ghSMART Interview Questions
& Process

The interview process was pretty standard but took a while, and for good reason. First, we had a 30-minute screening call, then a 1-hour chat with a more senior recruiter. If that went well, I got a case study to evaluate a candidate for a senior role. Then, I had to discuss the case study with a leadership advisor. After that, if the case study was good, I had a 5-hour career conversation with another leadership advisor. This part was cool because it gave me a real feel for the job. If everything was good and the hiring committee agreed, references were checked before the offer.

The interview process started with a 30-minute recruiter screening call. Then, there was a 1-hour interview with a more senior recruiter. If I moved forward, the next interview was supposed to be with an actual ghSmart consultant, who would give me an assessment, just like the firm does for their clients. This process is described in Geoff Smart's books and on their website. They run these interviews in cohorts every couple of months depending on hiring needs. This made the interview process a bit slower and uncertain because they were cutting candidates and running a process in the background. I found the interviews difficult because the process is different from others, so you need to prepare accordingly.

This was the second round of interviews after an initial 30 min phone screening. The interview was scheduled for 1 hour. The interviewer asked repetitive questions about my strengths and weaknesses, which made me uncomfortable. She then mentioned that a potential third round would be a 3+ hour 'deep dive' interview focusing on my childhood, parents, and family life. I expressed that these personal questions felt inappropriate and invasive for an administrative role. The interviewer stated she hadn't received such feedback before. This process raised concerns about privacy and equal employment opportunities, specifically regarding how childhood information might influence hiring decisions or be relevant to an administrative role.

The interview process is based on the book "Who". While the methodology seems solid initially, I found that subjective bias plays a significant role. A "Scorecard" is created by the hiring manager, which is what candidates are graded against. My concern is that this scorecard is often based on the hiring manager's own traits, leading to the hiring of individuals who are similar to them. This can create an environment where managers surround themselves with people who validate their own perspectives, which they may see as success. While this might lead to hiring "A players" within that specific environment, those individuals might not perform as well in a more meritocratic setting. Essentially, treat this interview as "Anything you say can and will be used against you". ghSmart probes into your past, asking about your parents, their personalities, and the traits you inherited. They inquire about your childhood mistakes and achievements, and similarly for high school and college. I believe this method is biased, especially for those with less privileged backgrounds or who attended less prestigious schools, as it assumes significant changes in individuals from their youth. I doubt that questions about childhood or school are good predictors of performance for mid-career candidates. Furthermore, a dishonest interviewer could potentially manipulate the system by knowing what the hiring manager seeks, by looking at core values and the job description. The advice is to prepare your own "Scorecard" from the hiring manager's perspective, review your life stages, identify real weaknesses, but be selective about what you reveal. Revealing too many mistakes or red flags, even from early in your career or youth, can be detrimental. I personally would not undergo another ghSmart interview due to my background (mediocre education, no extracurriculars, divorced parents with addiction issues). This background could trigger "cultural" red flags, signaling to the interviewer that you are different and from a dissimilar background. Such early red flags can lead to dismissal before later stages. I am also very open about my experiences, which can be perceived negatively, leading to excessive detail about mistakes and insufficient emphasis on achievements. It's crucial to strongly advocate for your achievements and specify their impact. For technical roles, a non-technical interviewer might not fully grasp the scope of your technical accomplishments, putting you at a disadvantage. If you come from a meritocratic environment like Silicon Valley tech companies, where independent thinking and challenging the status quo are valued, the ghSmart method might not be a good fit.