A Mock Presentation About A Prospect Trying To Make Partner

Patty Florence

June 4, 2014

An Overview

In order to make partner this prospect must qualify by asking questions, seeking information, and have the willingness to listen. The interviewer saw that this prospect had a stronger point of view in reaching certain goals so the interviewee got a call for an interview. The interviewer also felt this prospect had a need and was willing to do what it takes to make partner. The first step is in filling out an application. A requirement of the process was to answer four questions. This mock presentation will show what the interviewee thought was the right answer and then during the meeting to determine the right fit, the two partners will discuss the answers to decide who gets the second interview. There are actually three partners, but only two are present. The four questions are:

• How do you deal with sharing your space with someone else, and what would you do about it? She said briefly control and organization.
• How can or do you see yourself contributing to this organization and what would these be? She said use my experience, interact to get to know the people in the organization, learning and doing what job requires.
• How do you deal with conflict? She said find a comfort zone where we have agreement about certain things, will not be able to accept biased opinions from others who appear to be in opposition to our social norms.
• Why do you want to be a part of this organization? She said respect and satisfied with your self-concept, believe that a “can-do” attitude and associated persons with a higher perception of being able to complete a task, feel that with this organization, has a higher self-evaluation of themselves.

Now the meeting begins to decide if this person is a good fit. One important characteristic that came to mind with the interviewer was social identity. He said, “She has some positive characteristics, and her personal values are similar because she seems to have done her homework. My perceptions are such that she will be good at being in a pooled interdependent type setting and being on the same context as the group as far as thinking about how. She has drive, determination, and even some extracurricular skills. She appears to be an extrovert because this says here that she likes to work out.”

{Interruption from second partner} He said, “You know that is going to create a problem because people in this office golf. They do not work out in a gym. There is a social stigma attached to all that sweat.” Now the 25 year old…

Interviewer partner 1 said, “True, only a certain few. What I am interested in is her intuition, I am focusing on that, even though this partition is different. I would like to see whether her presence will make changes.”

Partner 2 said, “Changes, what are you saying?”

Interviewer/ partner 1 said, “With her social identity similar to ours, she will eventually attract someone in this office to change over to working out. Or, if the case may be, she will be attracted by someone playing golf. We need a change around here and she just may be it.” Interviewer 1 then looks at question one and continues. “Here it says she had to share space since in her childhood. That it personally had some negativity in the situation, but enhanced her self-concept by forming similar characteristics that minimized conflict and getting along more favorably.

Partner 2 said, “I see in question 2 she says here she learned how to control her environment more positively by being more organized and that contributing is by getting to know the other people in the organization. Maybe she is trying to be a competitor, to advance in her position? My 25 year-old college graduate in political science says he would do what it takes!

Interviewer/partner 1 said, “First of all, she will be in a learning phase. It says here that she would use her experience to interact with others and to get to know the people and doing what the job requires. I would like to see if this individual has the ability to know when there is a small problem or there is opposition in the workplace, and how she selects the best course of action in the early stage of employment.”

Partner 2 agrees. He then turns to the next question dealing with conflict and waits for Interviewer to highlight the key elements.

Interviewer/partner 1 said, “She is a fighter. I noticed she was pretty emotional when I asked the question about conflict. It seems that an emotional marker was raised and she nonconsciously sorted out how to respond. Even then, between answering the question and proceeding, I felt a strong attachment of emotions formed considering the decision to make about problems or oppositions. There are cultural opposites in all organization to a point, let’s not go there. I think even with her experience and logical analysis in formulating how and what the best course of action would be, her emotions will sway even her most logical intentions.

A song comes on “Breaking Up Is Hard To Do" from partner 2 phone and he said, “Hold on a minute" and directs his focus on the phone call. After hearing "I'll be there at 7:30pm" and he finishes he asks, “So what did she say about wanting to work for this organization?

Interviewer/partner 1 said, “Believe it or not she said it was like this gut feeling. She said quote ‘When I started the process of filling out the papers to be considered for this position, I got this gut feeling that this is the one. Your company’s mission has some of the same emotional attachments of deeply held beliefs about learning through experience I felt I could be really good at’.

Interviewer/partner 1 continue-“From that comment I too can relate because it is the intuition we all come across from time to time, these emotional markers that complements our minds, our aspirations, and motivates us.”

Partner 2 said, “I see what you mean. To me, my experience was (loses train of thought for a moment), my experience was a job description that was routine, kind of easy to get into, learned patterns that could be remembered, and decisions were not hard. It was like a form of programmed decision making. I think my 25 year old political science applicant would fit the bill.”

Interviewer 1 said, “Yes, I agree about the job. We need a person who is both logical and rational about things around here, perhaps we have a leader in our mist who is more contemplative than decisive. I will call and set up another appointment first thing tomorrow and talk about the benefits and pay.”

Scenario: second interview with the 40 year-old woman with a business degree. Interviewer has a checklist that includes checking for dress, attitude, motivation, and drive.

• Dress: ironed and pressed, shoes shined, hair style presentable (polished)
• Attitude: seemed attentive, a little shy, but ready
• Motivation: Eager to begin the interview, but a little offbeat
• Drive: Sat forward in chair with hands in lap and looked straight ahead

The interview begins and the interviewer asks, “How can you imagine working for this company? She said she thought about it all night, would truly enjoy being a part of this organization, but was a little confused about the possibility of the company’s dividends not paid. She said she happened to run across on the social media site about it. Then she said "That was kind of bogus!" and reiterated, “I would need to understand this ambiguous situation in order to decide if I could commit to an organization with financial troubles because part of the job description was to get stock options in the company.”

Interviewer/partner 1 said, “You do not have to worry about that right now, that was something that happened off the cuff, one of our partners has taken ill, and his dividends are under reevaluation. We did not want this situation to escalate into proportion, it is why we publicized it as difficult to identify so we could take the appropriate steps on this matter. Do not worry he will come around and you will be the first to know about it. The interviewee then said,

“Thank you sir. I appreciate your candor, I would be skeptical about being in the middle of a clearly ambiguous conflict with family members who would interfere with the natural process of business per se.” She reiterated, “I knew a company once who had to sell their partner’s share of his common stock because the rules were not clearly established on how to disperse those shares of stock. When this company needed help financially, they could not get all what they needed because somebody put their financial assets in a negative light. Made other competitors more aware of this type of situation to the point where that partner ended up in their domain. That was a shock! That stockholder was no more part of that other organization than was his stock.”

Interviewer/partner 1 said, “I see you are really emotional about that incident. Interviewer cleared his throat and said, "I would like to say that if you are hired, as a team member you will be trained and after six months evaluated on your performance. We will then determine if you are partner material. If you qualify, we will train for an additional six months. This will end our interview at this time, and we will be calling you shortly if chosen. We do have another interview with another candidate. Thank you and we will be calling you soon."

Interviewee said, “Thank you! I will be happy to do what it takes to qualify. Please call me ASAP. How did I do?"

Interviewer/partner said, “Good, keep up the good work.” They shake hands.

McHugh, J. M., McHugh, S. M., and Nickels, W. G. (2013). Using Effective Promotions. Understanding Business. McGrawHill Irwin. Pg. 447

McShane, S. L., and Glinow, M. A. V. (2013). Organizational Behavior. McGrawHill Irwin.

This article is written by Patty Florence and is her copyright.