擇。