Interviewing

How to Interview for Grit

October 9, 2026 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

How to Interview for Grit Angela Duckworth’s Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance (2016) made a persuasive case that long-term success owes as much to sustained effort as to raw talent. In her studies of West Point cadets and spelling bee finalists, the ones who stuck with a goal often outlasted peers who looked more gifted on paper.

Most hiring managers say they value that persistence. Then they try to find it in a thirty-minute conversation. The ritual survives because it’s familiar, not because it works.

The flaw isn’t the clock. It’s the design. Interviews reward polish. Candidates rehearse, and the room is set up to keep difficulty out of sight, which makes it a poor place to learn how someone behaves when things get hard. A candidate who interviews well may simply have practiced interviewing, while one who stumbles may have spent that time doing the work.

Grit leaves traces: the years someone stayed with a hard problem, the goals pursued without an audience, a failure absorbed and worked through. You can’t see those in the room. You have to dig for them, and digging takes more than one conversation. It also takes some humility, because grit overlaps heavily with conscientiousness, and a long tenure is a lead, not proof.

Idea for Impact: Use the interview to find the evidence, then confirm it elsewhere. Ask, “Tell me about a goal that took more than a year. When did you want to quit, and what kept you going?” Then press for specifics: dates, who else was involved, what changed. A rehearsed story thins out under detail, and a real one gets richer. Check it against a reference or a work sample before you rely on it.

The “Shadow Job Description”: The One Question That Changes the Interview Dynamic

September 14, 2026 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Most candidates enter interviews with rehearsed answers and a checklist of likely questions, treating the job posting as their guide. Yet that document is often the least useful part of the process.

Job descriptions are written for compliance rather than clarity. HR departments rely on templates and jargon, producing something official but stripped of what actually matters: team dynamics, pressing challenges, and the pain points that pushed the manager to hire. The posting is the approved version; the real job lives in the manager’s head.

That gap is the opening. Every role has a “shadow job description,” the unspoken needs that triggered the position. The way to uncover it is direct: ask, “What’s the one thing that isn’t in the job description, but that you really wish you’d find in this hire?”

That single question shifts the conversation. The interviewer stops reciting the script and starts describing the real situation. They might mention a client relationship that requires careful handling or a department under pressure to cut costs. Whatever they reveal, they’ve pointed you at what matters most, and you can tailor your answers to those priorities, showing you understand the actual challenge.

The best time to ask is early, ideally in a pre-interview phone call. A follow-up such as, “What would you consider a success after the first month, at six months, and at the one-year mark?” adds context. It gives you a timeline and a sharper picture of the role before you’ve answered a single formal question.

Once in the interview, address those concerns directly. If they need someone to stabilize a client relationship or lead a cost-reduction effort, make sure your examples speak to that. Generic answers won’t cut it when the manager has already told you what’s keeping them up at night.

This approach doesn’t apply everywhere. In high-volume screenings or campus recruiting, interviewers often work from a checklist with no specific team in mind. In those settings, the shadow job description doesn’t exist. Save these questions for when you’re speaking with the decision-maker—the person who knows why the role was created and what success will look like.

Say It Straight: Why Clarity Beats Precision in Everyday Conversation

March 9, 2026 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Some conversations demand precision. Others benefit more from clarity and engagement.

If someone asks about your favorite food, they’re not looking for a doctoral dissertation on your culinary preferences. They don’t need a carefully ranked list sorted by texture, regional origin, and childhood memory. They want a straight answer—something with enough energy to keep the conversation moving but not so much deliberation that it kills it dead.

This is the problem with excessive precision. It’s a slow, agonizing descent into irrelevance. When someone gives you the chance to name a favorite dish, hesitating is worse than getting it wrong. If you start weighing the structural integrity of sushi against the comfort of pasta while factoring in seasonal availability, you’re not coming across as thoughtful—you’re broadcasting a debilitating fear of committing to an opinion.

No one enjoys that.

Decisiveness saves the moment. “I love a good biryani—rich spices, slow-cooked layers, an indulgence every single time.” That’s it. No disclaimers, no caveats, no half-apologetic nods to pizza. Just a statement with enough punch to keep things going.

That principle scales up well beyond dinner conversation. Precision has its place—in courtrooms and scientific papers, sure. But in everyday life, clarity, confidence, and pace beat exhaustive accuracy almost every time. And nowhere does that matter more than when something is actually on the line.

