Author Archive

We’re doing a bit of work on the Bishop brand at the moment. It’s an interesting process, involving reflection on who we are, what we stand for and how we want the world to see us. All without losing the stuff that makes us who we are (was that a plug?!)

It’s also turning out to be a rather useful exercise in emotional intelligence.

Turns out I have opinions. Quite a few of them, as it happens. After more than 26 years in the industry, nearly 20 of them building the ‘Bishop’ business, I have some pretty strong feelings about where it should go.

But I find myself surrounded by bright, thoughtful people whose views I genuinely value and, if I want the best out of them, mine can’t be the only voice in the room.

Which is easier said than done!

I caught myself doing it a couple of weeks back when we were discussing how to promote a few new recruitment opportunities and I’d launched enthusiastically into why I thought we should approach it a particular way. Somewhere along the line, I realised I was doing an excellent job of explaining my thinking and a considerably less impressive job of finding out what everyone else thought.

And, as it turned out, there were better ideas in the room. They just hadn’t had much opportunity to get a word in. It’s something I need to be conscious of. When you’re the boss, you don’t have to raise your voice for your opinion to carry more weight. Sometimes just expressing a preference is enough to make everyone else reconsider theirs.

It got me thinking about who gets heard, who gets listened to and how much that matters.

People don’t always need to get their way in order to feel heard, but they do need to be heard if they’re to have any chance of influencing an outcome. Listening isn’t the same as agreeing and good leadership doesn’t need consensus on every decision.

Sometimes you have to make the call.

But there’s a difference between asking for opinions and being genuinely open to them. Most of us can spot it at fifty paces and I’ve been on the receiving end of my fair share of “what do you think?” when I knew a decision had already been made. I’d like to think I’ve never done that to anyone else. But I’d like to think a lot of things.

The flip side is just as true. We often associate good communication with being articulate, persuasive and confident. But it’s also about knowing when to speak, when to listen, when to challenge and when to change our minds.

It takes confidence to put forward a different view, and it also takes humility to accept that someone else’s idea might be better than yours.

It also takes a fairly decent dose of self-awareness to notice when our enthusiasm for our own idea is leaving no oxygen for anyone else’s!

Being heard doesn’t necessarily mean speaking louder. Sometimes it’s about asking a better question, choosing your moment or having the courage to respectfully challenge an idea that’s already gaining momentum.

Equally, when you’re the person with the authority in the room, you need to make sure people don’t have to fight to be heard in the first place.

A few things can help. Actually asking the question before offering your answer. Making space for the quieter voices. And resisting the urge to treat every disagreement as a personal challenge or contest.

Emotional intelligence isn’t about suppressing your personality or opinions so much as understanding the impact they have on other people.

The objective shouldn’t be to win the conversation. It should be to make the conversation worth having.

As for the brand work, I know some of the final decisions will sit with me, but I’m determined the thinking behind them will be richer for the people who’ve shaped it.

So I’m practising keeping my mouth shut occasionally, which, it turns out, allows me to hear where a lot of the good ideas have been hiding.

Early days. No promises. 😉

 About the Author

Rob Bishop is the founder and Director of Bishop Associates, a recruitment, executive search and people advisory consultancy rooted in Canterbury and connected nationally.

With more than 30 years’ experience working with people, leaders and organisations, Rob combines sound commercial judgement with genuine human understanding. He writes about recruitment, leadership and the sometimes messy business of working with people, drawing on his experience of helping organisations make better people decisions … and the occasional lesson learned the hard way.

You can learn a lot about emotional intelligence standing in front of a dishwasher, particularly one someone else was supposed to empty.

My kids are a bit older now, but I can vividly remember drawing a big imaginary circle in the air and saying, “I love you.” Then pointing to a tiny dot inside it: “But I don’t like that you haven’t emptied the dishwasher.”

The circle is the person. The dot is the thing we need to discuss. Both can be true at once – I can love you and still be frustrated by something you’ve done. I still occasionally got a ‘Dad! Why do you hate me?!’ in response. Kids have a superpower when it comes to misdirection!

The distinction between person and thing matters just as much in leadership as it does in family life: we sometimes need to address what someone has done without turning it into a verdict on who they are.

I’m not suggesting you open every performance conversation by declaring your love for the Finance Manager. “I appreciate you and value your contribution” will do the job, and likely involve less paperwork if HR gets involved. But the principle remains the same.

‘You’re unreliable’ can hit hard. ‘The last two client updates went out a day late’ gives us something we can examine and fix.

“You’re arrogant” invites a massive argument about character whereas “I noticed you interrupted your colleague a few times before they could finish” gives us a specific behaviour to discuss and work on.

Labels are easy to throw around, particularly when we get frustrated, but they’re much harder for someone to actually do anything with, other than get hurt, defensive, or ready to retaliate. Where, exactly, does someone start with “be less annoying”?

Strong emotional intelligence helps us notice our own frustration, consider the other person’s perspective and choose a response that gives the conversation a chance of going somewhere useful.

And sometimes the first bit of work is ours: Am I addressing a real issue, or reacting because someone challenged me? Did I actually explain the expectation, or just assume they’d downloaded the latest version of my brain?

Knowing the theory doesn’t make any of us immune from being a bit of a muppet occasionally when under pressure. The useful skill is noticing before our mood becomes everyone else’s problem.

I once worked with a candidate who interviewed brilliantly but arrived with a strong smell of cigarette smoke on his clothes. He had failed at the first hurdle in a couple of recruitment processes and didn’t know why. It would have been easy to wish him luck and say nothing, sparing myself an awkward conversation. Instead, I told him directly: something like, “Before you head in next time, think about the smell of cigarette smoke on your jacket. That could be worth sorting before the next interview.”

