December 4, 2025 • 61 mins
Hiring a C-level executive isn't just about filling a seat; it's about altering the DNA of your leadership team. In this episode, Werner Spronk (Tech Terra Search) joins Chris Parker to reveal why 85% of an executive's success depends on their fit within the existing team dynamic - not just their resume.
We explore the dangerous trap of "lazy leadership" in hiring, why AI will never replace the "Human IP" of a great recruiter, and how to use tools like the Job Fulfillment Matrix to stop hiring for skills and start hiring for energy.
Key Topics:
The 85% Rule: Why team constellation matters more than individual competence.
Lazy Leadership: Are you hiring a mirror image of yourself or what the team actually needs?
The Job Fulfillment Matrix: A tool to identify burnout risks before you sign the contract.
Human IP vs. AI: Why the future of recruiting is about sensing stress and trust, not keyword matching.
Candidate Strategy: How to flip the interview script to ensure you are a "net add" to the team.
About the Guest:Werner Spronk is a headhunter and founder of Tech Terra Search, specializing in C-level Product and Technology roles for mid-market scale-ups. He advocates for a holistic, data-informed approach to building leadership teams.
Learn more: https://ebullient.com/podcast/team-dynamics-werner/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Hello, this is Chris Parker withthe Business Simplicity Podcast.
And I had a conversation with Werner Spronk and he's a
recruiter headhunter with Tektera Search here in the
Netherlands. And he's focusing on chief
product officers and chief technology officers or, or the
combination of CPTOS. And we had a very interesting
(00:20):
conversation about his approach,which doesn't only look at the
candidates in the search, but actually the entire leadership
team dynamics and the personalities there, the skills
and preferences there. Sometimes even, you know, the
work type and how those individuals are energized.
And the point of this is to not only select the right person,
(00:44):
but really to contribute to having that person be a net add
to the team on a long term. And, and it's really, really
nice approach. So, Werner, why would it be
really valuable for people to listen to this?
I believe if you do understand the true team dynamics, that
(01:08):
makes the team strong, what makes the team not strong, and
if you have proper insight into those, you can hire someone who
makes the entire team stronger. And especially on C level.
I think 7080, maybe 85% of the success of a person is how they
(01:30):
fit into that leadership team. So that should be central when
you want to hire someone, when you want to add someone to the
team. Welcome to the Business
Simplicity podcast, where Chris Parker explores how leaders cut
through complexity to acceleratestrategy execution and growth
(01:52):
with calm, clarity, and confidence.
Welcome back to the Business Simplicity podcast.
This is Chris Parker and I'm having a conversation with
Werner Sprunk and he has a recruiter and headhunter with
his own firm called Tech Terra Search.
And you can find that at Tech asin TECH Terra Terra search dot
(02:13):
NL. And his specialty is right up my
alley, meaning it's like chief technology officers, chief
product officers, CPTOS, these hybrid beasts that sometimes I
fit into that domain as well. And I love it on his LinkedIn,
he says. And also sometimes he
occasionally does like CEOs and commercial officers, but he's
(02:35):
primarily in the tech and product space in the mid market,
in the scale up space. So obviously we've been
connected for a while, not quitesure in at least a year.
I knew you and your previous agency and now you're
independent. And during that process of
getting to know you, this is, you know, you have a certain
(02:59):
method that I thought was reallycool and I'm so just excited to
unpack it with you. And that method is a way of
understanding how a new tech or product leader can best land in
a leadership team for the most value and, you know, just
(03:20):
successfully land. And that's what we're going to
unpack later on today. But before we go into, into
that, Werner, I'm, I'm just curious, like Tec Terra and your
own position, 'cause you're, you're, you're doing things your
own way and, and, and have your own, I guess, imprints on this
(03:43):
recruiting, hunt, hunting space.So maybe tell us a little bit
about how you got to this point of running Techtera, you know,
your own agency with this focus and in this really unique way,
at least what I think is unique.And and then we'll then we'll
get into the the deep end of of your actual method.
Yeah, nice. Thank you.
(04:03):
And like to be here a lot alwayslike having chats with you and
always seeing that there's more than meets the eye, that there's
always a new layer which you canopen up and discuss.
So always happy to talk to you if I go back really far.
(04:24):
And I'm always about understanding something for
first before judging and not going back into my entire
career. But I think I stumbled into the
domain of a recruiter. There's no education for it.
And I think most people somehow end up in it without being a
(04:50):
conscious decision that they just like the job.
And then somehow we get worse out for them.
And I stumbled into it and I noticed that I really like being
able to do something for people,do some for companies.
It's a very people driven job, but also quite commercial that
landed really well. And I know that when I started
(05:12):
in this job 12 years ago, the product position in many
companies was still not that mature.
So it was pretty complex and andwhat is what is it holds?
What is his encompass? What is his merit?
And with every position I workedon in the product sphere, it was
(05:35):
pretty complex understanding what type of person you need and
how does it fit within the company, What does success look
like? So you need like three extra
layers already to understand it,how to make someone successful
from the product. So that's why I like the product
domain. And then I'm a completely
non-technical person myself and I grew up in a technical family
(05:58):
and I think that's why I connectto tech people pretty good.
So then it evolves to product and tech and then to product and
tech leadership. And what I've seen in
recruitment, also in head hunting, is that I think it's
really strange that people focusup to doing a placement and then
(06:20):
they take their hands off because that's the job of the
company and the job of the candidate, but that's where the
journey actually starts. So you should be able to
influence that. And if you then start looking at
what makes someone successful ina leadership team, I think that
(06:40):
stuff like experience and hard skills, those are hygiene
factors. It's always a, it's a must have,
but hygiene as well. But what really differentiates
if someone is successful is better they are a fit with the
assignment of what the company needs to do and how they fit
within that leadership team. And the interesting part is
(07:05):
where I find it's getting interesting is that to do so,
you have to assess the leadership team to understand
whether they are fit for future and fit for purpose.
And the leadership team has to be open to willing to do that.
So before you jump into working on an assignment, you have to
(07:26):
have a complete different conversation, quite often with
founders in my case, about why are you doing what you're doing?
And are you doing things which gives you energy or is it drain
energy and but is it still basedon your ego or is it because you
don't see another way? And what do you really want for
yourself? And in the end, if you do this
(07:49):
the right way, then it's, or at least how I came to my
proposition nowadays, is that I not only want to find the person
that does the job, but I want tofind the person that makes the
entire team stronger. And the job is way more
interesting because you end up somewhere between being a coach,
a headhunter, A consultant, designing teams, how made, how
(08:10):
to make them successful. It can be pretty fluffy, but in
the end you can do it all at once in one project because it's
it's all small projects, I wouldsay.
And then you can have influence on if someone starts on how to
help being successful, how to connect with the team, how to
connect with their leader better.
(08:32):
And then you start truly making impact.
And I, I, I did a little more research and of course I had my
own experience on this, but I, Icouldn't find any, like any
metrics of failure or success ofCPTOS or, or chief product
officers in certain domains. But out of what I was able to
(08:54):
find is, is a number of of risksor known issues.
And, and like, some of them are like bringing the wrong
playbook, you know, So like if you, if you, you come in with a
heavy enterprise bureaucratic approach for a, you know,
smaller pre scale up, it's just not going to fit, you know, that
(09:16):
type of stuff. And also things like if it's,
you know, if you're doing mid market scale up, it could still,
you know, the founder might still be there and the founders
of course have these, you know, it's more personality driven
than let's say role driven. And in those situations, it can,
(09:36):
it can be well, even more complex and, and you know, on,
on how you know, does that does that founder like if it's a new
role, because not all organizations have a head of
product. And then once they're scaling,
you know, that might have been part of what the founder was
doing. And then a new head of product
(09:58):
comes in and does the, does the founder give it away?
You know, are they synced up andhow do they do the
prioritization? Not, not the road map
prioritization, but just the, you know, the 1st 100 days
prioritization. You know, I think there's so
many opportunities for this to go so wrong.
And the thing that, that really triggered me about your, your
(10:19):
approach in our, in our previousconversations was you looked at
the management team. So it wasn't like only the
relationship between the, the, the, the head of product and,
and tech or the CEO, but it's the team dynamic.
So because how did you get like,like what happened in your life
that that triggered you to say, Hey, I, you know, I, I need a
(10:40):
more holistic approach on this. Is it like, like how?
Like how did we, how did we get here?
Interesting one. I'm, I'm, I'm asking myself that
one as well. And I think I'm quite a curious
person. So I always like to find new
(11:01):
approaches on how to make things, how to do new things for
the, when you look at one thing,how can you find different ways
of making that one thing better,making that one process better?
And for the CTPO position, it's somehow it for four or five
years ago, I got the question quite often, do we need a CTL or
(11:26):
a CTL and a Cpl. or a CTPL? What do we need?
So then I started thinking of can I make a method like a tree
in which I put in variables on the one side and then have a
workflow and then understand whether I need a CTL or a CTL
(11:46):
and Cpl. or CPTL or whatever. And I did 30 into about 30 to 35
interviews with CTOSCPOS and CE OS about can we make a decision
tree for this? And then there were so many
variables possible that's or at least with my capabilities, I
(12:07):
couldn't make a decision tree the others and they didn't find
it as well. So then I went back to those
group of people and I asked thema different question.
I asked them what do I need to ask to understand whether and to
have the right context to understand what choice to make.
(12:27):
So that ended up in a theme which I use now, which is, I
call it a quick scan. This between 25 to 30 questions,
which I always use to understandcompany, the theme and
situation, the assignment, and then work back backwards to
getting a profile. And during those discussions, I
(12:48):
always noticed that people wouldalmost never talk about the team
aspect, which is really strange.And they would say, yeah, we
focus on team. They never would ask how do you
focus on team? It's quite often, yeah, by
talking to people. And then if I ask what do you
assess, then it's went quiet. So it is more based on good feel
(13:14):
and people saying I trust my good feel to do this right
instead of doing it with the right tools or with a procedure
or more analytical methods to get to that.
And for me that was like really strange because in the end I've
never seen AC level higher, not being successful because he
(13:39):
didn't have the experience, because he was lacking the hard
skills. And what you mentioned before.
