Address

(Tower 2, Level 20, Darling Park)

201 Sussex Street

Sydney, NSW, 2000 Australia

Get in touch
Follow us
Best Behaviour
Debbie Morrison • July 13, 2021

Best Behaviour


“Using smart behavioural interview questions to gain candidate insights”


When you’re assessing candidates for a given position, a resume and cover letter will tell you some things about them, but an interview is the pudding where the proof is to be found. The questions you (or a recruiter, on your behalf) ask in the course of an interview take several forms. There are, of course, basic questions that arise in almost every interview. Some relating to the work history of a candidate – why they took and left various jobs; their goals and objectives, strengths and weaknesses, salary expectations. Behavioural interview questions complement those with deeper insight into the tendencies and preferences of your candidate.


Behavioural, or situational, interview questions ask a candidate to talk about a real-world example when they experienced a particular thing, or took a certain action. So why do we ask them? Simply put: past performance is the best indicator of future performance. What a person has done in the past, the way they’ve responded to various situations, is probably pretty similar to what they’ll do if they end up working for you.


If you plan to include questions like these in your interviews, first you’ll need to determine what questions will produce the most useful insights. To help, here are two questions to ask yourself:


What are the skills, attributes and characteristics that a person will need to be most successful in the position?


What are some situations that someone in this position will frequently have to deal with, or problems that they’ll often need to solve?


For the first question, let’s say you’ve determined that a successful employee needs to be highly detail-oriented, with well-developed analytical skills, and able to work well under pressure. It’s easy to write those words on a resume (and they appear on almost every one), but a great candidate should be able to provide evidence. So you might ask:


“Tell me about a time when you caught an error that others had missed.”


“Tell me about the most complex or difficult information you’ve ever had to analyse.”


“Give me an example of a time you had to juggle an unusually large number of projects and priorities.”


For the second question, imagine that the position involves negotiation of contracts, and some formal presentations. Let’s take a different approach with these examples. Questions that ask a candidate to talk about failure are particularly useful, because they not only give you information about what they’ve done in the past, they also provide signals about how well the person learns from their mistakes. So you might ask:


“Give me an example of a time you were unhappy with the results of a negotiation you were involved in.”


“Give me an example of a time when a presentation you were making wasn’t working and you switched tactics to attempt to turn it around.”


When answering these questions, candidates will often use what’s known as the ‘STAR’ format. ‘S’ stands for ‘Situation’ (what was happening that led to the events they’re about to describe?). ‘T’ stands for ‘Tactic’, or ‘Target’ (what was the plan, and what did they hope to achieve?). ‘A’ stands for ‘Action’ (what would you have seen them do, or known they had done, if you’d been there?). And ‘R’ stands for ‘Result’ (good or bad, what was the outcome?). If the situation was one that evolved and was dealt with relatively quickly or simply, with less planning and deliberation required, ‘CAR’ is fine: Context, Action, Result. Listen for all these elements, and don’t be afraid to ask follow-up or probing questions if you’re not hearing enough detail. Here are a few of my favourites:


“What other options did you consider?”


“How did you feel when that happened?”


“What do you wish you had done differently?”


“What did you learn from the situation that you’ve since used?”


Interviews are, by their very nature, ‘artificial’ environments where everyone is playing a role and putting their best foot forward. Behavioural questions offer a peek into the real-world thoughts and actions of a candidate, and can be a huge help in selecting the one that can offer the on-the-job performance you need. Choose wisely, and ask away.


Want to know more? Get in touch and let’s talk.