Okay – so to be fair he was embarrassed and left my office in a bit of a huff. No immediate “Thank you for this wonderful developmental opportunity Rob.” But a few weeks later he told me he’d skipped the nervous cigarette before his next interview and had his suit cleaned. He got the job.

The smell on his clothes was something he could do something about. It said nothing about his worth or capability and giving specific feedback gave him something to actually work with. Emotional intelligence doesn’t guarantee the feedback will feel good going down. We can take care with the delivery and give someone time to process it, without withdrawing a valid concern just because the first reaction might be discomfort. Clarity is kindness.

In a leadership conversation, that might sound like: “The client updates were due Friday and went out Monday. That left the client chasing us and the team answering questions without current information. Can you talk me through what got in the way?”

Then we must listen, properly. The answer might reveal a workload issue, an unclear handover, a poor decision, or something we contributed to ourselves. Curiosity gives us a better shot at solving the actual problem. From there, we can agree what needs to happen, what support is needed, and when we’ll check back in.

Standards still matter, too. Repeatedly damaging behaviour needs a response, even from someone talented, well-liked, or who brings in impressive revenue. The rest of the team deserve consideration as well. Separating the person from the problem lets us hold someone accountable while preserving their dignity. It’s not a free pass.

There’s a commercial case for getting this right, too. When every mistake becomes a judgement on someone’s character, admitting one becomes a much bigger risk. Problems can stay hidden, questions go unasked, and energy goes into self-protection instead of the work. That makes running a business considerably harder than it needs to be.

The same principle applies in reverse. If someone questions my decision, that doesn’t mean they’ve rejected me as a person or leader – I need to make room for the possibility they’ve spotted something I missed. We can’t ask people to separate themselves from their own mistakes if we treat every challenge to our own thinking as an act of treason!

So, before your next difficult conversation, it’s worth asking: what, specifically, needs to change – and how can I make that clear whilst still respecting this person’s dignity and mana?

I love you. I’d still like the dishwasher emptied…

 About the Author

Rob Bishop is the Director of Bishop Associates, a Christchurch-based executive search and recruitment consultancy known for its values-led, people-first approach. Drawing on more than 30 years working with people, leaders and organisations, Rob and his team support boards and senior leaders through executive search, professional recruitment, interim appointments, assessment and HR advice.

Many so-called bad hires are not candidate failures. They are the predictable result of lazy thinking disguised as urgency before a search even begins.

When a new hire doesn’t work out, excuses and explanations arrive quickly. They interviewed well but didn’t end up delivering. They weren’t the person we thought they were. I guess they weren’t a fit for our culture. The recruiter should have found us someone better…

Sometimes those explanations are fair. People are complicated and no selection process can remove every element of risk.

This is commercially important because recruitment is not just about finding people. It is about making decisions that protect momentum, productivity and reputation. Over the years I have found that when the brief is confused or unsure, the recruitment process is already carrying significant risk before the first candidate is ever approached. Failure does not typically begin with the candidate.

It begins with the brief.

A vacancy is not a recruitment strategy

For any employer who has been around for a while, the sequence will be familiar. Someone resigns; the organisation exhales sharply, finds the previous position description, updates a few lines and starts talking about how quickly it can get an advert up.

It looks efficient, feels decisive and shows a sense of urgency and responsiveness.

But often, it is exactly the wrong thing to do.

A resignation informs you that somebody is leaving. What it doesn’t tell you is what the organisation needs next.

The previous role was shaped for another moment in time, a different structure, strategy and stage in your organisational maturity. Since then, the business may have grown, contracted, automated, diversified or totally changed direction. Responsibilities are likely to have drifted with other team members changing focus or absorbing some duties and shredding others. The title may no longer reflect the authority required, and the remuneration may bear little relationship to the expectations now attached to it.

Yet organisations routinely begin recruitment with the most obvious question: “We’re all busy, how do we replace them . . . and quickly?!”

The question a good hiring manager should be asking is, “Where are we moving to now and what do we need to build next?”

That is not semantics. It changes the entire appointment and the conversation about what is needed now.

Sometimes the job description is an organisational fossil

Position descriptions often record a list of tasks focused on how work used to be divided rather than how it should be done now.

They accumulate duties over time. A little operational responsibility is added here, a reporting requirement there, perhaps a few strategic expectations when nobody else has room for them. Eventually the document can end up describing three-quarters of several jobs and the authority of none of them.

Then a salary is attached based on what the organisation used to pay (or what it hopes it can get away with!) rather than the value and scarcity of the capability required.

That creates roles which are easy to advertise but hard to fill well:

• A supposedly operational position expected to influence at executive level.
• A “hands-on” manager carrying a transformation mandate but no real authority to change anything.
• A senior leader held accountable for outcomes without the people, budget or board alignment needed to deliver them.
• A role priced for reliable delivery but briefed for strategic reinvention.

When the market responds poorly, it is tempting to say there is a talent shortage and sometimes there is.

But sometimes the market is simply declining an incoherent proposition.

More candidates do not solve a fuzzy brief

In a softer employment market, organisations can become overconfident. A bigger applicant pool is mistaken for an easier hiring decision.

But more applications do not create more clarity. They simply produce a bigger pile of plausible people to compare against an uncertain goal. If the leadership team cannot agree what success should look like, a recruiter cannot repair that disagreement by producing a shortlist. Nor can an interview panel reliably distinguish between candidates when each panel member is quietly hiring for a different version of the job.

You cannot hire accurately for a role you cannot describe easily and honestly. And if you can’t clearly define and articulate the target, you’re never likely to be able to tell when you’ve hit it.

The salary is rarely the largest cost

The visible cost of a poor appointment is the recruitment fee, advertising, salary and perhaps the expense of running the process again and again… But the real cost is the opportunity cost leaders rarely measure until momentum has already been lost.