If you have founders which have,who have done something for five
or seven or ten years and are extremely successful with that
and they start hiring a CPO. While mostly they themselves are
(14:03):
sort of a super product owner, which not everything about the
product. And if something doesn't go
around, they go down into the very tiniest detail of that
wanting to fix it. If you then hire a CPO, you have
to give the person freedom, autonomy, and you're not allowed
to do that anymore. And do you have the self inside
(14:25):
to change your own behavior thatway?
That's where it all starts with the self inside is where what is
my spot? What do I do and am I capable of
changing this? And then with the self inside
comes how do I collaborate with the team?
That almost what you can call team insights.
(14:45):
And I felt this domain. And what I always like to
understand is that what are the things which people don't say,
which are really important because quite often that's why
the blind blind spots are. And if you find the blind spots
and you can help people identifythem, that's where quite often a
lot of game is for a team. I, I, my, no, no, it's, this is
(15:10):
beautiful. My, my, my belief is, but maybe
you can paint the picture a little differently that, that
this is, if I'm understanding this correctly, that you're
actually, let's talk about the dynamic between the CEO,
probably CTO and let's imagine there's a new chief product
(15:30):
coming in. Let's just just as a case that
you seem to also be looking at the shift or the change of this
new role for the CEO and CTO as well as what the new head of
product would would need to adjust or or emphasize stepping
(15:55):
in. So you're, so you're looking at
really a system here as opposed to, and correct me if I'm wrong,
maybe I'm a bit too, too linear on it.
But if it's a maybe a larger organization and this is a role
that they've had a number of times and it's OK, they just
need to fill a seat. You know, they're, they're,
they're filling a seat on the bus and they're not looking at
(16:17):
the bus, you know, the configuration of the bus.
Do you feel this is, this is remarkably different than a
typical recruiting pathway or process?
Or is this, or do you think you just have a few minor nuances
that you've, you know, some sparkles that you've put on it
(16:37):
because it feels, it feels very different from what I've
experienced before. That's that's why I'm I'm
curious. Yeah, I, I believe it is.
But that's then me also a littlebit boasting about my method, of
course, because normally recruitment or head hunting
focuses on a person and if assessments are being done, it's
(17:00):
based on that person. It's almost never about the
team. Yeah, I've only seen one other
person doing this in the Netherlands at least.
But I think I know quite some people here.
And in the end I think it's a necessity to focus on that team
(17:22):
aspect. For example, I quite often work
with founders which were able tospot their blind spots but were
not able to act upon it, and I've seen it go wrong there
because they were. Quite often when someone starts
(17:44):
and he or she is doing a good job scores 8 out of 10.
For example, in the 1st 6 to 9, nine months, everything goes
perfect. And then when pressure hits or
things start going not as smoothas suspected, then there is
this. There are these tiny things
which people already felt in thewater and which they felt in
(18:09):
collaborating with someone, which then can become a big
thing and which then become the reason for not going further
together. And that's almost always in the
theme part or in the internal collaboration part.
And like you mentioned, I think you have these family
constellations, which psychologyis being used a lot.
(18:33):
I think you have the same thing with them.
For companies and especially with founders, it has been
evolving constantly around them with so many things that are for
them completely logical, but so logical that it is implicit and
not explicit. And how can you expect someone
(18:54):
to come in from the outside, join that theme consolation and
understand all the implicities without and they are always
hired for a big weights which people feel.
So they are expected to deliver really rapidly from a content
(19:16):
perspective, from a team perspective, from a change
perspective, everything. And in the end, it's always the
theme part. If it goes wrong, it's always to
be within the team and the team consolation.
Well, what what what's being triggered to me and and you
know, I've written the book leadfrom love with Rumi is is
(19:36):
earlier views of that. I was, I was also like, you
know, and it never really expanded, but there, there
seemed to be like lazy leadership.
And then, you know what I calledthen, then love leadership.
And, and it sounds like what you're expressing to me is, is
there, there could be a way thatmaybe you're a little bit more
lazy and say, let's just assess the candidate and the candidate
(19:59):
has to, you know, these hard skills we have to tick, tick,
tick, and then let's bring it in.
But in this case, it requires A deeper investment of time and
energy and reflection, self-awareness of the different
people. So I'm, I'm, I'm curious if you
are able to walk us through the process.
(20:20):
From the eyes of the Ceoi would love that.
Like, OK, let's imagine there's a founder CEO the same same
case, you know, and they they have a head of tech as well,
maybe both count of founders andthey're going to bring a head of
product in. But from the view, the
perspective of the CEO and they call you and they say, hey, hey,
(20:40):
Werner, we need a we need a chief product officer.
Yeah. How does that go?
Like, like, like, like how do you check in with them on
whether they're going to do the lazy way or the love way?
My words, not your words, you know.
Very. Very interesting question and
I'm having a discussion on this with some people around me a lot
(21:00):
because always when I'm I'm, I'm, I'm lucky to have people be
advocates for me. So in the end of every job I've
done in the last 1 1/2 year was because someone, they
recommended me to someone else. And then then it happened, which
is always a nice way to get in because then you already have
(21:22):
built a level of trust because it's always what people did for.
So that's, that's a, that's a head start.
I would say in nine out of 10 times it happens that they said
that. They've said to me, well, we
have this JD with a few job specs from an experience
perspective, what do we need? And then they asked me after
(21:45):
like 10 or 15 minutes, do you know what we need?
And I always say no. And then they started getting a
bit what was happening. And then I start asking
questions and then I start asking questions about
themselves. And then some people really like
that. And you really soon feel whether
(22:06):
the person is able to come alongwith that or is completely not
open to it. But this in the end, I have to
accept that they come with me with a simple question.
We need a new CDO or CPO. And then during the
conversation, I have to flip it completely around this.
(22:27):
Do you understand your position within the team and what are
your strengths? Where, where do you want to
grow? And from that perspective, start
working towards that theme part,then telling them, well, I can
help you with the theme part andthen find someone that makes the
team stronger. But the CEO needs to be flexible
(22:53):
and adaptive into not having hisfirst question answered because
I'm not going to answer within 15 minutes what he needs.
I need a lot more time. I need to understand the CEO, I
need to understand the team. I need to understand the
assignment and I have to talk tofive people for that.
Then I do an assessment with allthose five, quite often for
(23:15):
three, 4-5 people. Then I give them a quick scan,
debrief with advice on the team and then I come up with a
profile. So it's.
Now, the thing that I that I find so remarkable about this is
in processes I've been in and I've given this feedback in the
(23:37):
past as well. You know, like, like, OK, I as a
candidate need to do this assessment, right?
And you're going to assess me and like, like, can I have, can
I see the same assessment for the team I'm joining, you know,
you know, to, to give me that, that insight and understanding
and, and you're actually doing it.
So how do you assess those, those five people?
(23:58):
I know you have a couple like psychometric models and, and,
and different tools and stuff, but what is the journey of
discovery of, let's say the team?
And do you do the same thing with the candidate then
afterwards and so you can compare and contrast or just
like like how does that sort of Arc of that story go?
Yeah, quite often there is a make or break moment during the
(24:21):
first chat I have, which is quite often the pitch.
Funny thing is I don't pitch at all.
I always thought I just ask a lot of questions and then in the
end I say, well, I think I can help you, but it's up to you to
decide. And one of the things which
needs to happen during that first interview is that I give
(24:42):
the other people feedback on what they are doing, what
probably works for them and whatdoesn't work for them.
And if that resonates, I'm in. If it doesn't resonate, I'm
completely out. And, and luckily up to this
part, it has always resonated. So but it has to click from a
(25:04):
perspective. This is going to be completely
different than just finding a person.
Well, I, I, I, in previous conversations you've told me
that there's been moments that you've done search for different
reasons and maybe different times that you didn't do this
method. And.
Didn't work out in the end, meaning, meaning that the, the
(25:26):
placement or you know, failed, you know, whatever left sooner
than anticipated. So you, you do have some
experience to compare and contrast, right?
So, so I mean did you not do this method at those times
because the hiring executive wasclosed to the feedback or was
(25:47):
there was there other dynamics going on?
Yeah, there were other dynamics going on and some of them I
won't go into detail. Some of them were social impact
companies where the fee I accepted the way lower fee but
then decided not to do the assessment because it doesn't
cost me money as well. In the end, what I noticed is
(26:08):
that I think I'm can be pretty not, it's not stubborn, but if I
feel something and if I see something which I truly believe
in, then I'm not going to be just a supplier working for you.
I'm I'm, I'm I'm wanting to workon that and I want to help them
(26:30):
with that because I genuinely believe they can come out
stronger. But if my belief is a mismatch
with their belief, it's really hard for me to find the proper
candidate because we have two different frames and the frames
don't align completely. And then it's a lot of hard
work. Quite often you're using
(26:52):
different words, then you're looking with different views on
the same thing. So having that frame completely
the same. Before I started, I learned that
that is a must for me to do a search because otherwise it's it
can be frustrated for almost everybody.
(27:14):
Well, I, I, I, I guess if you're, and I know your focus
is, is let's say mid market, so you know, 100,000 people or so.
And in larger enterprises, I, I can imagine this is maybe seen
as more transactional. So we, we need a new head of
sales. So let's go get a one of the,
you know, some headhunter and run this process and, you know,
(27:39):
it's it's often times cost driven and HRS, you know,
pushing the process and OK, so you've got, you know, sometimes
a queen of the pigs type situation, like, OK, none of
them really work, but you know, we need to we need to have
sales. So get on with it.
And and that might work in in a in an enterprise place where
it's where there's much more people.
(28:01):
And then if things don't work, it just kind of averages out,
you know, that, you know, just rule of numbers up there.
But in this case, I can imagine that, you know, founder or mid
market CEO are mission critically dependent on these
(28:23):
new leaders. I mean, this could literally
make or break them their investment, you know, their
their their livelihood. And I would hope that they would
really embrace the team view, but I could also imagine they
would be a little bit vulnerable.
Like to do a big like like on your website, the different
(28:46):
methodologies, there's the big 5personality test, There's an
archetype of leaders approach, job fulfilment matrix.
In your experience are, are theyopen to going through this
process and, and being transparent with the outcome and
(29:07):
the results? Like do you do this like with
the whole team or is this very confidential?
Like like I guess that for me that could be a part of the the
sensitive part or am I getting this wrong?
