Unless the candidate is really unprepared, most people would have read about these sort of questions and come up with some template answers. Now, it's up to the interviewer to ask further questions to get a better understanding but I'm wondering if people approach this in a different way.
As a side note, leadership qualities in my mind have nothing to do with seniority.
If leadership quality is something you wanna test for, you just have to design the questions in that manner - for example ask about how she handled professional failure in the past, ask her to give you some tips to motivate subordinates, to teach you something you dont know, even its a fun fact, like turtles breath through their bottoms.
As for your concern that "most people would have read about these sort of questions and come up with some template answers". You could flush their prepared answers by asking the candidate to give you a 10 second summary of their answer first, then ask them to give another example in a 10 second summary. After they have exhausted their "template answers", ask them to take their time to give you an example other than these 2. Give them ample time. Don't bully them or put them under pressure, work with them to elicit another example and dive deep in a collaborative manner. for example with "why did you think at that time, this was the right approach", "I messed up recently by doing xxx, how do you think I could have handled it better". (Don't do this for all your Behavioral Questions. Pick the last question especially if the candidate is performing well)
End of the day most interviews are a waste of time because 99.4 percent of the time is spent trying to confirm whatever impression the interviewer formed in the first ten seconds. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313878823_The_impor...). I cant find the reference for my life, but I think it was Google (or Amazon) that found out that given the same structured interview process, some people were better than others in selecting great teammates that performed well on-the-job. The key is to encourage these type of interviewers to do more interviews.
Success stories are short: you intervened early, spoke to the parties involved, made a plan everyone could agree on and moved on.
The interesting stories often only have OK-ish endings: You are facing extreme issues that are not under your direct control and you somehow keep things working (bad hires, dis-functioning external teams, legacy code falling apart from all ends, bad higher management).
And than there are non-issues you tackled early enough. E.g.: Newly established workflows and documentation between departments, getting you a compliment once and there might be less conflicts and pressure now, but it's hard to quantify.
Maybe good questions would be (answers I'd like to hear in brackets):
How and when do you...
- criticize (reviewing work, in a constructive manner)
- praise (frequent and honest praise, but no participation trophies)
- get involved in a grudge between team members (pro-actively, in private)
- escalate to higher ups (as a last resort and for serious violations)
- talk to individuals about work related, but not directly task-related things (one on ones, actively checking on those you don't communicate with often)
- encourage autonomy (take risks, keep pushing, give feedback)
- Do you approach different people in different ways? If so, make 1-2 examples. (adjusted level of politeness and formality when communication with other cultures (I'm German, we really have to change gears depending on who's on the other line), adjust how much guidance is needed when giving tasks, don't be racist/sexist/etc.)
- And to include something less people focused: When and how do decide to get a 2nd opinion? (acknowledge when you are out of your depth, do research, learn and ask others)
I find behavioral questions to be bs anyway, since how someone presents themselves during an interview and their day to day behavior can be very different. Atleast here, you do your preparation, spit out your story, and you're done. Slightly less bs way to interview for personality qualities.
I find that anyone with leadership experience can readily talk about how they approach such things. Anyone with skills, but lacking experience can at least talk around the subjects, and give you some insights into where they are. And people without skills or experience flounder completely.
It's an invaluable tool to assess and interview candidates. Really helps cut through the BS.
> https://www.amazon.com/Leadership-Architect-Sort-Cards-Lomba...
I have a very deep understanding of my domain. Maybe that helps.
The Gold Standard in identifying Leadership Characteristics > https://www.amazon.com/Leadership-Architect-Sort-Cards-Lomba...