Take job interviews. Knowledge matters, obviously, but what sticks in someone’s mind is how you communicate it. A well-paced, articulate answer projects clarity of thought. A nervous, qualification-riddled response signals a lack of conviction. Interviews don’t just assess what you know—they test presence, engagement, and whether you can organize ideas in a way that actually lands. If you’re so busy hedging every answer that the interviewer loses the thread, the content stops mattering.

Same goes for casual conversation. If someone asks about your favorite travel destination, do them the courtesy of not spiraling into a breakdown of everywhere you’ve ever been. Just say, “Amalfi Coast—incredible cliffs, views that don’t quit, the whole thing.” Confidence wins over hesitant verbosity. Every time.

Idea for Impact: Effective communication isn’t about being sloppy—it’s about calibrating. Enough accuracy to be meaningful, enough confidence to be memorable. Speak decisively, or watch your interactions collapse under the weight of your own meticulousness.

Emotional Intelligence Is Overrated: The Problem With Measuring Concepts Such as Emotion and Intelligence

August 10, 2023 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

In the contemporary landscape, relying solely on cognitive intelligence tests to evaluate the managerial potential of MBA students is increasingly considered inadequate. It has become fashionable for successful managers to need emotional intelligence to thrive in their roles.

Within human resources, there is a growing trend to define an individual’s ability to understand emotional expressions as a form of “intelligence,” measuring it through an emotional quotient (EQ) and considering it a personality trait. However, it is worth noting that people often find it refreshing to shed the façade they present in public and freely express their genuine thoughts, emotions, and actions in informal “off-the-record” situations rather than conforming to formalities during official meetings.

While some proponents argue that EQ encompasses all dimensions of managerial success that IQ fails to measure, this widely accepted viewpoint lacks credible scientific evidence. Unlike IQ, a clearly defined measure of cognitive abilities, there is no agreed-upon definition of emotional intelligence, and various EQ tests produce vastly different results. Moreover, societal biases and cultural upbringing can significantly influence EQ scores. Indeed, the claim that EQ is twice as vital as IQ is an entirely baseless and unproven assertion.

Emotional intelligence is an intricate and dynamic concept encompassing a broad spectrum of emotional competencies, social skills, and self-awareness. Attempting to simplify it into a single score may not adequately capture its subtleties and complexities.

Never Hire a Warm Body

June 17, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

If you have a position open and you’re having a hard time filling it, don’t compromise and hire a warm body. Certainly not to fill an open spot within a specific time frame so as to not risk losing your team’s headcount.

Alas, many warm-body hires do not last very long. So, until you have a candidate who fully meets the job’s requirements, don’t fill the position.

Rather than jumping at every job seeker to cross your path, be methodical and follow a clear and consistent approach.

Take your time during the hiring process. Needing to fill the position yesterday is not an excuse for shortchanging the process.

Idea for Impact: Don’t hire quickly and, thus, poorly because you need a warm body. You and your team are better off working overtime than cleaning up the messes generated by someone who didn’t meet your requirements fully.

Hire wisely; nothing is more important.

How to Hire People Who Are Smarter Than You Are

June 27, 2019 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Apple’s Steve Jobs frequently pointed to the risk of a “bozo explosion,” which is what happens within a company that makes the mistake of hiring B-grade managers early on. As the company expands, these bozos—Jobs’s label for well-meaning, but less-competent managers—tend to emerge through the ranks and run important divisions of the company.

When bozos hire other people, they prefer to hire bozos. As entrepreneur (and bonafide Steve Jobs’s coattail-rider) Guy Kawasaki explains, “B players hire C players so they can feel superior to them, and C players hire D players.” Lo and behold, entire divisions are soon swarming with hordes of bozos.

How to Prevent a Bozo Explosion

The heuristic “hire people smarter than you” is obvious enough, but, every so often, smart people can be a terrible fit within your team.

In this Startup School 2013 interview with venture capitalist Paul Graham, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg offers a better heuristic to hiring and keeping smart people who aren’t jerks and can get things done:

What’s the right heuristic for determining if someone is really good? Over time, what I figured out was that the only actual way to let someone analyze whether someone was really good was if they would work for that person. I don’t think that needs to recurse too many levels down in the organization but I basically think that’s a really good heuristic. I believe that. If you look at my management team today if we were in an alternate universe and I hadn’t started the company it would be an honor to work for any of these people. I think if you build a company that has those kind of values, rather than just saying ‘oh I want to hire the best person I can find’ or whatever, if you hold yourself to that standard then I think you’ll build a pretty strong company.

