Tag Archives: hiring

Bob Pudlock, Gulf Stream Search
FST Soapbox

Architect the Perfect Food Safety Team: How to Assess the Candidate

By Bob Pudlock
No Comments
Bob Pudlock, Gulf Stream Search

If there’s anything to take away from our three-part series on Architecting the Perfect Food Safety Team, it’s to be thoughtful and cognizant of what behavior and end results you’re looking for from your team.

When you enter the ASSESS phase, it’s important to arm yourself with questions that elicit responses that give you an indication of whether the person CAN perform well and who will thrive in your company’s culture.

Additionally, you want that behavior and end result to be synced and aligned against the broader organization’s mission.

As a director or VP, that’s an important distinction. A company that’s in M&A mode is much different than one that’s under pressure from a major customer to get in compliance with their supplier guidelines. The ideal candidate for one is not necessarily the best fit for the other.

Let’s say you’re a director or VP at a company who has just acquired a smaller company certified under a different GFSI scheme. For the next year to two, other integration efforts have been prioritized over folding the acquired company’s scheme into the parent company. For the foreseeable future, that means there will be a disconnect in some protocols, reporting and expectations between the parent and acquired company.

In this scenario, we brainstorm with our client and bring forward themes or dynamics that will be present.

  • Transition -> Change -> Ambiguity
  • Gray area -> Open loops not immediately resolved -> Discomfort
  • Acquisition / Integration -> power/influence/reporting structure transition -> Ambiguity

Two themes that come out of this brainstorm are “dealing with ambiguity” and managing discomfort associated with a GFSI certification or being downgraded as a priority while the company pushes other objectives forward.

For these themes, now we look to construct questions that elicit how one has behaved in past. We can also construct a hypothetical scenario to see how an individual would strategize and act moving forward.

As you look at potential hires into the organization at this stage, you’re going to be presented with a range of candidates that exhibit varying degrees of emotional flexibility.

Emotional flexibility is the ability to identify, assess and adjust responses to events, circumstances or triggers as they arise.

If a candidate in this scenario is rigid or exhibits a black and white “compliance or bust” mentality, that’s going to be a source of constant friction for the individual and those with whom they interact. During the integration efforts, that person is going to have a hard time calibrating their feeling of incompleteness or disconnect from the broader organization.

A candidate that exhibits a low degree of emotional flexibility will have a harder time “rolling with the punches” and will make those around them uncomfortable—they’ll push and work towards a set of expectations that is not consistent with the broader organization’s timeline. Now there is certainly an opportunity to manage that individual’s expectations, but the less we have to do that as leaders, the better—hence, the importance of accurately assessing and pegging the attributes early and often in the interview process.

So, how do we do that?

We advocate for what we call “layered” interview questions. In simple terms, it’s asking a question a number of different ways and in different contexts to elicit responses that offer an accurate prediction of how someone will react in the future.

The first question might be (one layer): How do you deal with ambiguity?

Another question would be: How have you dealt with a situation in the past where your boss was not on site but your plant manager took on day-to-day supervising and reporting? The hiring team can shade in specifics to make the scenario more realistic. The core of the question is to create an image of an ambiguous environment.

And yet another question would be (this is hypothetical): Let’s say you’re alone and have been put on the spot to solve this food safety problem. Your boss is not available for the next two days and you believe that there might be a disconnect between how the plant manager might solve the problem and how your boss would solve it. What would you do?

Asking a question three different ways will ferret out canned, stale answers. Additionally it will test a candidate’s ability to “connect the dots” between past experience and current/future challenges in the workplace. Asking these questions and observing the responses is a significant improvement over what’s typically done.

Taking it a step further will give you an even more accurate prediction of whether a candidate will thrive or perish in this environment. To test this, drill down further on the candidate’s responses to each layered question to the point where you determine what toll, if any, these situations took on them; in other words, how does ambiguity and discomfort in the workplace make them “feel”? Just because someone has experience in ambiguous climates or has managed “transitional” situations like a company’s M&A phase doesn’t mean they thrive on it. For some people, it’s a constant stressor, and if they’re not emotionally resilient, at some point they will break or wear down.