It's it can be a very sensitive part, absolutely.
If you do it respectful with theaim of understanding how someone
(29:29):
can improve the team, then quiteoften I'm allowed to ask any
question I want. And in the end the real
sensitive stuff doesn't quite often doesn't go out there
because you formulate it in a positive frame.
(29:49):
So if you do it properly, peopleare very much open to talk about
a lot of things. Then again, there's all, there's
always people who have a agenda which they like to have seen.
And sometimes ACCL has a different agenda than ACEO or a
(30:10):
CPO. And sometimes someone is of
course absolutely open to hiringand AC a CPO.
But then again, also thinks what's going to be my new
position within the company if aCPO comes in with a lot of
experience for maybe a much bigger company.
So sometimes people are scared as well.
(30:33):
And The funny thing is that withthese different tools I use, I'm
looking on values, on personal drivers.
It's also tasks, on the hard skills and experience, but also
on energy. And if you use different tools
to look at the same thing, people start quite often.
(30:57):
People like to go through that and they like to learn about
themselves and they open it pretty easy.
A concern I have and, and let's,let's maybe dig into that a
little bit is like on, on the previous episode with Araz
(31:18):
Najarian, we talked about psychometrics and principles of
appropriate use of psychometricsaccording to Araz and the EOP
network. And one of the fundamental rules
of, of, of that community is do not use psychometrics to make
decisions about people, you know, like, like, like if you
(31:42):
talk about Myers Briggs, and it's not a method that you, that
you use in here. But I, you know, I'm, I'm an
INTP that has strong J preferences.
Cause I've learned that in work.And what I would hope is if
people observed me as an, as an INTPJ and I was coming into an
(32:06):
organization that they wouldn't use that against me.
They're like, Oh, we already have enough NTS, you know, so we
need, we need, you know, some more SJS and you know, or, or
whatever. So how, how do you use this?
You know the outcomes of these not to make finite decisions?
Or do you? Yes, it's true.
(32:29):
It's a tool should never be usedas a bar.
So it's always a tool to understand a person and the
person is always much more than what comes out of the tool.
So something can be, can be you or it can be what you've learned
(32:51):
or it can be what you think you need to do for that position.
So there can be a lot of reasonswhy you do what you do and is it
internally or externally. So it's always a tool to
understand what is happening in that in getting sorted in
situations. So what I use the tools for is
(33:12):
that from three different perspectives, I tried to
understand better what the person is good at, but the case
of it doesn't give them energy, how they collaborate with
people, how they act when they are put on the pressure.
And the next step is combining that output with the other team
(33:36):
members and trying to see whether there is a lot of
overlap or whether there are biggaps.
And if you find the gaps and youunderstand what the company
needs to do, then you can say, well, maybe we want to hire
someone who's strong and that particular perspective.
And then it becomes interesting because do you want someone
(33:58):
who's complimentary to you or dosomeone someone who can cross
the bridge between where you areright now and where you want to
go? For example, I worked with this
started, they wanted to work with really big corporates
because that would be their clients.
So do they hire someone who's extremely well in in procedures
(34:21):
and structure and details or do you hire someone who is in
between the big corporate and them and having those
understandings where you are as a person, where you are as a
team, where the new need to be hired person is that and then
having a chat. I see differences, but do you
(34:44):
know how to cross the bridge, the differences?
And have you seen it before? Have you been in such a place?
Does it annoy you or not? Do you get energy out of it or
not? And then you're able to have, I
think the right discussion whether that person is the right
contribution to it, to your team.
Yeah, I think, I think indeed, you know, if you and I just a
(35:09):
crude generalization, but sometimes people hire people
that are like them physically otherwise as well.
And if you want to really get the benefits of, of, let's call
(35:32):
it diversity in, in every definition, having this
awareness of, OK, you know, thisis how I think and this is how I
operate. And this is how, you know, what
gives me energy And to know thatwith everyone else on the team,
in any case, I think that's healthy.
You know, I, I, I can imagine that they're also, they're
finding they're, you know, understanding themselves and
(35:56):
others better. And maybe some of the unspoken
conflicts in the team are surfaced anyways.
And then, but can you, can you walk through the different
methods you use and, and why do you use them?
Like like how is it, how is it valuable?
Like I, I, I know big 5 personality, but more from
(36:17):
marketing. Like how do you use this in in
the context of search and selection or or or team
dynamics? Yeah, so the Big 5.
In the end, most psychromatic tools have a pretty bad
scientific backing. The Big 5 has a pretty decent
(36:41):
one. Yesterday I spoke to this Yuko
strummers. Maybe you know him, he's a
professor nowadays as well for her CTO.
He said, well, really good aboutthe Big 5 because it's one of
the best methods out there. So I was almost cheering and
then I felt that you can also use non scientific difficulty
back tools if you just use them in the right manner.
So in the end, for me, it was nice to have a tool which
(37:05):
assesses people trade based. So I don't like it when you're
either green or red or yellow orblue or when you become a table
or a plant or whatever outcome there is.
Big 5 says that people, this is a bit trainers language, of
(37:25):
course, but everybody's unique that we look like each other as
well. And the way we are similar.
They they have 5 domains. You can score A1 per domain or
then in every position has its own strengths and own
weaknesses. And the nice thing is that every
position is good. Every position has its own
strengths. And you can also see how people
(37:48):
relate to each other. So for example, if someone has a
lot of willpower, quite often the best entrepreneurs have a
lot of willpower. But if you have three people in
a team with a lot of willpower, probably you don't need a fourth
because just going to get a big fight.
Probably it's someone who is able to connect everybody or how
(38:10):
to communicate it to the rest ofthe team.
So looking at it from these different phrase from a bad
perspective, for example, there's one which is called
affection in the model. Affection is whether are you
focused on yourself or on others.
And nowadays everybody says, well, it's really bad to focus
on money on yourself. If you have, if you want to have
(38:33):
a very good commercial guy in your team, he has to be so
result driven that he's only focused on getting the best
result for the company and for himself and not feeling too
sorry for the other company. So he has to score low on
affection. So there are for every different
(38:57):
job and every different assignment, you can ask
yourself, what do we have the right setup in the team?
And if not, how do we like to see that with the person?
And that's, I like the big 5 because it's really, it's trade
based and it, you can compare itreally well amongst each
other's. And it's always, it's really
(39:22):
interesting, but almost fascinating to see how a
questionnaire with 100 questions, which you fill in in
10 minutes, gives people back a lot of insights on themselves.
Sometimes they know it, sometimes they don't know it.
And if you start combining insights from that
questionnaire, that's where the magic happens.
That's where people start to move.
(39:44):
That's where they start to really discuss their own frame,
whether it's the right thing to do or not.
And then you truly get to know someone.
So that's that's for me if the main driver in getting to know a
person and, and understanding the team.
(40:05):
And then the second one, which Iuse is an archetype model for
month. Let's get to fees, which is much
more focused on what is your andit has 8 archetypes like are you
a strategist or are you a builder or innovator or goals or
a communicator? What gives you energy?
What drains energy and where do you feel good at?
(40:26):
Are you grown into this role anddo you do it because you think
you have to do it or is it because it's truly you?
It's a different way of it is much more task driven about what
you do. Then it's based on your values.
And sometimes people are completely aligned with their
(40:47):
tasks, task, which they do and their failures.
But sometimes people aren't, andthen there is a big misalignment
sometimes with only showing people that there's a
misalignment in what they do andwhat their failures are at the
same. Now I understand why I've been
fighting that hard over the lasttwo years and it feels like I'm
(41:10):
extremely successful, but still my energy is getting lower and
lower and lower. And The funny thing is if you
start combining these tools and then the last one as well, and
then there are there are some cross checks within that which
are completely non scientifically based.
But if you give them back to people, you open up their eyes
(41:34):
and then you get a description about should we change things?
Should we keep on doing this? And the last one, the job
fulfilment matrix, which is a two by two matrix, energizing
and draining on one side and badat it and good at it on on the
bottom side. This is the one I would I'm
least familiar with. How do you use this?
(41:55):
Like what? Like what goes in that matrix?
Yeah, So what goes in it is, andthis one I use the least, unless
there is a lot of energy drains within the work people are
doing, not so much amongst each other, but much more what am I
(42:17):
doing in my work and I'm puttingin a lot of effort, but I don't
see the outcome and it drains me.
If I hear that, then I start using this tool and it's pretty
simple. I ask people what are the seven
or eight main tasks you're doingin your job or first, what are
your responsibilities? What are then your main tasks
(42:37):
you're doing and plot those tasks on?
Do they give you or could entrain energy?
And are you good at it or are you bad at it?
And then you have to just put post its on the map.
And then in the end you want to be where it gives you energy and
where you're good at. And in the end, mostly I think
(43:01):
the most teams are between 60 and 80% of the post its are at
the good at it and giving energy.
But the friction is what doesn'tgive you energy or where you're
bad at. And how can you then use that
insights to come up with a new consolation for the team?
(43:22):
Not only gives the new person the right insights on what he or
she should do, but also makes the team and individual people
better capable of doing what they do and giving more energy
back. It would be interesting if it's
(43:44):
a CPTO coming in and, and somebody else on the team is
super energized and they're really, really good at, I don't
know, product visioning and strategy and road mapping or
something, you know, so, so something that that's just
fundamental in the zone of this new role, they have that
conversation, you know, how do you, how do you benefit from the
passion and expertise of, of theother person while still, you
(44:08):
know, defining the space that, you know, the, the, the new
person can still have have a chance to succeed.
So a couple things on my mind is, is this is much more into
into like leadership and team development than recruiting.
So I can also imagine why a typical recruiter might not go
(44:33):
into this because it's it's a you need knowledge, experience,
you need methods, you also need the time, which I assume they
cost more. Yeah, I, I think is this the, is
this the unique proposition for this place in the market?
(45:03):
I can see how it fits. And I, and I'm, I guess what I,
what now that I'm understanding it better, I'm also realizing,
OK, you know, maybe not every recruiter needs this, but in
certain cases I can see that why?
It's how it's really, really valuable.
Yeah, yeah. And I think looking forward with
AI and of course everybody's talking about AI and AI will
change everything. But finding people and selecting
(45:27):
on hard skills or experience, that will be AI in two or three
years completely I suppose. So the job of recruitment and
head hunting will shift completely.