Idea for Impact: Mediocre managers often feel threatened by employees who seem more intelligent than they are, and could potentially pinch their jobs. In contrast, a wise manager knows that she reveals well on her own ability to discover and nurture talent.

As with advertising tycoon David Ogilvy’s Russian nesting dolls metaphor for building “a company of giants,” insist that managers hire folks who are better than themselves. For example, a product manager should hire a designer who is better at design than the manager is, not worse.
Insist that each interviewer ask themselves of job candidates, “Would I want to work for this person?”
Remember, the best don’t come cheap.

Competency Modeling: How to Hire and Promote the Best

October 16, 2017 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Standardized tests, intelligence exams, and personality assessments have been in vogue for centuries for selecting job candidates and promoting employees. For instance,

In Plato’s Greece, civil service candidates were required to pass difficult physical and cognitive tests.
In China, the Han and Tang dynasties administered tests of literary style and the classics to hire the establishment bureaucrats. Aspirants were required to pass multiple three-day provincial exams and then take a final exam in the imperial capital.

Modern hiring practices have centered on the idea of competencies—specific behaviors, skills, knowledge, and pertinent experiences—identified for successful job performance.

Harvard psychologist David McClelland first proposed the idea of ‘competence’. In 1973, he introduced a then-revolutionary idea that transformed how companies hire and promote people. In his influential paper, titled “Testing for Competence Rather than for Intelligence,” McClelland made a case that a candidate’s GPA, IQ, or scores from intelligence or aptitude tests were not all as valid predictors of job success as was then imagined.

McClelland argued that another set of factors—“competences”—were better measures for explaining job success. To hire the best person for any job, McClelland recommended that organizations,

Begin by analyzing people who now have the job and people who held that job previously.
Classify the star performers—say the top 10%—by some logical and meaningful metric.
Compare the star performers to people who are merely average by a systematic method.
Identify the traits, characteristics, and behaviors in the star performers and not in the average performers.
Hire and promote people who have demonstrated the distinct traits and behaviors of the star performers.

Over the years, McClelland’s paper has evolved into “competency modeling,” a widespread methodology that is now at the heart of how many companies manage talent and achieve professional development for employees.

Not only are competencies often hard to define and understand, but testing for competencies through simulation or evidence is very difficult. Not to mention of how hard it is to assess employees quickly. Hence, at many “competency-driven” companies, human resources departments have dedicated teams to develop and implement competency models (see example from 3M, the Minnesota-based industrial and consumer products) to hire, train, evaluate, and promote employees.

Competency models form the baseline criteria for identifying high-potential employees, and succession management procedures.

The Fermi Rule: Better be Approximately Right than Precisely Wrong

August 28, 2017 By Nagesh Belludi 1 Comment

What’s the size of the market for razors in China? How many golf balls does it take to fill a Boeing 747 aircraft? How many piano tuners are there in the world?

Non-standard problems such as these are called “Fermi problems” after the distinguished Italian-American nuclear physicist Enrico Fermi (1901–54.) Fermi delighted not only in creating and solving them, but also in challenging his fellow scientists with similar problems.

Physicist Enrico Fermi Was a Master of Guesstimation

Fermi was celebrated for his ability to make fast, excellent approximate calculations with little or no concrete data. In one well-known example, when the first atomic bomb was detonated during the Manhattan Project, Fermi dropped a few scraps of paper as the shock wave from the detonation passed. After some coarse calculation, Fermi estimated the power of the blast from the motion of the scraps as they fell. Fermi’s guesstimate of 10 kilotons of TNT was remarkably close to the now-established value of 20 kilotons. Even though Fermi’s estimate appears 50% off, it was a reasonable order-of-magnitude estimate.

Fermi believed that the ability to guesstimate was an essential skill for physicists. A good way to solve physics problems—and complex problems in any line of work—is by coming up with simple shortcuts to make approximate, but meaningful, calculations.

Teaching Physics Students the Fermi Way of Contemplating Open, Non-Standard Problems

Based on Fermi’s technique, at the beginning of many physics courses, professors pose problems such as “how many piano tuners are there in Chicago?” Such questions require students to employ quick reasoning and unsophisticated numerical methods to attack problems without the knowledge of any core physics concepts.

The historical emphasis on the order-of-magnitude calculation was propelled by the lack of computing power available to solve complex problems. Such approximate calculations were considered necessary to decide if an onerous and lengthy full-blown calculation was required.

Classic Fermi Problem: Number of Piano Tuners in the City of Chicago

Fermi problems are typically restructured by breaking them up into smaller problems that are easier for the students to approach than the original problem.

The challenge of estimating the number of piano tuners in the city of Chicago is the classical example of a Fermi Problem. A problem-solver guesstimates the total population of Chicago, then the fraction of families in Chicago that may own a piano, and the frequency of piano-tuning, the time it takes to tune a piano, and so on. This sequence of thinking, accompanied by a few conversion factors, can lead to an adequate assessment of the number of piano tuners in Chicago.

Back-of-Envelope Calculations for Fermi Problems

The Fermi technique is so popular that math buffs organize competitions in Fermi’s honor. Contestants are asked to estimate unusual assessments (the fraction of the surface area of the United States that’s covered by automobiles, the number of cells in the human body, the number of pizzas ordered this year in the state of California, for example) as closely as they can.

One distinctive feature of Fermi problems is that precision is impossible to achieve quickly, but it’s easier to arrive at a fast estimate of the range for the right answer. Before investing a big effort to measure something with precision, problem-solvers can estimate the answer approximately—and only then determine if it’s sensible to do the extra steps to calculate the accurate answers.

The Ability to Guesstimate: A Key Problem-Solving Aptitude

The ability to reach first-order estimations is an important skill in daily life. In a world where we are continuously bombarded with qualitative and quantitative information (and disinformation,) acquiring a solid grounding in numeric literacy has almost become an important intellectual obligation.

Many problems are too complicated for you to come up with an accurate answer immediate. In analyzing such problems, precision may be impossible, but you can quickly estimate a range for the right answer. Guesstimation enables anyone with basic math and science skills to estimate virtually anything quickly using realistic assumptions and elementary mathematics.

Microsoft, McKinsey Consulting, Google, Goldman Sachs, and many leading businesses use guesstimate questions in job interviews to judge the ability of the applicants’ intelligence, their flexibility to think on their feet, and to apply their numerical skills to real-world problems.

Idea for Impact: Use Effective Guesstimation Techniques Before Undertaking a More Complete and Formal Investigation

Learn to do a first approximation of value and then, if the problem merits, refine your estimate further for much nuanced decision-making. Before putting much effort into calculating anything with precision, make a rough estimate of the answer, then decide whether it’s worth investigating further.

In my line of work as an investor, for example, I use fund manager Eddy Elfenbein’s “simple stock valuation measure”:

Growth Rate/2 + 8 = PE Ratio

Let me emphasize that this is simply a quick-and-dirty valuation tool and it shouldn’t be used as a precise measure of a stock’s value. But when I’m first looking at a stock and want to see roughly how it’s priced, this is what I’ll use.

For example, let’s look at Pfizer ($PFE). Wall Street expects the company to earn $2.34 per share next year. They also see the company’s 5-year growth rate at 2.79%. If we take half the growth rate and add 8, that gives us a fair value P/E Ratio of 9.40. Multiplying that by the $2.34 estimate gives us a fair price for Pfizer of $21.98. The current price for Pfizer is $22.98, so it’s about fairly priced.

Let’s look at IBM ($IBM) which has a higher growth rate. Wall Street sees IBM earning $16.61 next year. They peg the five-year growth rate at 10.58%. Our formula gives us a fair value multiple of 13.29, and that multiplied by $16.61 works out to a value of $220.75. IBM is currently at $201.71.

Recommended Resources for Guesstimation

If you’re interviewing with one of those companies that use guesstimate questions in job interviews, or if you’re interested in developing your ability to make rough, common-sense estimates starting from just a few basic facts, I recommend the following learning resources:

Guesstimation: Solving the World’s Problems on the Back of a Cocktail Napkin by Lawrence Weinstein and John A. Adam is a fun introduction to guesstimation.
Sanjoy Mahajan teaches a course on “down-and-dirty, opportunistic problem solving” at MIT. His Art of Approximation in Science and Engineering course is accessible free of charge on OpenCourseWare. Mahajan has also written the resourceful textbook Street-Fighting Mathematics: The Art of Educated Guessing and Opportunistic Problem Solving.

