Winning the Q and A Interview

Tired of hearing the same interview over and over by different teams, many owners are turning to interviews comprised of targeted questions and answers (Q and A) in the hopes of really getting to know team members’ thoughts about the project and whether a team is a good fit for the client organization.  These interviews can be extremely effective vehicles for teams to showcase their expertise and personality. But they require specific planning and rehearsal, the same as for a traditional interview.  Teams who come unprepared and unrehearsed do so at their peril and will not give their best possible performance.

Teams should prepare for Q and A interviews by getting immersed in the project, learning as much as they can about the client, the site, the project, and the stakeholders. As with all interviews, we win projects in the details. It is paramount that team members be able to tie rich details into their discussion of approach and philosophy as it relates to the project under consideration. This first stage of interview development is the same for a traditional interview as it is for a Q and A interview; aligning team members to the project and the client is the most important first step in any effective interview planning process.

In addition, I also recommend to teams that they develop a “What we need to prove in order to win this job” list. Commit this list to memory. Use it in your Q and A rehearsal. Keep it with you at the interview if needed; it is the DNA of your pitch. This becomes a check-list to make sure you communicate the information needed in order to win the job.

To increase your chances of success in the Q and A interview, the best strategy is to design a set of mini-presentations that respond to the key messages list above – each with a strong claim, detailed content, and examples to back up your points. These mini-presentations need not be over-rehearsed, but they should be planned and structured around strong, clear claim statements. By creating a set of mini-presentations, teams can make sure they cover the points they need to in a clear and organized manner. 

Team choreography sets the mood for the interaction between client and team. In a Q and A interview, move in closer to the selection committee, even sit around a table, interspersed with the selectors if possible.  Otherwise, move the team close in to facilitate eye contact and true engagement.  Team members should sit up straight (not rigid) and focus their attention on the selection committee, making strong, real eye contact with the person asking the question and smiling in order to come across as engaging and collaborative.

Rehearsal for a Q and A interview is incredibly important – probably even more so than for a traditional interview.  Because of the inherent “impromptu” nature of the context, Q and A interviews can encourage poor presentation behavior by some speakers. Speakers who are more confident and comfortable can inadvertently take over the interview by talking too much - overshadowing the less verbal experts on the team and wasting precious minutes. Rehearsing appropriate presentation behaviors can dramatically increase a team’s chance of success.

Teams should brainstorm a list of possible questions (and their follow-on questions) and should practice answering both the easy ones and the hard ones.  If possible, convene a group of informed professionals within your own firm to practice Q and A with the team in a more realistic rehearsal.  Determine who “owns” what content.  Make sure no answer is more than about two minutes in duration. And, never, ever have more than three speakers speaking on the same question (e.g., the “endless hitchhike”).  Finally, nominate one person in the room to make sure the team has covered everything on your key messages list.

In sum, a Q and A interview does not mean your team cannot plan, strategize, or rehearse. In fact, you probably need even more time together to align team members to the project and get them comfortable with the content and the “rules” governing your team’s approach to Q and A. Only by planning and rehearsing can we have absolute confidence that the team will perform well in the actual interview.   Because so few teams are good at this type of interviewing, there’s ample room for savvy teams to shine in this venue – coming across as prepared, relaxed, conversational, and ready to get to work.

Partnering with Housing Hope: Your Purchase can Make a Difference!

As we move closer to winter and our northwest winds start to blow, we at Communication Resources are very sensitive to those among us who are without shelter this season.  As a result, we are donating $100 for each of our training DVDs purchased in the month of October to Housing Hope of Snohomish County. 

The DVD training, entitled "Winning the Short List," provides a quality training experience to A/E/C professionals on short-list interviewing.  The training is accompanied by a detailed participant’s handbook and a trainer’s guide.  In this training, you can learn Meg’s tested techniques for developing, presenting, and winning short-list interview presentations.  The complete system, including both DVD and Guides, is $395.  With purchase, you may also call Meg and her team directly with any of your training and/or coaching questions.

You can read more about the DVD, preview a segment, and see the guides at www.communication-resources.com.

We’re happy to partner with Housing Hope to help provide shelter and valuable resources for our community’s most vulnerable families.  If you would like to contribute to them directly, please do so at www.housinghope.org.

Walking, Talking, Smiling, and Pointing: Delivery Skills for Technical Professionals

Technically trained professionals – primarily engineers, contractors, and architectural project managers – have typically been perceived as poor speakers.  Companies spend thousands of dollars on standardized delivery coaching in an attempt to make these professionals more compelling and dynamic.  After more than 20 years of coaching such technical professionals, I have found, however, that this standardized coaching method is ineffective. In order to improve the delivery skills of any technical professional, coaches like me need to adapt our approach to coaching to the unique ways in which our technical clients think and communicate.

Training an engineer in theatric “tricks” like common gestures, movement in the room, and the ubiquitous smile, typically makes said engineer look over-coached and wooden (think Al Gore in the 2000 presidential elections).  Rather, we should be coaching technical professionals in ways that connect compelling content to their own natural delivery.  I’ve seen literally hundreds of technical presenters in a range of important presentations and frankly, I’ve only met a handful of them who were truly horrible in their delivery.  Most speakers are actually quite competent – if we work with them in a way that is supportive vs. prescriptive.

I tell speakers that there isn’t any right way to present and there’s no simple list of delivery improvements that will work for every speaker.  Most speakers, in fact, are quite competent in the four elements of delivery that really count:  walking, talking, smiling, and pointing.  We just need to help speakers take their natural competence in these four elements and translate them into the context of a compelling presentation.

Technical professionals need to have a strong working outline that they have written, that has strong logic, and that they’ve both had vetted by colleagues and had an opportunity to practice.  In my experience, most technical professionals can’t begin to focus on delivery until they have connected with content.  Coaching delivery before the speaker has a firm grasp of the content results in frustration and stress for both speaker and coach.

Once content is ready, however, we need to coach technical speakers carefully – choosing our “battles” and making minor improvements that are consistent with a speaker’s natural style.  If a speaker naturally uses small gestures and speaks softly, asking him to adopt broad gestures and an effervescent vocal style simply won’t work.  Technical speakers are generally not trained actors and we need to support them in minor changes that will appear natural in a presentation instead of asking them to make major changes that are more consistent with the coach’s prescriptive vision of a good speaker.

Minor changes might include adding a smile, moving closer to the selection panel, slightly increasing volume, or interacting with a visual to show a process or example.  Technical speakers respond well to minor changes that have a major impact.  Any delivery “tweaks” that we recommend as coaches need to be closely tied to the content. In this way, the technical speaker can “see” the logic of the recommendation.  For example, “Suzi, when you identify the major technical challenge, pause beforehand, then speak louder and look the selectors in the eye. This will give that statement much more impact.”  This is more effective than saying, “Suzi, you need to speak louder and integrate more pauses into your delivery.  This will make you a more persuasive and dynamic speaker.”