What is the added value of people in the future?
And I think that's a combinationof knowledge about how to make
(45:47):
people and teams successful. That's also one of the things I,
I jumped into this because I think the job will change and
how are we still relevant in thefuture.
But also the job is way more nice if you, or at least I like
it a lot better because it's much more about the genuine
(46:10):
connection with someone than andjust writing down what they want
and and working from there. Yeah, it's much, much more
intimate and, and, and it's muchmore transversal across the
people. I'm I'm chipping under the AI
thing. Obviously we don't none of us
know where this that will actually go.
But certainly the, you know, theapplicate applicant tracking
(46:34):
systems and, and the other recruiting systems, those AI can
mine for hard skills and keywords and that kind of thing.
And more and more you're gettinglike AI interviews that they're
able to, you know, vet experience and again, coming
down to keywords and semantics, etcetera.
(46:54):
But I also think on the other side, candidates are using AI
more and more to freak the system, you know, So I think,
you know, it's, it's kind of a 0sum game.
And one of my thoughts is, is just in general, the more that
people are able to fake and deepfake things with AI, the human
(47:16):
connection, the authentic relationship will become more
and more important. Meaning, meaning not everything
can be automated in the system. Maybe if it's a call center
person, you know, like if it's areally routine thing that, but
that's probably going to be replaced by AI anyways.
So having this interpersonal human relationship dimension is
(47:41):
I, I, I believe is where the trust and the magic is going to
happen going forward because that, that's what you can't get
automated and that's what we're working on.
And I think AI in the future candetect things like stress, but
do they know where stress come from?
Is it that the person in front of you is intimidated by you?
(48:07):
Did they have a really bad announcement just before they
started talking to you? Are they stressed because they
have to pick up their kids from school afterwards and they don't
have the time for it? And I think from a human
perspective, if you can see something is happening, if you
(48:27):
can address it and you can understand why it's happening,
and then do something good with it for the other person, I think
AI won't be, I think or I believe and I hope, let's put it
like that, that AI won't be ableto do that in the near future.
And I think those things are sort of a human IP, which you
need still be relevant next to what AI does.
(48:51):
Yeah. Well, yeah, talk about stress.
And if you're talking about stress in, in the recruiting
process, not everyone is a greatinterviewer.
You know, I, I've, I've, you know, in, in almost every
dimension of the recruiting process, I've observed some
(49:14):
really bad interviewers, you know, and you can, you know,
tell me your strengths, tell me your weaknesses.
Yeah. And, and I think that can also
create stress for people as well.
It's and I, and I think it takesa, and again, this goes back to
this lazy love thing that if you're interviewing someone, if
(49:36):
you're, if you're managing this process, I believe the outcome
will be much better if you're vested into it.
So you're, you're, you're aware and, and you, you know, like you
said that, you know, you ask theunspoken question, you know,
like, why are you distracted right now?
You know, like, like what, like what's happening within you
that, that, you know, like, likeI've had interviews with people
(50:00):
and, and one guy, he just, I didn't see it.
He had Gray hair, but it was, hejust convinced us by the end
that he was too old for the job.Like, and I asked him like, why,
why did you make, why did you make such a point of your age?
And, and it was really fascinating, you know, to unpack
(50:22):
that conversation and, and say, let's just put this interview on
hold for a second, but what's going on within you that this is
such a thing? And it was, and, and, and that
was a rich conversation. And I remember right, he was, he
was just wanted, he was just going through the motions
'cause, you know, he was gettinghis government thing and he just
didn't want the job. But it was, you know, but that,
(50:43):
but whatever that it was, but it's really fascinating to see
what was unspoken. So Werner, last question for me,
unless you got some more things to, to add, but we've just
disappointed a lot of people because most CPOCTO search
processes will not happen like this.
(51:09):
So my, my, my question is for, and, and there's a lot of those
in, in my network because that's, this is the zone that I
play. And I, I guess my question is if
someone is going through this process on either side of the
table, but let's say as a candidate and it's happening in
a very traditional way, meaning checking hard skills and, and
(51:34):
you know, bum and seat instead of contributor on team.
How could they take inspiration from this to create a deeper,
richer, more connected conversation?
Maybe without asking the seat EOto take a big 5 personality
(51:54):
test. That might be awkward to say,
hey I want to maybe they could, but what what what do you think
you could people could take fromthis to improve the connection
and improve the selection and improve the chance of success if
they don't have a guide like youmanaging the.
(52:16):
Process. Well, one of the things I always
advise people is that the best interview is where the other one
speaks more than you do. So that means that you have the
to ask the right questions and almost flip the vibe in the
meeting or the the, the way things flow.
(52:37):
Because quite often people like to talk about themselves and
like to talk about and if you can ask the right questions and
show that you understand what's happening, then it's probably
way better than you're just telling on your what you've
done. Because people have read that
already on their resumes. And I know that, for example, a
while ago there was this lady and she was being interviewed by
(53:01):
a big, very well known, well reputated headhunter.
And she was going into a third chat, I feel, with the
headhunter before moving towardsthe company.
And I asked her, can you ask them the question about what are
the strengths and weaknesses about the team and what does
(53:22):
that mean for me as a person? And then she asked the
headhunter and he didn't know. Then she pulled back out of the
procedure, which you can do at this stage or you can decide,
well, I'm just going to ask the people at the company to do so.
But I think with one or two proper good questions, if you
(53:45):
ask what is the team really goodat, what a team does, the team
knew it needs to improve. And what is your own role in
that? I think if you ask those three
questions to a person that interviews you, you're flipping
the talk completely and you're getting a lot of input for
yourself. For me that would be always, or
(54:07):
at least the interviews I've been doing for myself.
I was asking more questions any person on the other side of the
table. Also because I like to get the
information and then understand whether it's something for me as
well, instead of only the other way around.
I'm also the like, I think also in, in a lot of this space where
(54:34):
this is like tech start up, scale up, the executives are
usually on podcasts and stuff aswell, Meaning you can also do
some research and get a flavour for these people and, and maybe
in that context, know, know whatkind of questions to ask as
well. And the best kind of interview
(54:57):
conversations that, you know, that I like to have is not what
I did in the past, but how I didit and, and who I did it with.
And getting the same, you know, insight from the person, you
know, like the, you know, the questions of, you know, when,
when have you done something similar like this?
And just just tell me the story.And then, and then it can
become, you know, very rich. And one of the things that when
(55:22):
I'm interviewing people, I find very important is if they
actually have questions, and particularly questions at the
end, meaning, you know, if you're just like, oh, no, I'm
fine. It's it's, yeah.
OK. Yeah, I don't know for, for me.
And so one thing I, I, I advise everyone is to, to make sure
that you have your list of questions going in and, and, and
(55:48):
knowing a bit of the personalities in the company.
If it, if they're public aware of that, you know, then then ask
that, you know, because I, I think it's in your best interest
as a candidate just as much as their interest to make sure
there's a good fit here. And like, like you said, let's,
let's have these harder questions more upfront instead
(56:09):
of, you know, like you, like yousaid the example, you said, you
know, after nine months, they knew they had these niggling
issues that that was unspoken. And then at the end, you know,
it collapsed the relationship. But I really like your point of
ask the recruiter to have a perspective on this.
(56:29):
So it may maybe even if they don't have, you know, Werner
guiding the process, they can already, you know, push back
into the system and say, Hey, this is, it's really important
to me that the team dynamic thatI'm joining, that I'm actually a
net contributor, net addition tothis team and not a detractor
for some unnecessary reason thatwe could have avoided if we just
(56:52):
would have asked 2 questions. Wow, cool.
It's for me. I've, I've come through
suffering, you know, and, and writing, leading from love
books. The importance of that team that
you're on, you know, and usuallyas an executive, the, the health
(57:16):
of the dynamic of the leadershipteam is so paramount to me, you
know, and so This is why it was so important, you know, like,
like when you were mentioning this, I, I was just instantly
drawn to it because you can enter an organization as ACTO or
CPO and you can do your job super well.
But if you're disconnected or distrustful or not communicating
(57:39):
or not on board with the same strategy, it is just so
devastating and frustrating and painful for people.
So if you can, you know if, if, if you are a net benefit to that
team and if you're actively understanding yourself and
engaging others and resolving these conflicts, it just makes
(58:01):
everything work so much better. And love it.
Love it. And The funny thing is, or at
least what I find Philly, if youif I were to ask people two or
three years ago what is important in search and
effective search, they would never name this team thing.
(58:22):
So from a proper product development or product building
perspective, you always ask customers what they want.
No one ever thought it's still, I believe it's the right way to
move forward. So it was quite a stretch
getting here because I had to take a leap of faith.
(58:44):
And nowadays it's still sometimes a stretch for people
to explain this because it's still not what they're used to,
what they're what they're known to.
But it's, I think it's the only for, for me, it's the only way
forward. And hopefully I can make a plus
plus service with this. Well, putting it differently, I,
(59:09):
I, I'm not saying it's about theteam, but something that that
I'm reminded of is something that they say in the States in
in the States is a unique place,but customer service is
something they do pretty well. And one of the things I heard
along the way was hire the smileand train the West.
(59:29):
I mean, if the, if you hire for the personality of engagement
and service, then all the hard skills you can fill, you fill at
it. Again, I'm not talking about an
executive here, but I think it'sthe same thing kind of kind of
applies, but it, but you're taking it to a completely
different level. Is, is I want, I want, yeah, I
don't know. I'm going to say hire the click
(59:50):
and do something, but that's all.
But that's all silliness, I think just take it very
seriously and, and, and look, look at the team dynamics as
much as the individual. So Werner, anything, anything to
add or are we wrapping up? I think it's a a a a wrapper.
Absolutely it wasn't. It wasn't a really nice one.
Yeah, it's it's because I started to think and feel along
(01:00:13):
the way like, oh, like, oh man, there's you know, I wish this
process for anyone who's going through this, you know, this
thing, but but not everyone has that.
So I think I think this this also this last piece of how can
people apply this wisdom on their own if they're not working
with you on either side of the table?
Actually, you know, you know, I think there's there's there's
(01:00:34):
wisdom here that they can pull on, but even better, they can
call you and they can find you. Werner sprung on LinkedIn or
Tektera search dot NL and you'reoperating, I guess, mostly in
the Netherlands. So this is our, our, our, our,
our home home camp. But you can find them on tech
(01:00:55):
terror search. The three different models.
Are there a little information about yourself?
And of course, you're operating on LinkedIn.
And I will have both of those links on the show notes.
So Werner, thank you so much forjoining.
This is super cool. Likewise, and I love being here.
Thank you for listening to the Business Simplicity Podcast.
(01:01:16):
If this conversation resonated, please share it with a fellow
leader navigating complexity. Visit ebullient.com to discover
how we can partner to simplify your strategy, align your teams,
and accelerate meaningful growth.
Hello, this is Chris Parker withthe Business Simplicity Podcast.
And I had a conversation with Werner Spronk and he's a
recruiter headhunter with Tektera Search here in the
Netherlands. And he's focusing on chief
product officers and chief technology officers or, or the
combination of CPTOS. And we had a very interesting
(00:20):
conversation about his approach,which doesn't only look at the
candidates in the search, but actually the entire leadership
team dynamics and the personalities there, the skills
and preferences there. Sometimes even, you know, the
work type and how those individuals are energized.
And the point of this is to not only select the right person,
(00:44):
but really to contribute to having that person be a net add
to the team on a long term. And, and it's really, really
nice approach. So, Werner, why would it be
really valuable for people to listen to this?
I believe if you do understand the true team dynamics, that
(01:08):
makes the team strong, what makes the team not strong, and
if you have proper insight into those, you can hire someone who
makes the entire team stronger. And especially on C level.
I think 7080, maybe 85% of the success of a person is how they
(01:30):
fit into that leadership team. So that should be central when
you want to hire someone, when you want to add someone to the
team. Welcome to the Business
Simplicity podcast, where Chris Parker explores how leaders cut
through complexity to acceleratestrategy execution and growth
(01:52):
with calm, clarity, and confidence.
Welcome back to the Business Simplicity podcast.
This is Chris Parker and I'm having a conversation with
Werner Sprunk and he has a recruiter and headhunter with
his own firm called Tech Terra Search.
And you can find that at Tech asin TECH Terra Terra search dot
(02:13):
NL. And his specialty is right up my
alley, meaning it's like chief technology officers, chief
product officers, CPTOS, these hybrid beasts that sometimes I
fit into that domain as well. And I love it on his LinkedIn,
he says. And also sometimes he
occasionally does like CEOs and commercial officers, but he's
(02:35):
primarily in the tech and product space in the mid market,
in the scale up space. So obviously we've been
connected for a while, not quitesure in at least a year.
I knew you and your previous agency and now you're
independent. And during that process of
getting to know you, this is, you know, you have a certain
(02:59):
method that I thought was reallycool and I'm so just excited to
unpack it with you. And that method is a way of
understanding how a new tech or product leader can best land in
a leadership team for the most value and, you know, just
(03:20):
successfully land. And that's what we're going to
unpack later on today. But before we go into, into
that, Werner, I'm, I'm just curious, like Tec Terra and your
own position, 'cause you're, you're, you're doing things your
own way and, and, and have your own, I guess, imprints on this
(03:43):
recruiting, hunt, hunting space.So maybe tell us a little bit
about how you got to this point of running Techtera, you know,
your own agency with this focus and in this really unique way,
at least what I think is unique.And and then we'll then we'll
get into the the deep end of of your actual method.
Yeah, nice. Thank you.
(04:03):
And like to be here a lot alwayslike having chats with you and
always seeing that there's more than meets the eye, that there's
always a new layer which you canopen up and discuss.
So always happy to talk to you if I go back really far.
(04:24):
And I'm always about understanding something for
first before judging and not going back into my entire
career. But I think I stumbled into the
domain of a recruiter. There's no education for it.
And I think most people somehow end up in it without being a
(04:50):
conscious decision that they just like the job.
And then somehow we get worse out for them.
And I stumbled into it and I noticed that I really like being
able to do something for people,do some for companies.
It's a very people driven job, but also quite commercial that
landed really well. And I know that when I started
(05:12):
in this job 12 years ago, the product position in many
companies was still not that mature.
So it was pretty complex and andwhat is what is it holds?
What is his encompass? What is his merit?
And with every position I workedon in the product sphere, it was
(05:35):
pretty complex understanding what type of person you need and
how does it fit within the company, What does success look
like? So you need like three extra
layers already to understand it,how to make someone successful
from the product. So that's why I like the product
domain. And then I'm a completely
non-technical person myself and I grew up in a technical family
(05:58):
and I think that's why I connectto tech people pretty good.
So then it evolves to product and tech and then to product and
tech leadership. And what I've seen in
recruitment, also in head hunting, is that I think it's
really strange that people focusup to doing a placement and then
(06:20):
they take their hands off because that's the job of the
company and the job of the candidate, but that's where the
journey actually starts. So you should be able to
influence that. And if you then start looking at
what makes someone successful ina leadership team, I think that
(06:40):
stuff like experience and hard skills, those are hygiene
factors. It's always a, it's a must have,
but hygiene as well. But what really differentiates
if someone is successful is better they are a fit with the
assignment of what the company needs to do and how they fit
within that leadership team. And the interesting part is
(07:05):
where I find it's getting interesting is that to do so,
you have to assess the leadership team to understand
whether they are fit for future and fit for purpose.
And the leadership team has to be open to willing to do that.
So before you jump into working on an assignment, you have to
(07:26):
have a complete different conversation, quite often with
founders in my case, about why are you doing what you're doing?
And are you doing things which gives you energy or is it drain
energy and but is it still basedon your ego or is it because you
don't see another way? And what do you really want for
yourself? And in the end, if you do this
(07:49):
the right way, then it's, or at least how I came to my
proposition nowadays, is that I not only want to find the person
that does the job, but I want tofind the person that makes the
entire team stronger. And the job is way more
interesting because you end up somewhere between being a coach,
a headhunter, A consultant, designing teams, how made, how
(08:10):
to make them successful. It can be pretty fluffy, but in
the end you can do it all at once in one project because it's
it's all small projects, I wouldsay.
And then you can have influence on if someone starts on how to
help being successful, how to connect with the team, how to
connect with their leader better.
(08:32):
And then you start truly making impact.
And I, I, I did a little more research and of course I had my
own experience on this, but I, Icouldn't find any, like any
metrics of failure or success ofCPTOS or, or chief product
officers in certain domains. But out of what I was able to
(08:54):
find is, is a number of of risksor known issues.
And, and like, some of them are like bringing the wrong
playbook, you know, So like if you, if you, you come in with a
heavy enterprise bureaucratic approach for a, you know,
smaller pre scale up, it's just not going to fit, you know, that
(09:16):
type of stuff. And also things like if it's,
you know, if you're doing mid market scale up, it could still,
you know, the founder might still be there and the founders
of course have these, you know, it's more personality driven
than let's say role driven. And in those situations, it can,
(09:36):
it can be well, even more complex and, and you know, on,
on how you know, does that does that founder like if it's a new
role, because not all organizations have a head of
product. And then once they're scaling,
you know, that might have been part of what the founder was
doing. And then a new head of product
(09:58):
comes in and does the, does the founder give it away?
You know, are they synced up andhow do they do the
prioritization? Not, not the road map
prioritization, but just the, you know, the 1st 100 days
prioritization. You know, I think there's so
many opportunities for this to go so wrong.
And the thing that, that really triggered me about your, your
(10:19):
approach in our, in our previousconversations was you looked at
the management team. So it wasn't like only the
relationship between the, the, the, the head of product and,
and tech or the CEO, but it's the team dynamic.
So because how did you get like,like what happened in your life
that that triggered you to say, Hey, I, you know, I, I need a
(10:40):
more holistic approach on this. Is it like, like how?
Like how did we, how did we get here?
Interesting one. I'm, I'm, I'm asking myself that
one as well. And I think I'm quite a curious
person. So I always like to find new
(11:01):
approaches on how to make things, how to do new things for
the, when you look at one thing,how can you find different ways
of making that one thing better,making that one process better?
And for the CTPO position, it's somehow it for four or five
years ago, I got the question quite often, do we need a CTL or
(11:26):
a CTL and a Cpl. or a CTPL? What do we need?
So then I started thinking of can I make a method like a tree
in which I put in variables on the one side and then have a
workflow and then understand whether I need a CTL or a CTL
(11:46):
and Cpl. or CPTL or whatever. And I did 30 into about 30 to 35
interviews with CTOSCPOS and CE OS about can we make a decision
tree for this? And then there were so many
variables possible that's or at least with my capabilities, I
(12:07):
couldn't make a decision tree the others and they didn't find
it as well. So then I went back to those
group of people and I asked thema different question.
I asked them what do I need to ask to understand whether and to
have the right context to understand what choice to make.
(12:27):
So that ended up in a theme which I use now, which is, I
call it a quick scan. This between 25 to 30 questions,
which I always use to understandcompany, the theme and
situation, the assignment, and then work back backwards to
getting a profile. And during those discussions, I
(12:48):
always noticed that people wouldalmost never talk about the team
aspect, which is really strange.And they would say, yeah, we
focus on team. They never would ask how do you
focus on team? It's quite often, yeah, by
talking to people. And then if I ask what do you
assess, then it's went quiet. So it is more based on good feel
(13:14):
and people saying I trust my good feel to do this right
instead of doing it with the right tools or with a procedure
or more analytical methods to get to that.
And for me that was like really strange because in the end I've
never seen AC level higher, not being successful because he
(13:39):
didn't have the experience, because he was lacking the hard
skills. And what you mentioned before.
If you have founders which have,who have done something for five
or seven or ten years and are extremely successful with that
and they start hiring a CPO. While mostly they themselves are
(14:03):
sort of a super product owner, which not everything about the
product. And if something doesn't go
around, they go down into the very tiniest detail of that
wanting to fix it. If you then hire a CPO, you have
to give the person freedom, autonomy, and you're not allowed
to do that anymore. And do you have the self inside
(14:25):
to change your own behavior thatway?
That's where it all starts with the self inside is where what is
my spot? What do I do and am I capable of
changing this? And then with the self inside
comes how do I collaborate with the team?
That almost what you can call team insights.
(14:45):
And I felt this domain. And what I always like to
understand is that what are the things which people don't say,
which are really important because quite often that's why
the blind blind spots are. And if you find the blind spots
and you can help people identifythem, that's where quite often a
lot of game is for a team. I, I, my, no, no, it's, this is
(15:10):
beautiful. My, my, my belief is, but maybe
you can paint the picture a little differently that, that
this is, if I'm understanding this correctly, that you're
actually, let's talk about the dynamic between the CEO,
probably CTO and let's imagine there's a new chief product
(15:30):
coming in. Let's just just as a case that
you seem to also be looking at the shift or the change of this
new role for the CEO and CTO as well as what the new head of
product would would need to adjust or or emphasize stepping
(15:55):
in. So you're, so you're looking at
really a system here as opposed to, and correct me if I'm wrong,
maybe I'm a bit too, too linear on it.
But if it's a maybe a larger organization and this is a role
that they've had a number of times and it's OK, they just
need to fill a seat. You know, they're, they're,
they're filling a seat on the bus and they're not looking at
(16:17):
the bus, you know, the configuration of the bus.
Do you feel this is, this is remarkably different than a
typical recruiting pathway or process?
Or is this, or do you think you just have a few minor nuances
that you've, you know, some sparkles that you've put on it
(16:37):
because it feels, it feels very different from what I've
experienced before. That's that's why I'm I'm
curious. Yeah, I, I believe it is.
But that's then me also a littlebit boasting about my method, of
course, because normally recruitment or head hunting
focuses on a person and if assessments are being done, it's
(17:00):
based on that person. It's almost never about the
team. Yeah, I've only seen one other
person doing this in the Netherlands at least.
But I think I know quite some people here.
And in the end I think it's a necessity to focus on that team
(17:22):
aspect. For example, I quite often work
with founders which were able tospot their blind spots but were
not able to act upon it, and I've seen it go wrong there
because they were. Quite often when someone starts
(17:44):
and he or she is doing a good job scores 8 out of 10.
For example, in the 1st 6 to 9, nine months, everything goes
perfect. And then when pressure hits or
things start going not as smoothas suspected, then there is
this. There are these tiny things
which people already felt in thewater and which they felt in
(18:09):
collaborating with someone, which then can become a big
thing and which then become the reason for not going further
together. And that's almost always in the
theme part or in the internal collaboration part.
And like you mentioned, I think you have these family
constellations, which psychologyis being used a lot.
(18:33):
I think you have the same thing with them.
For companies and especially with founders, it has been
evolving constantly around them with so many things that are for
them completely logical, but so logical that it is implicit and
not explicit. And how can you expect someone
(18:54):
to come in from the outside, join that theme consolation and
understand all the implicities without and they are always
hired for a big weights which people feel.
So they are expected to deliver really rapidly from a content
(19:16):
perspective, from a team perspective, from a change
perspective, everything. And in the end, it's always the
theme part. If it goes wrong, it's always to
be within the team and the team consolation.
Well, what what what's being triggered to me and and you
know, I've written the book leadfrom love with Rumi is is
(19:36):
earlier views of that. I was, I was also like, you
know, and it never really expanded, but there, there
seemed to be like lazy leadership.
And then, you know what I calledthen, then love leadership.
And, and it sounds like what you're expressing to me is, is
there, there could be a way thatmaybe you're a little bit more
lazy and say, let's just assess the candidate and the candidate
(19:59):
has to, you know, these hard skills we have to tick, tick,
tick, and then let's bring it in.
But in this case, it requires A deeper investment of time and
energy and reflection, self-awareness of the different
people. So I'm, I'm, I'm curious if you
are able to walk us through the process.
(20:20):
From the eyes of the Ceoi would love that.
Like, OK, let's imagine there's a founder CEO the same same
case, you know, and they they have a head of tech as well,
maybe both count of founders andthey're going to bring a head of
product in. But from the view, the
perspective of the CEO and they call you and they say, hey, hey,
(20:40):
Werner, we need a we need a chief product officer.
Yeah. How does that go?
Like, like, like, like how do you check in with them on
whether they're going to do the lazy way or the love way?
My words, not your words, you know.
Very. Very interesting question and
I'm having a discussion on this with some people around me a lot
(21:00):
because always when I'm I'm, I'm, I'm lucky to have people be
advocates for me. So in the end of every job I've
done in the last 1 1/2 year was because someone, they
recommended me to someone else. And then then it happened, which
is always a nice way to get in because then you already have
(21:22):
built a level of trust because it's always what people did for.
So that's, that's a, that's a head start.
I would say in nine out of 10 times it happens that they said
that. They've said to me, well, we
have this JD with a few job specs from an experience
perspective, what do we need? And then they asked me after
(21:45):
like 10 or 15 minutes, do you know what we need?
And I always say no. And then they started getting a
bit what was happening. And then I start asking
questions and then I start asking questions about
themselves. And then some people really like
that. And you really soon feel whether
(22:06):
the person is able to come alongwith that or is completely not
open to it. But this in the end, I have to
accept that they come with me with a simple question.
We need a new CDO or CPO. And then during the
conversation, I have to flip it completely around this.
(22:27):
Do you understand your position within the team and what are
your strengths? Where, where do you want to
grow? And from that perspective, start
working towards that theme part,then telling them, well, I can
help you with the theme part andthen find someone that makes the
team stronger. But the CEO needs to be flexible
(22:53):
and adaptive into not having hisfirst question answered because
I'm not going to answer within 15 minutes what he needs.
I need a lot more time. I need to understand the CEO, I
need to understand the team. I need to understand the
assignment and I have to talk tofive people for that.
Then I do an assessment with allthose five, quite often for
(23:15):
three, 4-5 people. Then I give them a quick scan,
debrief with advice on the team and then I come up with a
profile. So it's.
Now, the thing that I that I find so remarkable about this is
in processes I've been in and I've given this feedback in the
(23:37):
past as well. You know, like, like, OK, I as a
candidate need to do this assessment, right?
And you're going to assess me and like, like, can I have, can
I see the same assessment for the team I'm joining, you know,
you know, to, to give me that, that insight and understanding
and, and you're actually doing it.
So how do you assess those, those five people?
(23:58):
I know you have a couple like psychometric models and, and,
and different tools and stuff, but what is the journey of
discovery of, let's say the team?
And do you do the same thing with the candidate then
afterwards and so you can compare and contrast or just
like like how does that sort of Arc of that story go?
Yeah, quite often there is a make or break moment during the
(24:21):
first chat I have, which is quite often the pitch.
Funny thing is I don't pitch at all.
I always thought I just ask a lot of questions and then in the
end I say, well, I think I can help you, but it's up to you to
decide. And one of the things which
needs to happen during that first interview is that I give
(24:42):
the other people feedback on what they are doing, what
probably works for them and whatdoesn't work for them.
And if that resonates, I'm in. If it doesn't resonate, I'm
completely out. And, and luckily up to this
part, it has always resonated. So but it has to click from a
(25:04):
perspective. This is going to be completely
different than just finding a person.
Well, I, I, I, in previous conversations you've told me
that there's been moments that you've done search for different
reasons and maybe different times that you didn't do this
method. And.
Didn't work out in the end, meaning, meaning that the, the
(25:26):
placement or you know, failed, you know, whatever left sooner
than anticipated. So you, you do have some
experience to compare and contrast, right?
So, so I mean did you not do this method at those times
because the hiring executive wasclosed to the feedback or was
(25:47):
there was there other dynamics going on?
Yeah, there were other dynamics going on and some of them I
won't go into detail. Some of them were social impact
companies where the fee I accepted the way lower fee but
then decided not to do the assessment because it doesn't
cost me money as well. In the end, what I noticed is
(26:08):
that I think I'm can be pretty not, it's not stubborn, but if I
feel something and if I see something which I truly believe
in, then I'm not going to be just a supplier working for you.
I'm I'm, I'm I'm wanting to workon that and I want to help them
(26:30):
with that because I genuinely believe they can come out
stronger. But if my belief is a mismatch
with their belief, it's really hard for me to find the proper
candidate because we have two different frames and the frames
don't align completely. And then it's a lot of hard
work. Quite often you're using
(26:52):
different words, then you're looking with different views on
the same thing. So having that frame completely
the same. Before I started, I learned that
that is a must for me to do a search because otherwise it's it
can be frustrated for almost everybody.
(27:14):
Well, I, I, I, I guess if you're, and I know your focus
is, is let's say mid market, so you know, 100,000 people or so.
And in larger enterprises, I, I can imagine this is maybe seen
as more transactional. So we, we need a new head of
sales. So let's go get a one of the,
you know, some headhunter and run this process and, you know,
(27:39):
it's it's often times cost driven and HRS, you know,
pushing the process and OK, so you've got, you know, sometimes
a queen of the pigs type situation, like, OK, none of
them really work, but you know, we need to we need to have
sales. So get on with it.
And and that might work in in a in an enterprise place where
it's where there's much more people.
(28:01):
And then if things don't work, it just kind of averages out,
you know, that, you know, just rule of numbers up there.
But in this case, I can imagine that, you know, founder or mid
market CEO are mission critically dependent on these
(28:23):
new leaders. I mean, this could literally
make or break them their investment, you know, their
their their livelihood. And I would hope that they would
really embrace the team view, but I could also imagine they
would be a little bit vulnerable.
Like to do a big like like on your website, the different
(28:46):
methodologies, there's the big 5personality test, There's an
archetype of leaders approach, job fulfilment matrix.
In your experience are, are theyopen to going through this
process and, and being transparent with the outcome and
(29:07):
the results? Like do you do this like with
the whole team or is this very confidential?
Like like I guess that for me that could be a part of the the
sensitive part or am I getting this wrong?
It's it can be a very sensitive part, absolutely.
If you do it respectful with theaim of understanding how someone
(29:29):
can improve the team, then quiteoften I'm allowed to ask any
question I want. And in the end the real
sensitive stuff doesn't quite often doesn't go out there
because you formulate it in a positive frame.
(29:49):
So if you do it properly, peopleare very much open to talk about
a lot of things. Then again, there's all, there's
always people who have a agenda which they like to have seen.
And sometimes ACCL has a different agenda than ACEO or a
(30:10):
CPO. And sometimes someone is of
course absolutely open to hiringand AC a CPO.