The larger costs are less tidy and harder to measure:

• Months of management attention spent compensating, clarifying and correcting.
• Decisions delayed while confidence in the new hire declines.
• Strong employees carrying additional weight or working around the role.
• Lost momentum on projects, clients and relationships.
• Cultural damage when expectations were unrealistic from the beginning.
• A capable person leaving bruised because they were placed into an unwinnable situation.

These costs don’t typically show up as a single line on a P&L but rather they accumulate quietly through lost time, rework, frustration and opportunity. That is why role design is not an administrative prelude to recruitment so much as a commercial and leadership decision in its own right.

Six questions worth answering before going to market

Before writing the advert, briefing a recruiter or reaching for the interview questions (last updated in 2017!), it is worth pausing long enough to answer these questions.

1. Why does this role need to exist now?  – What organisational problem or opportunity should this appointment address today?
2. What should look different 12 to 18 months after the person starts? – Define outcomes rather than compiling tasks. What things should have improved, changed, grown, stabilised or become less dependent on others?
3. What should be retained and what should be redesigned? – The departing person may have shaped the role around their own strengths, preferences and history. That does not automatically create the right template for their successor. Perhaps a good process person who has polished internal structures should be replaced with a person with a more external commercial lens.
4. Do the title, authority, resources and remuneration tell the same story? – If you want executive influence, strategic transformation and accountability for major outcomes, the role must carry the mandate and credibility to match.
5. What will genuinely motivate the right person? – Capability is just the base layer. The strongest appointment will also find the work meaningful, enjoy the real challenges involved and have energy for the context, not just want the job title.
6. Are we ready to make a permanent appointment? – Sometimes the honest answer is no. An interim leader can stabilise operations, test assumptions and help determine the capability and structure actually required. That is not indecision. It can be considerably wiser than making a permanent mistake at speed.

Pausing is not procrastination

There is understandable pressure when an important person leaves. Work still needs to be done, teams want certainty and gaps have an awkward habit of making themselves visible.

But a short period of disciplined thinking is not dragging your heels so much as aiming your arrow before letting it fly.

The purpose of taking some time to review your needs is not to create a perfect PD document or add another layer of meaningless process. It is to make a sharper decision:

• Clarity reduces risk.
• Alignment improves performance.
• Motivation drives discretionary effort.
• Honest expectations improve retention.

Good recruitment partners, be they internal or external, should contribute before the advert exists. Their value is not limited to advertising a role and introducing candidates but rather they should test your thinking, challenge the brief, explore contradictions, provide market intelligence and say, clearly, when the proposition is unlikely to attract the person the organisation says it wants and needs.

These conversations can be uncomfortable, and sometimes need to be. A recruiter who never challenges the brief is not consulting with you or advising on best practice; they are simply taking an order. The result can be polite agreement followed by expensive failure.

Before you recruit, decide what you are building

The strongest appointments begin before the search when leaders step back from the urgency of replacement and consider the organisation’s future, the work that genuinely needs to be done and the conditions someone will need to succeed.

The most expensive hiring mistake is not always choosing the wrong candidate. Sometimes it is going to market for the ‘wrong role’ – and discovering that only after a capable person, and the organisation that hired them, have both paid the price.

Bishop Associates works with boards and senior leaders to shape roles before they go to market, test propositions against real candidate expectations and recruit people with the capability, motivation and values to create lasting impact.

 About the Author

Rob Bishop is the Director of Bishop Associates, a Christchurch-based executive search and recruitment consultancy known for its values-led, people-first approach. Drawing on more than 30 years working with people, leaders and organisations, Rob and his team support boards and senior leaders through executive search, professional recruitment, interim appointments, assessment and HR advice.

When a role is urgent, it can be tempting to brief several recruitment agencies at the same time and hope that more activity will mean a faster result.

On the surface, that feels logical. More recruiters. More candidates. More chance of finding the right person.

In my experience, recruitment doesn’t work that neatly.

When multiple agencies are all approaching the same market with different levels of understanding, different messages and different levels of care, your brand can quickly become diluted. Candidates may hear inconsistent versions of the role. They may be contacted more than once. They may get a rushed or incomplete explanation of your organisation. In some cases, they may come away with the impression that the vacancy is being sprayed around the market rather than carefully represented.

That matters, because when you ask a recruiter to go to market on your behalf, you are not just asking them to find candidates. You are asking them to represent your organisation, your culture, your reputation and the opportunity you are offering.

The first real interaction many candidates have with your organisation may not be with you. It may be with the recruiter you choose.

So the question is not simply, “How many recruiters should we brief?”

A better question is: “Who do we trust to tell our story?”

Every hiring process sends ripples through your business

I’m getting toward the tail end of writing a book called Hire with Heart – The Smart Leader’s Guide to Performance, Culture and People – at least that’s the working title this week! One of the central ideas in the book is that every hiring decision creates ripples across teams, organisations and careers.

Those ripples don’t start when someone joins. They start the moment the recruitment conversation begins.

That is why a proper briefing matters. A recruiter needs to understand more than the job title, salary range and a few bullet points from a position description. They need to understand the role, the business context, the culture, the challenges, the selling points, the leadership style and what success will really look like.

That level of understanding is hard to build when recruitment becomes a race between agencies to see who can submit CVs first.

A close partnership with one trusted recruiter creates a very different process. It allows time for a proper brief, a clear market message, thoughtful candidate conversations, well-prepared briefing material and stronger accountability from the person representing you.

Recruitment should never be a race to produce CVs. It should be a carefully managed conversation with the market.

Multi-Listing Can Create More Noise Than Value

There are times when using multiple agencies may feel attractive, especially if a role is urgent or difficult to fill. But it can also create unintended consequences.

Candidates may be contacted by more than one recruiter about the same role. Different recruiters may describe the opportunity differently. Some may only have a partial understanding of the organisation. Others may move quickly because they know they are competing for ownership of the candidate rather than being trusted to manage the process properly.

That can make the role feel less considered, less confidential and less compelling. A single well-briefed recruitment team can give the market a clearer, more confident and more professional experience. They can test motivation properly, represent the culture honestly and manage both interested and unsuccessful candidates with care.

I think this matters everywhere and, in a small market like New Zealand, it genuinely matters much more than you might think.

The candidates you say “no” to matter most

Here’s something many organisations underestimate. The people you hire will usually forgive a clunky or disorganised process, after all they got the job. But the candidates you say no to? They remember everything and are much more likely to hold a grudge if their experience is not a positive one… They remember whether they felt respected. Whether they felt seen and heard. Whether the recruiter took the time to communicate properly. And they don’t just blame the recruiter for their experience – they also blame the company being represented.

Those candidates then talk to colleagues, friends and family about their experience. They might become future clients. They might even be the person you want to hire two years later.

New Zealand is a village and your reputation travels fast.

A recruiter isn’t just filling a role

A good recruiter understands they are doing far more than matching CVs to job descriptions.

They are:

• Translating your story to the market
• Helping candidates understand the real culture and expectations
• Protecting the dignity of people in the process
• Ensuring the right match across capability, values and motivation

In my book I talk about how capability is only the base layer of a successful hire. Values alignment and motivational fit are often what determine whether someone truly thrives in a role.

A recruiter who understands that will have very different conversations with candidates and those conversations will help to shape your brand.

When recruitment becomes transactional

Unfortunately, there are still corners of the recruitment world where the focus sits primarily on closing the deal. Speed over understanding and a drive to put placements over partnerships and fees over fit (yes, I do like a bit of alliteration!!).

Recruiters who operate this way will often tell both clients and candidates what they think they want to hear to get the deal done. They treat people like inventory rather than human beings making important life decisions. They ‘sell’ the role to the candidate and the candidate to the hiring manager. And a ‘sales’ transaction doesn’t create an honest and open partnership.

The risk in this is that the candidate may not get the role they think they’re ‘buying’ and the hiring manager may not get the candidate they were promised. Six months later there is regret all around and a resignation from a disillusioned employee who hadn’t been prepared for all aspects of the role. At this point the recruiter must go back to market. A market that may not view the client, consultant or potential recruitment process all that favourably…

Kindness isn’t just the right thing to do

At Bishop we’ve always believed something quite simple. If we look after our clients and our candidates, the business and revenue lines will look after themselves.

That approach isn’t just about being nice, it’s also commercially smart. When people feel respected, even when the answer is “no”, they become advocates rather than critics and are more likely to speak positively about their recruitment experience. They trust the process.

That creates stronger talent pipelines, stronger reputations and better long-term outcomes. Kindness compounds.

Choose recruiters the way you choose leaders

So here’s a thought for any organisation about to engage a recruiter. Don’t just ask about their fees.

Ask:

• How do you represent our culture to candidates?
• How do you treat people who aren’t successful?
• What does your candidate experience look like?

Because when someone goes to market on your behalf, they are doing far more than filling a vacancy. They translate your story to the market, help candidates understand the real culture and expectations of the role. They protect the mana of people going through what can be a stressful process. Ultimately, they help ensure the right match across capability, values and motivation, protecting both your reputation and the future of your business.

They are carrying your reputation in the palm of their hands.

In a small country like ours, those ripples travel a long way… choose a partner who takes that seriously.

 About the Author

Rob Bishop is the Director of Bishop Associates, a Christchurch-based executive search and recruitment consultancy known for its values-driven, people-first approach. With over 25 years’ experience in recruitment, leadership assessment and governance advisory, Rob and his team work closely with boards and leaders on CEO & senior appointments, executive alignment, generalist recruitment and human resource needs; supporting long-term organisational success.

When talking with candidates and clients about employee success factors, I often return to familiar themes such as: motivational fit, values alignment, emotional intelligence, communication, shared purpose and the ability to contribute positively to a team.

All of these factors are important, commercially relevant and desirable characteristics we want to see displayed.

But there is another factor I probably haven’t always talked enough about.

Curiosity.

And I’m not talking about the nosy-neighbour-over-the-fence kind of curiosity, but rather the kind of openness that keeps people learning, listening, adapting and wondering. The kind that makes someone ask better questions, challenge their own assumptions, avoid confirmation bias, stay interested in other people and remain alert to what is changing around them.

In recruitment, curiosity is often one of the subtle differentiators between someone who relies on their tried and tested experience and someone who has the same experience but still questions how they use that experience. It might seem like a small distinction but the learning agility genuinely makes all the difference.

The age question

As I’ve aged, so too have many of my candidate and clients. Earlier in my recruitment career, I worked more often across entry-level and middle-management roles. These days, a greater proportion of my work sits in senior leadership, executive search and more complex appointments.

That means the average age of the candidates I meet has gone up. It also means I am asked a question more often than I used to be:

“Is my age going to count against me?”

The politically correct answer is “Of course not, age doesn’t matter”, but the honest answer is sometimes, “yes”.

We can dress that up if we want to, but it wouldn’t make it more useful. Age bias exists. Some hiring managers will make assumptions, consciously or unconsciously, about energy, adaptability, technology, salary expectations or whether someone might be “too set in their ways”.

Some of those assumptions are unfair. Some are lazy. Some are simply wrong. But there is another, deeper truth I have noticed over more than 25 years in recruitment, at times, age isn’t the real issue but rather it’s one of the adjacent issues that can come with age and time:

The fading of curiosity.

Curiosity doesn’t have to retire

When we are young in our careers, curiosity is almost unavoidable. We don’t know much yet, so we have to ask questions. We are watching, learning, copying, testing and trying to work out what on earth is going on. We are genuinely curious because we have to be to learn, grow and succeed.

Over time, things can shift. With the building of experience and gradually increasing confidence, patterns start to become familiar and, over a few repeating cycles, a few restructures, a few leadership fads, a few “transformational” strategies (that look suspiciously like the last transformational strategy with a new font!), cynicism grows, patterns feel predictable and, somewhere along the way, healthy wisdom can quietly harden into certainty of the inevitable.

A risk starts to appear, not because someone is older but because they have stopped being interested in the ‘now’ – they have stopped being curious.

And here is the important point: unlike my hairline, learning agility does not have to fade with age. It can be protected, practised and renewed.

Experience plus curiosity is gold

I’ve always quite liked the joke that knowledge is the awareness that a tomato is a fruit and wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad! The strongest senior candidates I meet are not the ones who simply have the longest CV’s. They are the ones who have accumulated knowledge and wisdom but without losing their wonder and curiosity.

They bring the judgement that only comes from experience. They have lived through difficult conversations, commercial pressure, complexity, conflict, change and the occasional board paper that could have been a three-line email.

They have developed emotional intelligence through thousands of interactions with different people. They can read a room. They know when to push, when to pause and when to let silence do some useful work.

But they also remain curious and interested in what is changing. They ask what they need to learn next and they want to understand how younger professionals think, what technology is reshaping, how expectations are shifting and why yesterday’s answer may not solve tomorrow’s problem.

That combination is powerful because experience without curiosity can become rigidity. Just as curiosity without experience can lead down a meandering maze filled with predictable failure points. And this is why experience paired with curiosity can be such a winning formula.

Why younger candidates often compete so strongly

I regularly meet smart, capable and curious younger professionals who bring real energy into a process. They may not have seen every scenario before but they are interested, adaptable and hungry to learn and that genuinely matters to smart hiring managers.

In fact many leaders will consciously choose less experience when it is matched with learning agility, strong motivation, values alignment and a curious mindset. Not because experience has stopped mattering but because experience is no longer enough to ensure success on its own.

In a world where technology, expectations, markets, work patterns and organisational cultures are all shifting quickly, the ability to keep learning is not a nice-to-have so much as an essential survival skill.

A candidate who says, “I don’t know, but I’d love to understand,” may be more valuable than one who says, “I’ve seen this all before and know what’s likely to happen.”

It’s amazing how often our confirmation bias means that they haven’t actually seen the same thing before – they just think they have. They may have seen something similar, and similar can be useful. But it is not the same. The world keeps changing, evolving and we may miss out on an opportunity if we forget to challenge our thinking.

Capability remains an important base layer

None of this means we ignore capability. Skills, experience and technical credibility still provide an important foundation toward getting the right people on the bus.

But capability alone does not guarantee contribution. That is a point I return to often in my own writing. Many hiring decisions don’t go wrong because the person lacked the technical ability to do the job. They go wrong because something deeper did not align: motivation, values, communication style, emotional intelligence, adaptability or the way the person showed up under pressure.

Curiosity sits right in that deeper layer.

It influences how someone listens and how they learn, how they respond to feedback, whether they seek understanding before they seek to be understood. It influences whether they build bridges across generations, functions and perspectives or whether they retreat into “this is the way I’ve always done it”.

Curiosity and emotional intelligence belong together

One of the reasons curiosity matters so much is that it is closely linked to emotional intelligence. A curious person is more likely to ask things like, “What am I missing”, “How might this land for someone else?”. They are more likely to notice, “Why is this person reacting this way?”

That doesn’t mean they become endlessly accommodating or indecisive. Curiosity is not weakness, it’s not sitting in a meeting stroking your chin while the building burns around you. Rather, it’s the discipline of seeking enough understanding to make a better decision.

Curious leaders tend to listen before they label and explore before they defend. They stay open to evidence and aren’t threatened by challenge. They are more interested in learning than being right. And that isn’t a sign of softness so much as strength. And just quietly it is also commercially savvy.

Curiosity is also a values signal

I always ask candidates what their own values are and, when I assess values alignment, I’m not on the hunt for them to recite a list of noble nouns. Integrity. Teamwork. Respect. Excellence. Collaboration. Don’t get me wrong – those are all great – lovely words, easy to say and very often laminated on the company headed paper!

What I’m really looking for is how those values might show up in day-to-day behaviours and curiosity is one of the behaviours that often reveals whether someone’s stated values are truly real and reflected in how they show up.

If someone claims to value collaboration, are they genuinely interested in other perspectives? If they claim to value learning, can they talk about something that made them change their mind?  When they claim to value diversity, do they really seek out difference? If they claim to value innovation, when did they last explore and implement a new or unfamiliar idea?

Values live in our choices and actions and curiosity helps us see those choices more clearly.

What this means for older candidates

For experienced candidates worried about age, my advice is not to pretend you are younger. Please don’t because nobody needs a senior executive suddenly describing themselves as “frothing about the opportunity and really vibing with the disruptive energy in the room” (okay, I can feel my daughter rolling her eyes and I’m sure that’s not what young people actually say – but you get my point!).

The answer is not to hide your experience but to show that it is still alive and that you are still learning. Talk about what has changed in your field and how you are adapting, the questions you are asking now that you would not have asked ten years ago. Talk about how younger colleagues have influenced your thinking and how your mistakes still inform your thinking and keep teaching you.

Talk about your existing wisdom and enduring curiosity as a strength, not an apology.