By John Elliott March 24, 2025
Emotional intelligence is one of the most valued traits in executive leadership today.  It’s also one of the most misunderstood. In interviews, every candidate knows how to speak about empathy, collaboration, and “bringing people on the journey.” But when does that emotional intelligence start to look more like emotional avoidance? If you’re hiring into a senior role in consumer goods or food and beverage manufacturing, this distinction matters. Hiring someone who avoids hard conversations risks building a culture that performs around problems, not through them. The leaders delivering the best outcomes in 2025 understand how to build trust and rapport — without dodging the accountability that comes with real leadership. Emotional Intelligence: What It Gets Right In complex, fast-paced industries like FMCG and food production, leaders need more than technical expertise. They must influence, de-escalate tension, manage change, and build alignment across functions. That’s where emotional intelligence shines. High-EQ leaders are more likely to: Retain talent through strong, trust-based relationships Remain composed in high-stakes environments Reduce conflict through proactive, clear communication Drive psychological safety while still pushing for results The research backs this up. According to a 2024 EHL Insights report , emotionally intelligent leaders improve employee satisfaction, engagement, and collaboration — all essential in manufacturing settings where coordination between departments is critical. But there’s a fine line between emotional intelligence and emotional overcorrection. When Emotional Intelligence Becomes Emotional Avoidance The risk is subtle: leaders who over-index on empathy may begin to avoid the discomfort of conflict altogether. That looks like: Letting underperformance linger to “keep the peace” Over-relying on collaboration instead of making firm decisions Avoiding direct feedback Prioritising harmony at the expense of clarity A 2024 Forbes article described how emotionally avoidant leaders — despite good intentions — often undermine the very culture they’re trying to protect. Accountability erodes, decisions slow down, and high performers become disengaged. We’ve seen this play out in executive search mandates across the sector. On paper, a candidate may appear ideal: emotionally intelligent, highly personable, well-liked. But dig deeper, and a pattern emerges — reluctance to address performance issues, vague language around past team challenges, and a track record of avoiding direct confrontation. That’s not emotional intelligence. That’s fear, dressed as empathy. Emotional Intelligence Is a Must — But It’s Not the Full Picture More organisations are making emotional intelligence a key leadership trait in hiring — and for good reason. In high-change environments, emotionally intelligent leaders: Build trust across teams quickly Navigate transformation without losing people along the way Stay composed under pressure Handle interpersonal complexity with clarity But some of the most costly mis-hires we see come from leaders who present as highly empathetic, but struggle to lead through tension. Not because they lack EQ — but because they confuse it with keeping everyone comfortable. The difference? The leaders delivering the best outcomes in 2024 and 2025 are doing both: Holding people accountable while building engagement Delivering hard feedback without defensiveness Balancing calm with courage These are the leaders who retain high performers, protect standards, and still earn trust across the business. Hiring Outcomes Are Better When EQ Is Tested in Context The most effective hiring processes we’re seeing in the market today aren’t just asking, “Is this leader emotionally intelligent?” They’re asking: Can this person hold accountability and empathy at the same time? Have they delivered under pressure without letting performance slide? Do they create safe cultures that are also high-performing? The difference in outcomes is clear: More resilient leadership teams Better cultural fit Fewer surprises post-placement What to Look for in Executive Interviews Hiring emotionally intelligent leaders isn’t just about what they say — it’s about how they’ve acted in real moments of challenge. The most effective hiring panels are getting beyond rehearsed narratives by asking sharper questions: To probe real emotional intelligence: “Tell me about a time you had to lead a team through a change that wasn’t popular.” “How do you approach a conversation when someone on your team is underperforming?” “Describe a time you disagreed with your CEO or board. What did you do?” Watch for signals: Are they clear and specific, or vague and diplomatic? Do they show respect and resolve? Do they accept responsibility, or redirect it elsewhere? In reference checks, ask: “How did they manage pressure or uncertainty?” “Were they able to deliver difficult feedback directly?” “Did they avoid difficult decisions in the name of team cohesion?” When emotional intelligence is genuine, it shows up in results — not just relationships. Why This Matters Now Organisations in the consumer goods and food manufacturing sectors are undergoing constant disruption — from digitisation to regulatory shifts to cost pressures. In this environment, leadership soft skills aren’t optional. But it’s not enough to hire likeable leaders. The ones delivering real impact are those who bring empathy and edge. They’re able to sit with discomfort, hold the mirror up, and still bring people with them. That’s what true emotional intelligence looks like in 2025. So when you’re hiring your next senior leader, don’t just ask if they care. Ask if they can care and confront — with courage, with clarity, and with conviction. Because your culture doesn’t need more harmony. It needs more truth.
By John Elliott March 18, 2025
AI is Changing Business—So Must Its Leaders
Share by: