How to answer an interview question

I followed a very interesting discussion on LinkedIn the other day, revolving around the interview question. What single project or task would you consider the most significant accomplishment in your career so far? Lou Adler started the discussion with “imagine you’re the candidate and I’ve just asked you this question. What accomplishment would you select? Then imagine over the course of the next 15-20 minutes I dug deeper. How would you respond?”

I have just left my current post, and I am actively looking for a new challenge. I will undoubtedly have to go through an interview process, and I therefore reflected on how I would address this question if Lou was leading the interview. Although I agree that it is very powerful, I have three real problems in answering the question.

My first problem is that very little of what I have achieved in my career was a solo-effort. For the past 24 years, I have worked for a large, international organisation, and the way to get things done is to work as a team, and use the strengths of your colleagues in reaching you goal. While I may have been an important cog in the machinery, and maybe the key link in the process, it is not easy to claim that the success was all my personal achievement.

The other complication is that in a 30 year career there are many successes, and it is difficult to select the one that stands out. I have worked in different geographical contexts, in different political systems, and had varying levels of responsibility. It is therefore not easy to select that one overwhelming success story in my career that describes what I am good at.

Finally, I remember my most recent jobs with much more clarity than the positions I held more than 20 years ago. One does forget, and I may have lost some of the detail of my work in the eighties.

So, let me assume I am in an interview, and Lou asks me the question. I would give three fairly recent examples of challenges that I tackled with the help of my staff and colleagues, and that were a success. It may seem like I am blowing my own trumpet, but it helps to write these things down.

I spent five very active years in Vietnam in the mid-nineties, culminating in the position of Country Representative of my organisation. My instructions were clear: “Find a Vietnamese expert that can take over from you and groom him or her into the post.”  I worked closely with our elected Councillor from Vietnam, a former Minister, and he helped to identify a suitable, interested Government officer. After lots of negotiation, we managed to facilitate a release from Government duty, without him being stripped of important credentials, and he joined my organisation. I guess the best measure of success is that when I handed of the management of the office to my Vietnamese successor, and left Hanoi, I was awarded the Vietnamese medal for Science and Technology.

Van Mieu doors

After the devastating tsunami in Asia in December 2004, my organisation developed a long-term programme for recovery of the coast line in the affected countries. The technical details were put together by my colleagues in Asia. Through contacts in the USA, we managed to get the attention of the UN Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, President Bill Clinton, and he agreed to host a donor conference to secure the finance for the initiative. During the following year, I spent a considerable amount of my time to talk to government representatives, embassies in New York, UN staff and coastal experts. The conclusion was a meeting in New York, chaired by President Clinton, where we secured some 13 million US Dollars to kick-off the programme.

boat and net tangled on shrubs-MFF presentation

More recently, I was instrumental in the development of an agreement with the European aggregates industry and our Brussels Office to work together on ecosystem management and restoration. The organisation has been involved with the mining, quarrying and cement industry at the global level, but through Headquarters it is virtually impossible to deal with Small and Medium Enterprises. Yet, the privately owned small sand and gravel companies and quarries throughout Europe have a significant impact on the landscape, but also provide real opportunities to develop new nature areas. After many months of negotiation, we now have a Memorandum of Understanding in place, which forms the basis for actual work on the ground in several countries.

 

I can give more examples, but three is already more than what was asked for. Fortunately, in a second part of the discussion on LinkedIn, Lou admits that asking the one question is not enough to give you the answers regarding the suitability of a candidate. I hope my three answers would have gone some way to satisfy his curiosity as leader of the interview panel.

Advertisements

Do academics live in ivory towers?

During the discussions yesterday at the workshop in Paris organised by the Biodiversity Knowledge initiative (see my Blog on 17 January), an interesting question was raised. How do scientists and academics relate to local natural resource users, and how do the researchers know which biodiversity-related issues local people are concerned about? The point was made that small scale landowners and resource users are not particularly interested in biodiversity research findings and presumable do not care a lot about the definition of ecosystem services. Yet, these are the very people that manage the natural resources we all talk about in our workshops and seminars, and they therefore constitute a principal stakeholder group for a biodiversity knowledge initiative.

Dutch wetland from www.tussentonen.nl

Dutch wetland with willow trees; photo from http://www.tussentonen.nl

Case studies were provided from woodworkers in the UK and coastal residents in Western Australia. In both cases, the local knowledge and understanding of natural resources and ecological processes is vast, but this is not recorded in a scientific manner, and the knowledge is generally not readily shared with outsiders. One observation was made that people who live on the land and who depend on local resources often do not want to participate in facilitated workshops or discussion groups organised by outsiders. The challenge for scientists and academic researchers is to find a way to “connect” with them.

The perspective of local concerns was quite refreshing after all the academic presentations earlier in the morning and the previous day. The fact that literature research often does not deal with reports that are not peer-reviewed, and that are not published in recognised scientific journals had caused some debate earlier. The presentation of the local issues illustrated the point that many academic researchers are working in a bubble, and living in ivory towers.

 

Biodiversity Knowledge

I am currently in Paris, at a workshop organised under the auspices of the Biodiversity Knowledge project, a European Commission funded programme officially called “Creating a Network of Knowledge for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Europe”. This Network of Knowledge is designed to be open, transparent, flexible, equally accessible to all, independent, be scientifically- and evidence-based and have a robust structure, and the project is putting together the design for this new Network.

So far, the researchers have identified a mission statement, guiding principles and three case studies. The meeting in Paris was called to review progress with the Agriculture Case Study which aims to answer the question “which types of landscape/habitat management are effective at maintaining or restoring populations of natural pest control agents?”

As the discussion is about natural pest control, there are no representatives from the pesticide industry at the meeting. I see this as a shortcoming, because so much of the debate is about pesticide use and the impacts of chemical application on nature. However, within the budget constraints and the need to get feedback on on-going study results, this was an understandable decision.

The overall Biodiversity Knowledge initiative is supposed to be the Europe input into IPBES, as there is currently no adequate European coordination for biodiversity information. That is a worth-while objective, but main concern is that Biodiversity Knowledge is a time-bound 2010-2014 project, which was awarded to a consortium after the standard EC tendering process. It is not at all clear what will happen after 2014, and there is a real risk that the initiative will either simply come to an end, or a second phase will be developed and tendered. Under EC rules, it is not a given that the current consortium will be awarded the new tender, and therefore there is no guaranteed sustainability for the current study. Unless an institutional arrangement is developed in Europe where the coordination takes place, we may end up with several initiatives, duplication of work, and cost ineffectiveness.

Today, I learned about Systematic Reviews and synthesis of evidence. It all revolves around published literature, and does not include primary research, but the Systematic Reviews and the synthesis are two ways of presenting information so it can be used by decision makers.

Beavers

I wrote about the beaver in a previous story, as an example of conservation success in the Netherlands. I have read stories that they are also coming back to the rivers in Western Switzerland, but I have never seen proof. Until today!

Beaver-tree

This picture was taken this morning, along the Aubonne River, near Lake Geneva. There were a few other trees damaged nearby.

A nice way to start the Blog in the New Year
Best wishes
Hans