The best candidates do not position themselves as ‘finished products’ bringing all the solutions but rather they present as people with deep foundations, an active growth edge and learning mindset.

That’s an attractive combination in a candidate – whatever their age.

What this means for hiring managers

For hiring managers, the challenge is to avoid crude age-based assumptions in either direction. Youth does not automatically equal energy just as age does not automatically equal wisdom.

Experience does not automatically equal judgement and curiosity does not automatically belong to the young.

The job of a good selection process is to look beneath the surface and to ask things like:

• What are you learning at the moment?
• What have you changed your mind about recently?
• How do you stay current in your profession?
• Tell me about a time someone more junior than you changed your perspective.
• What is a question you wish more leaders were asking?
• Where do you think your sector is heading in the future?
• What part of this role would stretch you?
• What skills are you still working on?

Listen carefully to the answers as the best candidates will usually lean in to these discussions and will think, engage and respond with enthusiasm. They may not have polished answers, but they will have energy.

Those who show up without a willingness to question assumptions will often default to broad statements, old war stories or a slightly weary “been there, done that” tone. Sometimes they have indeed been there and done that but then the question needs to be whether they are still interested in what comes next?

The full house

In hiring, we are often balancing trade-off’s, sometimes choosing potential over experience or values alignment over perfect technical fit. Sometimes we choose hunger, humility and curiosity because the person has enough credibility to learn and grow into the rest.

Every now and then, we find the full house and meet a person with experience, values alignment, motivational fit, emotional intelligence, great communication skills, a shared sense of purpose and genuine curiosity.

And it’s not as rare as you might think , but when that happens, pay attention, because these are the people who do more than perform a role. They lift the room, ask better questions, help others grow and bring wisdom without arrogance and openness without naivety.

These are the people who create positive ripples.

In a fast-changing world, that may be one of the most valuable forms of leadership there is. So, if you are a candidate wondering whether age will count against you, perhaps you should be asking yourself a better question:

Am I still curious?

The future won’t necessarily belong only to the young, the experienced or the technically brilliant but rather, it will likely belong to those who remain interested enough to keep growing.

Chins may increase, waistlines expand and hairlines retreat but aging doesn’t mean that curiosity has to leave us behind!

 About the Author

Rob Bishop is the Director of Bishop Associates, a Christchurch-based executive search and recruitment consultancy known for its values-driven, people-first approach. With over 25 years’ experience in recruitment, leadership assessment and governance advisory, Rob and his team work closely with boards and leaders on CEO & senior appointments, executive alignment, generalist recruitment and human resource needs; supporting long-term organisational success.

It was freezing in Christchurch this morning and Mrs Bish decided she couldn’t face the bike ride to work so I dropped her in. She had a wee stumble moment as she hopped out of the car, I wound down the window and called out: “Bitterman!” (bonus points to anyone who can identify the slightly obscure reference!).

That got me thinking – firstly that I hope I don’t have a heart attack today and that ends up being the last thing I said to her!  But secondly, about the fact that after 35 years together (we started young!) Mrs Bish instantly understood the context. No offence taken and no confusion. Just another small moment inside the strange little ecosystem of humour, affection, sarcasm and shared history that makes up a close and long-term relationship.

It struck me just how much of human interaction is built on invisible and unspoken contracts.

Not legal contracts, written agreements or formal relationship contracts. But rather the unspoken understandings we develop with the people around us that quietly shape what is acceptable, what is funny, what is caring, what is respectful and what “normal” looks like between us.

The fascinating thing is that these contracts are rarely discussed openly. We absorb them over time through shared experience, social cues, reactions, affection, conflict, disappointment, culture and observation (talking of disappointment – those who know me will know I really wanted some better alliteration in that sentence!). We learn what gets rewarded, what gets frowned upon and what tends to get us into trouble. Eventually these little understandings become woven into the fabric of all our relationships and we stop really noticing they even exist.

Yet the rules constantly change depending on context. A kid burps at the breakfast table and the family bursts out laughing but the same behaviour at a formal dinner party when Mum is hosting her team? A very different outcome…

The language we use watching rugby with mates may differ dramatically from the language we use at a funeral. The humour that works brilliantly inside one marriage might create carnage in another.

Unfortunately none of this comes with a handbook. We simply expect people to “get it”. This is likely one of the reasons human beings are simultaneously wonderful, confusing and occasionally exhausting.

And perhaps this is where things start getting complicated.

I think the compensation for getting older and having more chins and less hair, is the fact that we get to develop our ability to tune into and interpret the signals from one another. The other benefit of getting older is you can occasionally get away with bending the social rules more than you could when you were younger! But generally, most of us are still monitoring and interpreting the cues of others.

Some are obvious. Many are not. And we often respond to what we ‘imagine’ the cues mean.

A delayed text reply. A slightly flat tone. A warm smile at the end of a difficult conversation. Someone remembering a tiny detail you mentioned weeks ago. Someone forgetting it entirely.

Most of us like to believe we communicate our needs (contract requirements) clearly, but in reality we are constantly hinting, nudging, testing, withdrawing, rewarding and reacting (happier with that alliteration!). We raise an eyebrow. We go quiet or become sarcastic. We work harder hoping someone notices or become colder and more distant, hopeful someone might notice and ask what’s wrong.

Underneath all of this sits a strange and often fragile hope that the people around us will somehow actually see us and correctly interpret all those little signals we send out.

Sometimes they do but sometimes not so much. Sometimes – carnage. Often because the people involved are operating from entirely different versions of an unspoken contract.

Which, perhaps unsurprisingly for someone in recruitment, eventually got me thinking about the workplace (look, I eventually got to the work bit!).

In the recruitment and leadership world there’s a concept called the psychological contract. It refers to the unwritten expectations that exist between employers and employees beyond the formal employment agreement.

I’ve always found that idea fascinating because the official employment agreement itself is actually quite clinical when you think about it. It tells us about salary, annual leave, notice periods and duties. Necessary and important things. Legal obligations.

But very few people leave jobs as a result of what was written on page six under subsection four. More often they leave because of a misalignment in what they believed the relationship was supposed to feel like.

They thought loyalty would be reciprocated and their extra effort would matter. They thought honesty and observation would be rewarded. They thought flexibility, trust or appreciation was mutual and formed part of the deal.

Sometimes it’s the other way around and the employer thought exactly the same thing about them. I suspect a huge amount of workplace tension, family conflict and relationship breakdown actually sits in this space between expectation, interpretation and reality.

This is the thing about invisible contracts.

I don’t think things typically go wrong because people are necessarily bad or selfish, but because human beings often create entire contracts inside their own heads and quietly expect others to honour them without ever fully explaining the terms.

We use assumption, projection and what psychologists sometimes refer to as magical thinking.

“If they loved me, they would just know.”

“If I work hard enough, surely someone will notice.”

“If I keep giving, eventually it will come back.”

“If I avoid conflict, things will improve on their own.”

And when the relationship no longer feels balanced, over time the signals begin to change. Disappointment alters tone, which changes the feel of our interactions. Those interactions shape trust, and trust in turn influences behaviour. And our behaviour creates ripples that spread through families, workplaces, friendships and cultures.

Sadly, this often happens long before anyone consciously realises what’s going on and relationships start to break down.

Of course, there’s another complication.

What compounds the problem and is perhaps the greatest challenge is that these unspoken contracts are not fixed because people are not fixed.

Human beings are wonderfully inconsistent creatures. We grow, evolve, mature, harden, soften, heal (and occasionally unravel a little). What felt acceptable to us ten years ago may no longer fit who we are becoming now.

I suspect this is why some relationships deepen beautifully over time while others slowly drift into confusion and resentment. One person quietly starts renegotiating the contract while the other is still working from the original version.

Generally not consciously, seldom maliciously and often almost invisibly.

In a relationship this could be one person craving freedom while the other is craving reassurance. One wants growth while the other longs for stability. One is trying to rediscover themselves while the other simply wants things to stay safe and familiar.

And because humans are complicated, we often try to renegotiate these invisible contracts indirectly rather than openly. We simply begin signalling them indirectly and hope the other person notices and responds appropriately.

There’s an old adage that men marry hoping their partner never changes, whilst women marry, seeing potential and hoping their partner eventually will. Whilst that’s a bit archaic in modern culture, like many old jokes, there’s probably just enough truth hidden inside it to keep it alive through the generations.

Not because either side is wrong, but because relationships are rarely static things. They are living and evolving systems constantly adapting to changing needs, pressures, identities and expectations.

And perhaps nowhere is this more obvious than in culture itself.

Cultural conflict can emerge so easily. Much of what we call “normal” is actually socially constructed through shared understandings inside families, workplaces, communities and cultures. What feels respectful in one environment may feel cold in another. What feels direct in one culture may feel rude in another. What feels humorous to one person may feel deeply offensive to someone else (which is where my irreverence as a gen-x’er occasionally gets me into trouble!).

Most of the time we simply expect people to instinctively understand the rules which is a remarkably complicated way to run a species when you think about it.

Which oddly enough brings me back to yelling “Bitterman!” out the car window this morning. A little moment in time. But one that is perhaps also a tiny example of two people spending decades slowly learning one another’s language. Testing boundaries, repairing misunderstandings and building trust. Adjusting expectations, creating humour and developing a clarity that often only makes sense inside the strange little private universe of our relationship.

There are undoubtedly marriages where the exact same comment would have landed very differently and this is precisely the point. There is no universal handbook for human relationships. No perfectly agreed set of rules that tells us what every interaction should mean. Much of what we call “normal” is simply a collection of shared understandings negotiated clunkily, messily and non-verbally over time between imperfect people trying their best to connect with one another and quietly avoid conflict and mutual embarrassment.

The trouble begins when we assume those understandings are obvious to everyone else which is perhaps why clarity matters so much.

Not clinical clarity or the legalistic clarity of an employment contract.

Human clarity.

The courage to occasionally pause and ask “What expectations are we both carrying here?”, “What does this relationship need from us now?”.

Perhaps the greatest breakthroughs in relationships occur not when somebody wins the argument, but when both people finally understand the invisible contract they were each trying to honour all along.

 About the Author

Rob Bishop is the Director of Bishop Associates, a Christchurch-based executive search and recruitment consultancy known for its values-driven, people-first approach. With over 25 years’ experience in recruitment, leadership assessment and governance advisory, Rob and his team work closely with boards and leaders on CEO & senior appointments, executive alignment, generalist recruitment and human resource needs; supporting long-term organisational success.

Could it be Intellect, Empathy and Pragmatism?

Some time ago I had one of those years where life felt a bit heavy. Family pressures, work demands, selling the family home, moving offices, health worries and the emotional weight of supporting people I care deeply about who were struggling. Nothing felt all that tidy or easy. And, looking around, I could see I wasn’t the only one who felt like they were pushing the boulder uphill. After all, it’s real life, doing what real life does.

In the middle of that, I found myself leaning on a few trusted friends. My wife is my bestie and my rock and the pair of us always form the first line of defence when we’re battling life’s challenges. But sometimes you also need the counsel of people who aren’t going through it all with you. Not necessarily in the pursuit of grand solutions, we know life is messy and doesn’t come with instant answers. Sometimes you just need to talk, make sense of things, verbalise your worries and feel a little less vulnerable in the fog.

One friend in particular has often been a rock in the way they balance practical advice, caring and kind thoughts, along with smart ideas and suggested actions. I wanted to thank them and let them know what made their support so special. I landed on telling them that the unique blend of intellect, empathy and pragmatism they offered was what made them such a diamond. Their ability to incorporate facets of heart, head and hands had a genuine positive impact on my wellbeing and I was thankful for the benefit of having them as a friend.

Looking back, what struck me was that they were not simply being kind. They were being emotionally intelligent.

Listening well enough to understand the emotional weight of what I was carrying. Thinking clearly enough to help me make sense of what what going on. And practical enough to help me consider what I could actually do next.

That, to me, is where emotional intelligence becomes real. It is not about being soft, accepting and smiley. It’s more about the ability to bring together emotional awareness, clear thinking and useful action.

This got me thinking…!

This combination of attributes definitely makes for special and valuable friendships; do they also have the potential to make special and valuable leaders, colleagues, teams and cultures…? Are we on to something here?

In today’s fast-paced and ever-evolving business landscape, success is not just about caring for your people, making the right decisions or having a brilliant mind. Is it perhaps about striking a harmonious balance between intellect, empathy, and pragmatism? Think of it as a human formula for thriving in the modern business world where the intricacies of human interaction, teamwork and leadership success play a pivotal role.

The more I thought about it, the more I liked the simplicity of it: head, heart and hands.

Head: the ability to think clearly.
Heart: the ability to understand and care about people.
Hands: the ability to turn insight and care into constructive action.

Perhaps this is one of the simplest foundations on which good emotional intelligence is built.

The Brain Power (Head)

Let’s start with intellect, the intellectual horsepower that fuels innovation, problem-solving, and strategic thinking. In the business world, having a sharp mind is like having a Swiss army knife – it’s incredibly versatile. Intellect helps you see opportunities in challenges, envision the bigger picture, and make informed decisions. It’s the tool that allows you to think outside the box, devise groundbreaking strategies, and adapt to rapidly changing market dynamics.

The Human Connection (Heart)

Empathy, often undervalued but never to be underestimated, is perhaps at the heart of the equation. In an era where collaboration and teamwork are key to success, the ability to understand and connect with others on a deeper level is a game-changer. Empathy fosters trust, encourages open communication and promotes a healthy work environment. It enables you to walk in someone else’s shoes, see their perspective, and build stronger relationships with colleagues, clients, and partners.

Imagine a business leader who not only understands the needs of their team but also cares about their well-being. Such leaders are more likely to foster a culture of trust, loyalty, and commitment among their employees. Empathy is the glue that holds teams together, making them more resilient and capable of overcoming challenges.

But heart is more than being caring. It is the ability to notice what is happening emotionally – in both yourself and others – and to respond in a way that builds trust. In leadership, that means listening carefully, reading the room, naming what needs to be named and showing people that they matter – all without losing sight of the work that needs to be done.

The Pragmatic Approach (Hands)

Now, let’s add a dash of pragmatism to the mix. Whilst intellect fuels innovation and empathy nurtures relationships, pragmatism is the bridge that turns ideas into reality. Being pragmatic means making decisions based on practicality, feasibility, and resource availability. It’s about setting achievable goals, crafting actionable plans, and managing risks effectively.

Pragmatism is where care and intelligence become behaviour. It is the leader who not only understands the problem and cares about the people involved but also has the courage and discipline to act.

Sometimes that means making a decision. Sometimes it means having the difficult conversation. Sometimes it means slowing things down, creating clarity, setting a boundary or helping someone take the next step.

In the business world, pragmatism keeps projects on track, budgets in check, and timelines met. It ensures that ambitious ideas don’t remain mere dreams but become tangible achievements. A pragmatic leader knows when to take calculated risks and when to rein in enthusiasm to avoid overextending resources.

Bringing it Together – Where Emotional Intelligence Becomes Behaviour

So, what happens when you combine intellect, empathy and pragmatism in the world of business?

Perhaps this is where you get a recipe for success that’s hard to beat. Intellect provides the vision, empathy builds strong relationships and pragmatism gets us results.

Emotional intelligence is not just about being warm or empathetic. It is the disciplined integration of head, heart and hands: understanding what is happening, caring about the people involved and choosing behaviour that helps. The right combination brings leadership that is thoughtful, human AND useful.

Head without heart can be clever but cold and distancing. Heart without head can be well-meaning but fuzzy, unclear and ultimately unhelpful. Head and heart without hands can offer a warm conversation with no forward movement or solution.

In today’s business world, where collaboration and innovation are paramount, this winning combo becomes even more critical. A leader who embodies these qualities can not only inspire their team but also navigate the complex challenges of business, emerging technologies and changing market forces with clarity, care and confidence. That is also where emotional intelligence is more than a concept or framework – it is visible behaviour, connection and action. A winning formula for success!

Ultimately success is not a one-size-fits-all concept. But perhaps it starts with being intellectually agile, emotionally intelligent, and practically effective.

My friend is a diamond. Not because they had all the answers, but rather because they helped me feel seen, helped me think more clearly and encouraged me to consider what I could do next and the actions that might move me forward.

That’s a pretty good model for leadership too. The best leaders are not just smart, not just caring and not just practical. They bring all three together in a visible display of Emotional Intelligence in action – head, heart and hands.

Think clearly. Care deeply. Act wisely.

That may not be the whole story of emotional intelligence, but it seems like a good place to start.

 About the Author

Rob Bishop is the Director of Bishop Associates, a Christchurch-based executive search and recruitment consultancy known for its values-driven, people-first approach. With over 25 years’ experience in recruitment, leadership assessment and governance advisory, Rob and his team work closely with boards and leaders on CEO & senior appointments, executive alignment, generalist recruitment and human resource needs; supporting long-term organisational success.