But then again, also thinks what's going to be my new
position within the company if aCPO comes in with a lot of
experience for maybe a much bigger company.
So sometimes people are scared as well.
(30:33):
And The funny thing is that withthese different tools I use, I'm
looking on values, on personal drivers.
It's also tasks, on the hard skills and experience, but also
on energy. And if you use different tools
to look at the same thing, people start quite often.
(30:57):
People like to go through that and they like to learn about
themselves and they open it pretty easy.
A concern I have and, and let's,let's maybe dig into that a
little bit is like on, on the previous episode with Araz
(31:18):
Najarian, we talked about psychometrics and principles of
appropriate use of psychometricsaccording to Araz and the EOP
network. And one of the fundamental rules
of, of, of that community is do not use psychometrics to make
decisions about people, you know, like, like, like if you
(31:42):
talk about Myers Briggs, and it's not a method that you, that
you use in here. But I, you know, I'm, I'm an
INTP that has strong J preferences.
Cause I've learned that in work.And what I would hope is if
people observed me as an, as an INTPJ and I was coming into an
(32:06):
organization that they wouldn't use that against me.
They're like, Oh, we already have enough NTS, you know, so we
need, we need, you know, some more SJS and you know, or, or
whatever. So how, how do you use this?
You know the outcomes of these not to make finite decisions?
Or do you? Yes, it's true.
(32:29):
It's a tool should never be usedas a bar.
So it's always a tool to understand a person and the
person is always much more than what comes out of the tool.
So something can be, can be you or it can be what you've learned
(32:51):
or it can be what you think you need to do for that position.
So there can be a lot of reasonswhy you do what you do and is it
internally or externally. So it's always a tool to
understand what is happening in that in getting sorted in
situations. So what I use the tools for is
(33:12):
that from three different perspectives, I tried to
understand better what the person is good at, but the case
of it doesn't give them energy, how they collaborate with
people, how they act when they are put on the pressure.
And the next step is combining that output with the other team
(33:36):
members and trying to see whether there is a lot of
overlap or whether there are biggaps.
And if you find the gaps and youunderstand what the company
needs to do, then you can say, well, maybe we want to hire
someone who's strong and that particular perspective.
And then it becomes interesting because do you want someone
(33:58):
who's complimentary to you or dosomeone someone who can cross
the bridge between where you areright now and where you want to
go? For example, I worked with this
started, they wanted to work with really big corporates
because that would be their clients.
So do they hire someone who's extremely well in in procedures
(34:21):
and structure and details or do you hire someone who is in
between the big corporate and them and having those
understandings where you are as a person, where you are as a
team, where the new need to be hired person is that and then
having a chat. I see differences, but do you
(34:44):
know how to cross the bridge, the differences?
And have you seen it before? Have you been in such a place?
Does it annoy you or not? Do you get energy out of it or
not? And then you're able to have, I
think the right discussion whether that person is the right
contribution to it, to your team.
Yeah, I think, I think indeed, you know, if you and I just a
(35:09):
crude generalization, but sometimes people hire people
that are like them physically otherwise as well.
And if you want to really get the benefits of, of, let's call
(35:32):
it diversity in, in every definition, having this
awareness of, OK, you know, thisis how I think and this is how I
operate. And this is how, you know, what
gives me energy And to know thatwith everyone else on the team,
in any case, I think that's healthy.
You know, I, I, I can imagine that they're also, they're
finding they're, you know, understanding themselves and
(35:56):
others better. And maybe some of the unspoken
conflicts in the team are surfaced anyways.
And then, but can you, can you walk through the different
methods you use and, and why do you use them?
Like like how is it, how is it valuable?
Like I, I, I know big 5 personality, but more from
(36:17):
marketing. Like how do you use this in in
the context of search and selection or or or team
dynamics? Yeah, so the Big 5.
In the end, most psychromatic tools have a pretty bad
scientific backing. The Big 5 has a pretty decent
(36:41):
one. Yesterday I spoke to this Yuko
strummers. Maybe you know him, he's a
professor nowadays as well for her CTO.
He said, well, really good aboutthe Big 5 because it's one of
the best methods out there. So I was almost cheering and
then I felt that you can also use non scientific difficulty
back tools if you just use them in the right manner.
So in the end, for me, it was nice to have a tool which
(37:05):
assesses people trade based. So I don't like it when you're
either green or red or yellow orblue or when you become a table
or a plant or whatever outcome there is.
Big 5 says that people, this is a bit trainers language, of
(37:25):
course, but everybody's unique that we look like each other as
well. And the way we are similar.
They they have 5 domains. You can score A1 per domain or
then in every position has its own strengths and own
weaknesses. And the nice thing is that every
position is good. Every position has its own
strengths. And you can also see how people
(37:48):
relate to each other. So for example, if someone has a
lot of willpower, quite often the best entrepreneurs have a
lot of willpower. But if you have three people in
a team with a lot of willpower, probably you don't need a fourth
because just going to get a big fight.
Probably it's someone who is able to connect everybody or how
(38:10):
to communicate it to the rest ofthe team.
So looking at it from these different phrase from a bad
perspective, for example, there's one which is called
affection in the model. Affection is whether are you
focused on yourself or on others.
And nowadays everybody says, well, it's really bad to focus
on money on yourself. If you have, if you want to have
(38:33):
a very good commercial guy in your team, he has to be so
result driven that he's only focused on getting the best
result for the company and for himself and not feeling too
sorry for the other company. So he has to score low on
affection. So there are for every different
(38:57):
job and every different assignment, you can ask
yourself, what do we have the right setup in the team?
And if not, how do we like to see that with the person?
And that's, I like the big 5 because it's really, it's trade
based and it, you can compare itreally well amongst each
other's. And it's always, it's really
(39:22):
interesting, but almost fascinating to see how a
questionnaire with 100 questions, which you fill in in
10 minutes, gives people back a lot of insights on themselves.
Sometimes they know it, sometimes they don't know it.
And if you start combining insights from that
questionnaire, that's where the magic happens.
That's where people start to move.
(39:44):
That's where they start to really discuss their own frame,
whether it's the right thing to do or not.
And then you truly get to know someone.
So that's that's for me if the main driver in getting to know a
person and, and understanding the team.
(40:05):
And then the second one, which Iuse is an archetype model for
month. Let's get to fees, which is much
more focused on what is your andit has 8 archetypes like are you
a strategist or are you a builder or innovator or goals or
a communicator? What gives you energy?
What drains energy and where do you feel good at?
(40:26):
Are you grown into this role anddo you do it because you think
you have to do it or is it because it's truly you?
It's a different way of it is much more task driven about what
you do. Then it's based on your values.
And sometimes people are completely aligned with their
(40:47):
tasks, task, which they do and their failures.
But sometimes people aren't, andthen there is a big misalignment
sometimes with only showing people that there's a
misalignment in what they do andwhat their failures are at the
same. Now I understand why I've been
fighting that hard over the lasttwo years and it feels like I'm
(41:10):
extremely successful, but still my energy is getting lower and
lower and lower. And The funny thing is if you
start combining these tools and then the last one as well, and
then there are there are some cross checks within that which
are completely non scientifically based.
But if you give them back to people, you open up their eyes
(41:34):
and then you get a description about should we change things?
Should we keep on doing this? And the last one, the job
fulfilment matrix, which is a two by two matrix, energizing
and draining on one side and badat it and good at it on on the
bottom side. This is the one I would I'm
least familiar with. How do you use this?
(41:55):
Like what? Like what goes in that matrix?
Yeah, So what goes in it is, andthis one I use the least, unless
there is a lot of energy drains within the work people are
doing, not so much amongst each other, but much more what am I
(42:17):
doing in my work and I'm puttingin a lot of effort, but I don't
see the outcome and it drains me.
If I hear that, then I start using this tool and it's pretty
simple. I ask people what are the seven
or eight main tasks you're doingin your job or first, what are
your responsibilities? What are then your main tasks
(42:37):
you're doing and plot those tasks on?
Do they give you or could entrain energy?
And are you good at it or are you bad at it?
And then you have to just put post its on the map.
And then in the end you want to be where it gives you energy and
where you're good at. And in the end, mostly I think
(43:01):
the most teams are between 60 and 80% of the post its are at
the good at it and giving energy.
But the friction is what doesn'tgive you energy or where you're
bad at. And how can you then use that
insights to come up with a new consolation for the team?
(43:22):
Not only gives the new person the right insights on what he or
she should do, but also makes the team and individual people
better capable of doing what they do and giving more energy
back. It would be interesting if it's
(43:44):
a CPTO coming in and, and somebody else on the team is
super energized and they're really, really good at, I don't
know, product visioning and strategy and road mapping or
something, you know, so, so something that that's just
fundamental in the zone of this new role, they have that
conversation, you know, how do you, how do you benefit from the
passion and expertise of, of theother person while still, you
(44:08):
know, defining the space that, you know, the, the, the new
person can still have have a chance to succeed.
So a couple things on my mind is, is this is much more into
into like leadership and team development than recruiting.
So I can also imagine why a typical recruiter might not go
(44:33):
into this because it's it's a you need knowledge, experience,
you need methods, you also need the time, which I assume they
cost more. Yeah, I, I think is this the, is
this the unique proposition for this place in the market?
(45:03):
I can see how it fits. And I, and I'm, I guess what I,
what now that I'm understanding it better, I'm also realizing,
OK, you know, maybe not every recruiter needs this, but in
certain cases I can see that why?
It's how it's really, really valuable.
Yeah, yeah. And I think looking forward with
AI and of course everybody's talking about AI and AI will
change everything. But finding people and selecting
(45:27):
on hard skills or experience, that will be AI in two or three
years completely I suppose. So the job of recruitment and
head hunting will shift completely.
What is the added value of people in the future?
And I think that's a combinationof knowledge about how to make
(45:47):
people and teams successful. That's also one of the things I,
I jumped into this because I think the job will change and
how are we still relevant in thefuture.
But also the job is way more nice if you, or at least I like
it a lot better because it's much more about the genuine
(46:10):
connection with someone than andjust writing down what they want
and and working from there. Yeah, it's much, much more
intimate and, and, and it's muchmore transversal across the
people. I'm I'm chipping under the AI
thing. Obviously we don't none of us
know where this that will actually go.
But certainly the, you know, theapplicate applicant tracking
(46:34):
systems and, and the other recruiting systems, those AI can
mine for hard skills and keywords and that kind of thing.
And more and more you're gettinglike AI interviews that they're
able to, you know, vet experience and again, coming
down to keywords and semantics, etcetera.
(46:54):
But I also think on the other side, candidates are using AI
more and more to freak the system, you know, So I think,
you know, it's, it's kind of a 0sum game.
And one of my thoughts is, is just in general, the more that
people are able to fake and deepfake things with AI, the human
(47:16):
connection, the authentic relationship will become more
and more important. Meaning, meaning not everything
can be automated in the system. Maybe if it's a call center
person, you know, like if it's areally routine thing that, but
that's probably going to be replaced by AI anyways.
So having this interpersonal human relationship dimension is
(47:41):
I, I, I believe is where the trust and the magic is going to
happen going forward because that, that's what you can't get
automated and that's what we're working on.
And I think AI in the future candetect things like stress, but
do they know where stress come from?
Is it that the person in front of you is intimidated by you?
(48:07):
Did they have a really bad announcement just before they
started talking to you? Are they stressed because they
have to pick up their kids from school afterwards and they don't
have the time for it? And I think from a human
perspective, if you can see something is happening, if you
(48:27):
can address it and you can understand why it's happening,
and then do something good with it for the other person, I think
AI won't be, I think or I believe and I hope, let's put it
like that, that AI won't be ableto do that in the near future.
And I think those things are sort of a human IP, which you
need still be relevant next to what AI does.
(48:51):
Yeah. Well, yeah, talk about stress.
And if you're talking about stress in, in the recruiting
process, not everyone is a greatinterviewer.
You know, I, I've, I've, you know, in, in almost every
dimension of the recruiting process, I've observed some
(49:14):
really bad interviewers, you know, and you can, you know,
tell me your strengths, tell me your weaknesses.
Yeah. And, and I think that can also
create stress for people as well.
It's and I, and I think it takesa, and again, this goes back to
this lazy love thing that if you're interviewing someone, if
(49:36):
you're, if you're managing this process, I believe the outcome
will be much better if you're vested into it.
So you're, you're, you're aware and, and you, you know, like you
said that, you know, you ask theunspoken question, you know,
like, why are you distracted right now?
You know, like, like what, like what's happening within you
that, that, you know, like, likeI've had interviews with people
(50:00):
and, and one guy, he just, I didn't see it.
He had Gray hair, but it was, hejust convinced us by the end
that he was too old for the job.Like, and I asked him like, why,
why did you make, why did you make such a point of your age?
And, and it was really fascinating, you know, to unpack
(50:22):
that conversation and, and say, let's just put this interview on
hold for a second, but what's going on within you that this is
such a thing? And it was, and, and, and that
was a rich conversation. And I remember right, he was, he
was just wanted, he was just going through the motions
'cause, you know, he was gettinghis government thing and he just
didn't want the job. But it was, you know, but that,
(50:43):
but whatever that it was, but it's really fascinating to see
what was unspoken. So Werner, last question for me,
unless you got some more things to, to add, but we've just
disappointed a lot of people because most CPOCTO search
processes will not happen like this.
(51:09):
So my, my, my question is for, and, and there's a lot of those
in, in my network because that's, this is the zone that I
play. And I, I guess my question is if
someone is going through this process on either side of the
table, but let's say as a candidate and it's happening in
a very traditional way, meaning checking hard skills and, and
(51:34):
you know, bum and seat instead of contributor on team.
How could they take inspiration from this to create a deeper,
richer, more connected conversation?
Maybe without asking the seat EOto take a big 5 personality
(51:54):
test. That might be awkward to say,
hey I want to maybe they could, but what what what do you think
you could people could take fromthis to improve the connection
and improve the selection and improve the chance of success if
they don't have a guide like youmanaging the.
(52:16):
Process. Well, one of the things I always
advise people is that the best interview is where the other one
speaks more than you do. So that means that you have the
to ask the right questions and almost flip the vibe in the
meeting or the the, the way things flow.
(52:37):
Because quite often people like to talk about themselves and
like to talk about and if you can ask the right questions and
show that you understand what's happening, then it's probably
way better than you're just telling on your what you've
done. Because people have read that
already on their resumes. And I know that, for example, a
while ago there was this lady and she was being interviewed by
(53:01):
a big, very well known, well reputated headhunter.
And she was going into a third chat, I feel, with the
headhunter before moving towardsthe company.
And I asked her, can you ask them the question about what are
the strengths and weaknesses about the team and what does
(53:22):
that mean for me as a person? And then she asked the
headhunter and he didn't know. Then she pulled back out of the
procedure, which you can do at this stage or you can decide,
well, I'm just going to ask the people at the company to do so.
But I think with one or two proper good questions, if you
(53:45):
ask what is the team really goodat, what a team does, the team
knew it needs to improve. And what is your own role in
that? I think if you ask those three
questions to a person that interviews you, you're flipping
the talk completely and you're getting a lot of input for
yourself. For me that would be always, or
(54:07):
at least the interviews I've been doing for myself.
I was asking more questions any person on the other side of the
table. Also because I like to get the
information and then understand whether it's something for me as
well, instead of only the other way around.
I'm also the like, I think also in, in a lot of this space where
(54:34):
this is like tech start up, scale up, the executives are
usually on podcasts and stuff aswell, Meaning you can also do
some research and get a flavour for these people and, and maybe
in that context, know, know whatkind of questions to ask as
well. And the best kind of interview
(54:57):
conversations that, you know, that I like to have is not what
I did in the past, but how I didit and, and who I did it with.
And getting the same, you know, insight from the person, you
know, like the, you know, the questions of, you know, when,
when have you done something similar like this?
And just just tell me the story.And then, and then it can
become, you know, very rich. And one of the things that when
(55:22):
I'm interviewing people, I find very important is if they
actually have questions, and particularly questions at the
end, meaning, you know, if you're just like, oh, no, I'm
fine. It's it's, yeah.
OK. Yeah, I don't know for, for me.
And so one thing I, I, I advise everyone is to, to make sure
that you have your list of questions going in and, and, and
(55:48):
knowing a bit of the personalities in the company.
If it, if they're public aware of that, you know, then then ask
that, you know, because I, I think it's in your best interest
as a candidate just as much as their interest to make sure
there's a good fit here. And like, like you said, let's,
let's have these harder questions more upfront instead
(56:09):
of, you know, like you, like yousaid the example, you said, you
know, after nine months, they knew they had these niggling
issues that that was unspoken. And then at the end, you know,
it collapsed the relationship. But I really like your point of
ask the recruiter to have a perspective on this.
(56:29):
So it may maybe even if they don't have, you know, Werner
guiding the process, they can already, you know, push back
into the system and say, Hey, this is, it's really important
to me that the team dynamic thatI'm joining, that I'm actually a
net contributor, net addition tothis team and not a detractor
for some unnecessary reason thatwe could have avoided if we just
(56:52):
would have asked 2 questions. Wow, cool.
It's for me. I've, I've come through
suffering, you know, and, and writing, leading from love
books. The importance of that team that
you're on, you know, and usuallyas an executive, the, the health
(57:16):
of the dynamic of the leadershipteam is so paramount to me, you
know, and so This is why it was so important, you know, like,
like when you were mentioning this, I, I was just instantly
drawn to it because you can enter an organization as ACTO or
CPO and you can do your job super well.
But if you're disconnected or distrustful or not communicating
(57:39):
or not on board with the same strategy, it is just so
devastating and frustrating and painful for people.
So if you can, you know if, if, if you are a net benefit to that
team and if you're actively understanding yourself and
engaging others and resolving these conflicts, it just makes
(58:01):
everything work so much better. And love it.
Love it. And The funny thing is, or at
least what I find Philly, if youif I were to ask people two or
three years ago what is important in search and
effective search, they would never name this team thing.
(58:22):
So from a proper product development or product building
perspective, you always ask customers what they want.
No one ever thought it's still, I believe it's the right way to
move forward. So it was quite a stretch
getting here because I had to take a leap of faith.
(58:44):
And nowadays it's still sometimes a stretch for people
to explain this because it's still not what they're used to,
what they're what they're known to.
But it's, I think it's the only for, for me, it's the only way
forward. And hopefully I can make a plus
plus service with this. Well, putting it differently, I,
(59:09):
I, I'm not saying it's about theteam, but something that that
I'm reminded of is something that they say in the States in
in the States is a unique place,but customer service is
something they do pretty well. And one of the things I heard
along the way was hire the smileand train the West.
(59:29):
I mean, if the, if you hire for the personality of engagement
and service, then all the hard skills you can fill, you fill at
it. Again, I'm not talking about an
executive here, but I think it'sthe same thing kind of kind of
applies, but it, but you're taking it to a completely
different level. Is, is I want, I want, yeah, I
don't know. I'm going to say hire the click
(59:50):
and do something, but that's all.
But that's all silliness, I think just take it very
seriously and, and, and look, look at the team dynamics as
much as the individual. So Werner, anything, anything to
add or are we wrapping up? I think it's a a a a wrapper.
Absolutely it wasn't. It wasn't a really nice one.
Yeah, it's it's because I started to think and feel along
(01:00:13):
the way like, oh, like, oh man, there's you know, I wish this
process for anyone who's going through this, you know, this
thing, but but not everyone has that.
So I think I think this this also this last piece of how can
people apply this wisdom on their own if they're not working
with you on either side of the table?
Actually, you know, you know, I think there's there's there's
(01:00:34):
wisdom here that they can pull on, but even better, they can
call you and they can find you. Werner sprung on LinkedIn or
Tektera search dot NL and you'reoperating, I guess, mostly in
the Netherlands. So this is our, our, our, our,
our home home camp. But you can find them on tech
(01:00:55):
terror search. The three different models.
Are there a little information about yourself?
And of course, you're operating on LinkedIn.
And I will have both of those links on the show notes.
So Werner, thank you so much forjoining.
This is super cool. Likewise, and I love being here.
Thank you for listening to the Business Simplicity Podcast.
(01:01:16):
If this conversation resonated, please share it with a fellow
leader navigating complexity. Visit ebullient.com to discover
how we can partner to simplify your strategy, align your teams,
and accelerate meaningful growth.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com