Drilling down to this level will give you a more accurate feel to how resilient and tolerant one will be in your company’s current and future culture. Additionally, you’ll determine whether or not their level of emotional flexibility will allow them to thrive or cause a constant stressor that will ultimately wear them down.

This is just one example of how to use a layered question. There may be three to four key themes that you want to dig into for each role in your organization. Pairing the layered questions (same question, multiple contexts) with eliciting feeling-based responses will give you an even more accurate predictor of who will thrive on your team. It will also isolate and disqualify individuals who have canned responses to interview questions and/or who can’t think on their feet, or struggle to tie past experiences to current state challenges.

This might “feel” like a lot of effort, but it’s an immense time and energy saver when you balance it against the aggravation, time and energy-suck you experience with a poor or mediocre hire.

Question mark

Hiring and Training, Understanding FSMA Remain Big Industry Challenges

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
Question mark

A new industry survey is highlighting several issues facing food safety and quality assurance professionals, from employee retention to understanding the final FSMA rules. The 2016 Annual TraceGains Food Safety & Quality Assurance (FSQA) Professional Survey digs into the top priorities (FSMA compliance, audit readiness, supplier relationship management, etc.) of professionals and sheds light on some of the current challenges that companies are facing, especially in the area of compliance, FSMA readiness and supplier documentation.

“We’re seeing a recipe for stress in the food and beverage industry: Take one-part low margins, blend in one-part increased government regulation, one-part unannounced audits, one-part increasing customer demands, and one-part manual paperwork,” says Gary Nowacki, CEO of TraceGains. “Mix well, bake on high, then spread thinly with a limited pool of FSQA professionals.”

Anthony Arocha, TraceGains
Anthony Arocha, customer success consultant at TraceGains

Nearly 500 FSQA professionals participated in the survey. In a two-part Q&A with TraceGains, Anthony Arocha (customer success consultant), Rajan Gupta (vice president of customer success), and Jason Ulrich (customer success manager) explain what the results mean in to the broader industry.

Food Safety Tech: Were there any surprises with this year’s survey?

Anthony Arocha: FSMA compliance is across the board a top priority with staffing/training as one of the biggest obstacles to overcome. I would say this is a huge opportunity for automation to help reduce the risk and long-term costs incurred by the increasing demand for accurate documentation.

22% and 19% cited training and staffing respectively as a big challenge. Graphic courtesy of TraceGains.
22% and 19% cited training and staffing respectively as a big challenge. Graphic courtesy of TraceGains.

Rajan Gupta: I do not think there are any surprises but a very strong restatement that FSQA staff is difficult to hire/retain due to limited individual growth, low salaries, inadequate training, incentives, etc. All of these lead to the fact that most food companies look at food safety and quality as a nuisance that they must deal with versus as a function that is a necessity or a requirement with adequate funding.

Rajan Gupta, TraceGains
Rajan Gupta, vice president of customer success, TraceGains

FST: With FSMA being a top priority among survey respondents, are you finding that companies are concerned about any of the rules in particular?

Arocha: Honestly, it seems that most folks are trying very hard to get a handle on all the new rules and what their responsibility is for compliance. Not sure they have gotten to the point of having just one or two main concerns yet. There is more emphasis on creating strong relationships with the downstream and upstream customers and suppliers than ever before. Some of the rules seem vague, which will require an operation to be prepared to support how they meet a particular requirement or may be potentially exempt from it. These have been some of the concerns that seem to be popping up most.

FSQAStaff_TraceGains
Survey Question: What, if anything, hinders your company’s ability to on-board, recruit, and retain skilled FSQA staff? (Graphic courtesy of TraceGains)
Jason Ulrich, TraceGains
Jason Ulrich, customer success manager, TraceGains

Gupta: The main theme that we hear from our customers is that there is confusion. Companies have had to deal with many requirements in the past, some of which conflict each other. I think lack of a thorough understanding of food safety within an organization is a key limiting factor to truly determine what is needed at each organization to meet FSMA guidelines.

Jason Ulrich: Companies are concerned about FSMA. Most are concerned with FSMA as a whole. Many have taken steps to educate themselves, but the law is vague, especially for companies that are in multiple areas of food manufacturing.

Part two of the discussion will explore supplier documentation and automation.