I spend much of my working life trying to identify new talent to hire, or take on as partners. Inevitably this means lots of personal interviews of one sort or another. Yet I am ashamed to say my techniques are not exactly very scientific. I should be more rigorous and systematic in my questioning and recording of answers — especially since the price of getting an interview wrong goes up all the time.
我大部分的工作时间用来甄别新的人才，或是为了招募员工，或是为了结成合作伙伴。这意味着我必然要进行不同类型的面试。然而我得惭愧地说，我的方法并不是特别科学。我提问以及记录答案的方式应该更加系统严谨，特别是考虑到面试出错的代价正在不断上升。
In my defence, many of the most important cross-examinations I conduct are not job interviews. They are discussions with entrepreneurs that might eventually lead to a business partnership. So they are much more of a mutual screening process than a conventional recruitment exercise. Typically, these are self-made founders who do not want to work for anyone else: instead they are looking for a financial backer who can add value.

让我为自己辩解一下，我进行的许多最重要的提问环节并非招聘面试，而是与企业家展开讨论，最终结果或许是达成商业合作关系。因此这种问答更像是一种双向的审查过程，而不是常规性的招聘环节。通常情况下，这些人是依靠自身奋斗起家的创始人，他们不想为其他任何人工作：相反，他们寻找的是能够增加企业价值的财务支持者。
When the world is awash with capital, exceptional companies can pick and choose whose investment cash to take — hence it is often, in effect, me being interviewed. I rather enjoy the challenge of convincing someone to want to work with us, as long as I genuinely believe there is chemistry. If the deal seems like a lost cause, I can be poor at going through the motions.
当今世界资本充盈，杰出的企业能够挑选要接受哪个投资方的资金，因此事实上经常是我接受别人的面试。只要我真心认为我和对方契合，我相当享受说服对方与我们达成合作意向的挑战。如果合作似乎注定要失败，我也不擅长与对方虚与委蛇。
I prefer one-to-one interviews. Panel interviews are typically more formal, stilted and less revealing. I accept they are the method by which institutions, for example, make appointment decisions, since governance protocol and logistics dictate that roles such as the CEO can only be approved by a committee. These sorts of organisations are also much more aware of what a legal minefield employment law represents, and are thus careful to avoid any possible accusations of discrimination.
我更喜欢一对一的面试。小组面试通常更加正式和生硬，透露出的信息也更少。不过我同意，在诸如做出任命决定等情况下，组织应该采取这种方式，因为公司治理和人事组织方面的规章都规定首席执行官等职位的任命只能由委员会来通过。使用这种面试方式的组织对雇佣法的雷区更加警觉，因此会谨慎地避免任何可能的歧视指责。
The internet has made many interviews an increasingly formulaic and charmless ritual. Candidates churning out prefabricated answers scraped from career websites can turn the whole meeting into a ghastly role-play. But while personal information is usually off-limits, I do want to explore the character of the individual sitting in front of me. What motivates them? What are their strengths and weaknesses? What were their triumphs and disasters? How resourceful are they? Is there anything they are trying to hide? How hungry are they? Any interview where the applicant trots out rehearsed lines is a waste of time.
互联网让许多面试变成了越来越公式化和无趣的仪式。候选人滔滔不绝地念出从求职网站上预先搜刮的答案，这会让整个面谈过程变成一种令人反感的角色扮演。尽管通常不允许讨论私人信息，我的确希望探查坐在我面前的人的性格特质。激励他们的是什么？他们的长处和短处是什么？他们做过什么成功和失败的事情？他们是否足智多谋？他们是否试图隐瞒什么事情？他们有多渴求成功？如果求职者只是在重复预先排练好的台词，这场面试就完全是浪费时间。
I also want precision and detail where appropriate: exact tasks in previous jobs; a specific pay package. Interviews are almost as artificial as exams in judging people — but short of taking on staff on a trial basis, there is no better practical method I know to select the right human capital.
在适当的时候，我也希望听到精确的描述和细节：比如之前职位的具体职责；具体的薪酬组成。在评判人方面，面试几乎和考试一样武断，但是除了对员工进行试用以外，据我所知没有什么更好的办法来甄选合适的人才。
In contrast to corporate interviews, encounters with entrepreneurs tend to be more uninhibited and blunt, but also more informative. The talk will not be about whether the interviewee’s face fits the organisation: instead I will be trying to judge if we can trust each other and make money together.
与企业面试相比，与企业家面谈常常更无所禁忌，更直率一些，同时也能透露出更多信息。面谈不是为了确定对方的面孔是否与组织契合：相反我会尝试判断双方是否能够相互信任并共同创造财富。
One of my all-time heroes, the inventor Thomas Edison, was a hard taskmaster at interview. The New York Times in 1921 published a list of some of the roughly 150 questions he fired at potential recruits: “‘Victims’ of his method said ‘Only a walking encyclopedia could answer the questionnaire’,” it wrote. But his laboratory got results, so he must have employed able assistants.
我一直很崇敬的人之一——发明家托马斯•爱迪生(Thomas Edison)是一个在面试时不断发难的人。1921年的《纽约时报》(New York Times)罗列了爱迪生在面试候选人时提出的大概150个问题中的一些。文章写道：“他的面试方法的‘受害人’说‘只有一部活字典才能答出问卷’。”但是爱迪生的实验室的确做出了成就，因此他必然是招募到了能干的助手。
Of course detailed, multiple references are paramount; verifying a CV is essential in these litigious times.
详尽的、多种多样的证明资料当然至关重要；在这个好打官司的时代，验证简历的真伪非常关键。
I have engaged specialist background checking firms to confirm qualifications, solvency and possible criminal pasts. I have never used polygraph testing, but several employers I know swear by psychometric testing and behavioural profiling — not just for new workers, but for existing team members, especially those seeking new responsibilities.
我聘用专业的背景调查公司来验证候选人的资历、负债情况和可能的犯罪记录。我从未使用过测谎仪测试，但我认识的几位雇主非常信赖心理测试和行为分析，他们不仅将这些方法用于新员工，也对现有的团队成员使用，尤其是那些希望改变职位的人。
Certain executives are great at interview but hopeless in the job. Such a breed typically embellishes their resume as well. The huge advantage of cultivating talent and promoting from within is that these are co-workers you have witnessed in action rather than the theoretical pitch and promise of an interview, and a CV that might be full of misrepresentation.
有一些高管在接受面试时得心应手，但工作表现很差劲。这种类型的人通常会美化他们的简历。培养人才和内部提拔的巨大优势在于，这些人都是你能在实际工作中观察的同僚，而不是面试时虚无缥缈地自吹和承诺、简历也可能充斥着失实陈述的人。
Ultimately interviews are a necessary evil of the workplace, and usually the least bad option when it comes to finding the right brainpower.
总而言之，面试是工作中“必要的恶”，通常也是在寻找合适的人才时害处最小的选择。