“In which ways might a Zoom call be more informative than a person-to-person interaction?”

When this person disagrees with you, do you think it will be as likely you are wrong as they are wrong?

Is this person so good that you would happily work for them?

Daniel also places candidate answers in a very specific framework. As the candidate tells their story, Daniel continuously asks himself: Whom is this person responding to or used to performing for? Whom do they view as important to impress? Their parents? A particular peer? High school friends? A former boss? This is revealed at moments when they

We focus on a very specific kind of talent in this book—namely, talent with a creative spark—and that is where the bureaucratic approach is most deadly. In referring to the creative spark, we mean people who generate new ideas, start new institutions, develop new methods for executing on known products, lead intellectual or charitable movements, or

see stamina as one of the great underrated concepts for talent search, especially when you are looking for top performers and leaders and major achievers.

The bureaucratic approach, as we define it, seeks to minimize error and loss, and it prizes consensus above all else.

Ethics are hard to test for. But watch for any whiff of less than stellar ethics in any candidate’s background or references. And avoid, avoid, avoid. Unethical people are unethical by nature, and the odds of a metaphorical jailhouse conversion are quite low.

These days, our very favorite interview question is this one: “What are the open tabs on your browser right now?”