How to Stop Rambling

June 3, 2016 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

How to Stop Rambling Poster: Keep Rambling and Annoy All

Some people are natural ramblers. Others are prone to ramble when they feel impassioned about a topic and have a propensity for going off on tangents. Others tend to blather because they feel jumpy and insecure when asked to talk about something they don’t totally understand. Still others feel compelled to talk just to make themselves heard or when they don’t want to lose the floor.

Whatever the reason you may ramble, here are some ideas to help you be short and clearer in your conversations with others.

Follow the “Traffic Light Rule”

Career coach Marty Nemko offers a “Traffic Light” rule of thumb to keep conversations short:

During the first 30 seconds of an utterance, your light is green: your listener is probably paying attention.

During the second 30 seconds, your light is yellow—your listener may be starting to wish you’d finish.

After the one-minute mark, your light is red: Yes, there are rare times you should “run a red light:” when your listener is obviously fully engaged in your missive. But usually, when an utterance exceeds one minute, with each passing second, you increase the risk of boring your listener and having them think of you as a chatterbox, windbag, or blowhard.

How to be Concise and Retain your Audience’s Interest

If you have nothing to say, say nothing at all. Don’t skirt around the topic, “fake the funk,” or seem indecisive. Simply say, “I am not educated about this topic.” If you’re asked something you should know about but don’t, it’s acceptable to say, “I don’t know, let me get back to you.” Do your research and follow-up with the audience.

If you have lots to say about something,

First take a few moments to think about what you want to say and structure your answer. Pausing before you give an answer will make you look more thoughtful and intelligent than if you crudely blurt out an unstructured response as soon as a question is posed. If necessary, buy some time: “Give me a moment to gather my thoughts.”
Once you’ve thought of your answer, simply state it. Do not add new details as you speak. Stick to your planned details and structure; you will be able to provide a consistent, concise, and well-reasoned answer.
Avoid littering your conversation with irrelevant or trivial details. Often, it’s more important to be articulate than accurate. Keep your sentences brief and to the point. Don’t wander from your point.
If you have more to say than you can say in a minute or two, realize that even though your audience may be interested in listening to everything you have to say, their attention may quickly dissolve into disinterest. Limit yourself to a minute or two and use that brief time to provide the most important points or a summary. Then ask, “Would you like me to expand?”

Sometimes you can defer a question by saying, “I’d be interested in what others think about this.” However, you will look devious if you use this technique too often.

Prepare and rehearse. Before attending a meeting, event, or gathering, think about the likely topics people may want to converse with you about. Think about the message you want to get across and rehearse your responses.

No Need to List References Before an Interview

June 30, 2009 By Nagesh Belludi 2 Comments

In response to my previous article on why résumés should not list references, blog reader Ana Maria inquired, “I’ve been asked to provide references before an interview. What should I do?”

Short answer: decline politely. Say, “I prefer to give you a list of references after my interview.” Here is why.

References are relevant only during the later part of the recruiting process, i.e. after a prospective employer has interviewed you and desires to check others’ impressions of you prior to extending you an offer.

As a candidate, you should choose to describe yourself first to the prospective employer in an interview. Your references should represent your credentials only after you and the employer have established a mutual interest. This is the established protocol.

Besides, providing references after an interview is respectful of your references. You would not want to bother your references too often or make public their contact information.

The above guideline holds even if you are interviewing through a contracting firm or recruitment agency. Such intermediaries routinely complete reference checks before they present worthy candidates to their clients/recruiters. For that reason, the recruiting agency may contact your references after an initial interview with a representative of the agency. Subsequently, the agency may forward your references’ opinions to a prospective employer, but should not pass your references’ contact information.

Interviewing

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

How to Prevent a Bozo Explosion

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Physicist Enrico Fermi Was a Master of Guesstimation

Teaching Physics Students the Fermi Way of Contemplating Open, Non-Standard Problems

Classic Fermi Problem: Number of Piano Tuners in the City of Chicago

Back-of-Envelope Calculations for Fermi Problems

The Ability to Guesstimate: A Key Problem-Solving Aptitude

Idea for Impact: Use Effective Guesstimation Techniques Before Undertaking a More Complete and Formal Investigation

Recommended Resources for Guesstimation

Wondering what to read next?

Follow the “Traffic Light Rule”

How to be Concise and Retain your Audience’s Interest

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?