Twenty seconds flat

I'm surprised at how few candidates (especially active ones) who don't fully grasp the importance of delivering a good answer in an interview, AND delivering it WELL(!!!). Consider the following analogies: A surgeon who uses dull or under-maintained instruments; a chef who uses dull knives; an actor with laryngitis; a musician with a poorly tuned instrument. All of these people depend on their tools to do their job. If any one tool (instrument, etc...) isn't working properly, they will have to compensate in some other way in order to be successful - or they can expect to be unsuccessful. As an interviewer, whether you need a new job or want a new job, one of your primary tools is your - perhaps your most important tool, is your ability to communicate (convey) your value. How vague is that? What if you spoke only German and the person interviewing you only spoke English? That interview wouldn't go very far. You wouldn't have very much at your disposal to convey your value. Sure, you could draw pictures on a piece of paper, or do some gesturing. But, pretty soon, that interview would end and if you're lucky you might find a ding-letter in your mailbox. But, the good news is, you're probably going to have a common language in an interview and by God, you have better take full advantage of it.
Here's where this post meets the post's title: you had better be able to deliver your answer to any of their questions in twenty seconds or less. But that's not all. You had better have some kind of relevant anecdote that demonstrates your proficiency and be able to build it in to your answer...in only twenty seconds. I'll give you five seconds to think about it, so you've actually got about twenty five seconds, total. But, it's a tight rope. You've got very little room for error.

Here's a formula:
They ask a question, you answer the question (directly) and then you say, "Let me give you an example..." Then, you're down to fifteen seconds, and that's when you say, "When I was working at XYZ, Inc. we did a project in July of 2005 (specific date is critical). The challenge was (fill in with challenge) and if we didn't succeed, we might have (consequence of failure). So, I (did the following) and low-an-behold, we figured it out." See how easy that was? It's a variation of the STAR Method. And, you don't need to do very much to get it right. And, you can do it in about twenty seconds. Try it and see for yourself. Don't wait until the next interview. Wait until someone asks you a qualifying question about past experience - it happens all the time.

The best ones go fishing

I've been working on this recruitment methodology for nearly two years, now. I call it "The Angler Sequence" after the art of fishing. Anglers go fishing for the love of fishing, not usually because they look at the water and think that there may just be a fish somewhere down there. Likewise, some of the best candidates aren't necessarily interested in hearing about a job the first time you call them. Hence my method, which has a lot in common (theoretically) with Peter Lefkowitz's Morgan Method, doesn't place initial emphasis on pitching a job at a stranger, as it goes. If you spend all of your time doing that you're likely to be just another pop-up on some one's radar and they're unlikely to really give you the time of day.

Here's something I noticed: the moment someone picks up the telephone and says hello, you begin competing with other things that are currently occupying their time at the time of the call - the status quo. Unless they happen to be looking at the telephone hoping that some recruiter might call them, it's a pretty sure bet that the person who answers your cold call is immediately searching for a polite (or rude) way to get off of the telephone with you as quickly as possible. Intuitively, that person will identify you as a recruiter, determine if they have any reason to speak with you, and then start reviewing their menu of reasons why they can't (or won't) spend more than about sixty seconds with you on the phone. Then, something very predictable happens. The person you called goes in one of about five possible directions in the context of the discussion. Undoubtedly, he/she may have any of a hundred reasons that come out of his/her mouth. But, each one of those response phrases is an indicator of one, or possibly two distinct groups. Basically, they tell you "I don't know anyone who's looking" or "tell me about the job" or "sorry, I'm not interested" or "let me get your name & number so I can call you back." There is an enormous list of actual responses that someone may give you that appears (key term) to give them a way out of the call. But, the fact is, all of those responses can be neatly packaged in to one of five little boxes. Those five boxes are attached in some way to two different forms of motivation: situational motivation, and dispositional motivation. I'll cover those two groups in another post (someday...maybe) but for now, let's just talk about the five groups.
Situational Constraints - this is someone who'll probably talk to you, but just not right then or there. This person asks for your number and says he'll call you back. But that doesn't mean he actually will call you back. A lot of the time, people use this as an excuse but in reality, they are actually part of the next group.
Pav-NO-vian - named after Pavlov, these are people who say "no" to just about everything. Ring a bell, the dog salivates. Call this person, he says "no thanks." These people typically suffer from system-justification bias. They just don't like change and have committed themselves to stay put even if it means working at a lousy job.
Genuinely satisfied - These people really like their job and have an overall positive sentiment about their work life. As far as indicators, I think these people tend to speak slightly slightly slower and have a subtle amount of confidence in their delivery. I also think they happen to be the best people when it comes to getting referrals.
F.U.D. - Those who suffer from perpetual fear, uncertainty, and doubt - these are the ones who don't trust you. They are also sometimes Pav-NO-vians. In about two seconds, you're able to separate them, however. Pav-NO-vians will do just about anything to get off the phone. FUDs, however, will answer questions and at least talk to you. If you're genuine with them, they'll eventually become a member of my last group.
LMCMD - (huh?) That stands for "let me close my door." These are usually the anglers I'm looking for.

Ok, that's all I have to share for right now. I know it seems like I'm stopping in mid-sentence. But, I promise, I'll pick this up another time.

Enter Alexander The Great, or maybe not

I recently discovered something called "The Alexander Technique." Here's the quick backgrounder: In the late nineteenth century, European theater actor F.M. Alexander suddenly lost his voice. He would rest for a few days, regain his voice, and then without explanation, lose it again. No one could figure it out. Since he was an actor, if he couldn't speak or sing, his career would pretty much be over. But he wasn't having any part of ending his career. Thus, Alexander began experimenting with body movement, body positioning, neck positioning, and relaxation. He went on to solve his own problem - got his voice back, and in turn, invented a technique for efficient body movement which is now used by musicians, singers, actors, orators, and yes, salespeople and recruiters. Practitioners of the "A.T." as it's sometimes called, say one must take dozens of lessons to fully learn how the system works. I'm not so sure I'll go that far. Right now I'm reading a book on the subject and I'm watching YouTube videos. I've begun practicing head positioning which is alleged to improve one's vocal delivery capabilities. Meaning, I'm working on my posture with the hope that it makes me a better speaker when it comes to my job and pretty much my life. So far, I can say with genuine confidence that I notice a difference in how I walk, how I sit, and how I feel when I use my voice. Whether or not it actually has any lasting performance improving effect will be a different story. I'll report back in a couple of weeks.