I stopped doing selection interviews about two years ago, when I finally realised what was actually happening in them. This is what I now call the “Interview Trap”.
What is the Interview Trap?
The Interview Trap is a selection process where a potential client invites a consultant into an exploratory conversation, but in practice uses that conversation to access thinking, insight, and advice before any formal engagement exists.
It would often look like this.
A potential client would ask me for an exploratory chat. This was reasonable enough. I would arrive genuinely interested in their situation. They would describe their problem — such as teams pulling in different directions, change initiatives stalling, communication breaking down in ways nobody can quite explain. I would listen attentively. I would ask some good questions. I would ask some better ones. I would start to understand the problem in their organisation. And then — because I'm a professional who cares about the client — I would offer them my insights.
An hour later they would thank me warmly and say they would be in touch...
Sometimes they would contact me. Often though they wouldn’t. After a few rounds of unanswered calls, the engagement never materialised. I would look to see what I could have improved, I would learn some lessons and start the next conversation.
The leader would have received some of my thinking, often drawn from years of experience. I would receive a polite email suggesting a follow-up that rarely materialised.
And the real issue — whatever prompted the conversation in the first place — would remain unchanged, even if it had been named. That is what free consulting looks like!
The deeper problem
The interview trap misaligned the relationship before it had even begun. An interview implies an applicant and an employer — someone trying to win a role rather than someone being engaged to solve a problem.
In reality, the conversation that needed to happen is not "do I like this person?" It was "what is actually causing this dysfunction — and is this the right person to help us address it?"
Those are completely different conversations. And they require a completely different frame.
There was also what I now recognise as the Black Ball Problem. After four rounds of interviews across the whole leadership team — each one a polite exploration, each one an opportunity to give away more free thinking — one person would exercise a veto and the potential engagement would disappear. Weeks in the Interview Trap, and the only output would be a slightly better understanding of their problems — which they now had too — for free.
From the Trenches: The Black Ball Problem
A leader I had successfully delivered a major transformation for previously asked me to pitch for a new engagement. After positive early conversations with the CTO, I met with his full leadership team. The discussion was open and lively, with differing views across the department heads. When the CTO asked for my perspective, I shared it directly. There was clear disagreement from one senior stakeholder, which I invited into the open. We had a frank discussion.
Later, I learned that concerns had been raised with the CEO about both my diagnosis and proposed collaborative approach. The engagement was ultimately vetoed. One person’s dissent was enough.
Compare that with a previous engagement for a different leader in a different organisation. That leader trusted her own judgment, made a fast decision over lunch, shook hands, and we delivered strong results together. No committee. No veto. Just clarity and momentum.
The difference was not my capability. It was the decision-making culture.
How I Work Differently Now
I now propose one of two things when a leader asks for my help.
The first is a Working Session.
Rather than talking about the problem, we spend sixty minutes actually working on it. The leader sees how I navigate complexity in real time. I see how the organisation actually thinks and communicates. Both of us learn something useful — and both of us are invested form the start.
The second is a Diagnostic Conversation.
This is a focused exchange designed to locate where leadership or operational friction is limiting performance. Not a vague exploration of symptoms, but a structured conversation that begins to identify the root cause — the gap between what the organisation declares it values and what is actually driving behaviour.
That conversation has a purpose. It has a direction. And it treats the leader's time — and mine — as something to be respected.
Why this matters for leaders
Leaders in high-pressure organisations don’t need another exploratory conversation. They need reduced friction, sharper decisions, and a leadership team that actually pulls in the same direction.
The very first conversation should set the tone for the entire engagement: structured, honest, and outcome-focused. Not an audition. Not free consulting. Not an Interview Trap. A real engagement.
If your organisation is stuck in transformation fatigue, leadership misalignment, or that nagging feeling that something is fundamentally off — stop scheduling more meetings.
It is a diagnostic conversation.
It’s the difference between hoping things improve and actively making them improve. One protects your time and delivers immediate clarity. The other wastes it.
Choose accordingly.