Inside the Mind of Hiring with Dr. Mickey Fineberg

Inside the Mind of Hiring with Dr. Mickey Fineberg

By Dr. Mickey FinebergBusinessCareersManagement
Download on the App Store

Inside the Mind of Hiring with Dr. Mickey Fineberg episodes

  • When You Decide to Clean House, Why Leave One Dirty Room?
    The owner of the Indiana Fever has recently decided to part ways with the team President (who “stepped down”) and the GM (fired) with the vision of building a championship team around Caitlin Clark. Let’s examine this situation from an owner/leadership perspective.
    29 min
  • Which AI Company Can We Trust to Advance this Technology the Right Way?
    A few months ago, I presented an episode on good corporate citizens or successful companies that provide real value to their investors, customers, employees, vendors, and communities. In the midst of the fears swirling around AI, I wanted to see if there is a model organization that is structured to provide shareholder value but also real benefits to the other above stakeholders. If I could find a successful model like that, I would certainly be less fearful of the bad things that could be caused by AI.
    Several months ago, I read an article in Time magazine about Anthropic’s Cllaude models being used by the U.S. defense department and national security agencies for intelligence analysis, operational planning, and cyber operations. Anthropic refused to remove safeguards against mass domestic surveillance of American citizens and the deployment of weapons without human control. Our government responded by barring the use of Anthropic technology. Wow! that’s an example of a company placing the key value of protecting American citizens above the massive amount of money it could have made from US government contracts.
     
    30 min
  • Which AI Company Can We Trust to Advance this Technology the Right Way?
    A few months ago, I presented an episode on good corporate citizens or successful companies that provide real value to their investors, customers, employees, vendors, and communities. In the midst of the fears swirling around AI, I wanted to see if there is a model organization that is structured to provide shareholder value but also real benefits to the other above stakeholders. If I could find a successful model like that, I would certainly be less fearful of the bad things that could be caused by AI.
    Several months ago, I read an article in Time magazine about Anthropic’s Cllaude models being used by the U.S. defense department and national security agencies for intelligence analysis, operational planning, and cyber operations. Anthropic refused to remove safeguards against mass domestic surveillance of American citizens and the deployment of weapons without human control. Our government responded by barring the use of Anthropic technology. Wow! that’s an example of a company placing the key value of protecting American citizens above the massive amount of money it could have made from US government contracts.
     
    30 min
  • Do They Really Know How to Lead AI Initiatives? How Can You Be Sure?
    I was recently asked to assess a COO for a consumer and business data company. While I typically don’t delve into a candidate’s technical depth, the hiring exec asked me how I might assess the COO’s experience and know-how related to leading AI initiatives. I asked for a little time to think it over and, perhaps, do some research before getting back to him. Between what I know about experientially qualifying an executive candidate and what I found re: the hiring exec’s question, this is what I advised him (and how I would also advise executive candidates seeking roles that involve AI leadership ).
     First I said not to bother asking about specific AI definitions (Machine Learning) or model names (Mem Palace). Instead, I stressed asking the candidate to describe an AI initiative they led (that may or may not be noted on their resume). In that context, ask about specific decisions, trade-offs (improving some aspects while accepting certain costs or risks), artifacts (e.g. the model card that described the project purpose and parameters), project metrics, failures and related adjustments, and their personal role and accountability. A credible exec can explain what they did, why they chose that approach, how they measured results, and their adjustments when the system fell short.
    29 min
  • Do They Really Know How to Lead AI Initiatives? How Can You Be Sure?
    I was recently asked to assess a COO for a consumer and business data company. While I typically don’t delve into a candidate’s technical depth, the hiring exec asked me how I might assess the COO’s experience and know-how related to leading AI initiatives. I asked for a little time to think it over and, perhaps, do some research before getting back to him. Between what I know about experientially qualifying an executive candidate and what I found re: the hiring exec’s question, this is what I advised him (and how I would also advise executive candidates seeking roles that involve AI leadership ).
     First I said not to bother asking about specific AI definitions (Machine Learning) or model names (Mem Palace). Instead, I stressed asking the candidate to describe an AI initiative they led (that may or may not be noted on their resume). In that context, ask about specific decisions, trade-offs (improving some aspects while accepting certain costs or risks), artifacts (e.g. the model card that described the project purpose and parameters), project metrics, failures and related adjustments, and their personal role and accountability. A credible exec can explain what they did, why they chose that approach, how they measured results, and their adjustments when the system fell short.
    29 min
  • Another Leadership Lullaby?
    Is USA basketball asleep at the switch, just like the WNBA seemed to be during the All Star game? Team USA  (represented by WNBA players) had a chance to show the world the quality of its team at the FIBA World Cup in Germany. At this juncture, the Us played 3 games against China, Italy, and Chechia. The coach Kara Lawson (coach at Duke) was emphasizing veterans in her starting line-up. While younger stars, including Caitlin Clark, Paige Bueckers, and Angel Reese, are getting some playing time, the coach was still placing the spotlight on older and more experienced players, apparently due to their sophistication in international play and their reliability toward the end of games. 
     

    After the third game, I heard commentary from 5 knowledgeable sports commentators and podcasters: Three black men, one white fellow, and one white woman. They agreed strongly that Caitlan Clark, and possibly Paige Bueckers, should be starting at point guard ahead of veteran Chelsea Gray. While they described Chelsea as a good shooter who can bring stability and sophistication at crunch time, they viewed Caitlan and Paige as providing a quicker pace, creating more scoring opportunities, taking better advantage of open players, and as more versatile scorers. There were feelings that Kara Lawson, the coach, undervalues Caitlian’s play and potential contribution by describing her as a “young player who is feeling her way through.” This description is contrary to Caitlin’s record going into the tournament, and her actual tournament play, particularly in two of the three games. Paradoxically, after one game, Kara described Caitan as markedly picking up the pace and enabling the team to capture a big and lasting lead. (contrary to a young player feeling her way through)  In the game against Italy, there was criticism that 3 veteran players were freezing Caitlan out when they should have been feeding her the ball. These pundits all agreed that there should be a more optimal mix of veterans and younger bench players in the starting lineup to max scoring, sustain defensive pressure, and optimize excitement.
    29 min
  • Another Leadership Lullaby?
    Is USA basketball asleep at the switch, just like the WNBA seemed to be during the All Star game? Team USA  (represented by WNBA players) had a chance to show the world the quality of its team at the FIBA World Cup in Germany. At this juncture, the Us played 3 games against China, Italy, and Chechia. The coach Kara Lawson (coach at Duke) was emphasizing veterans in her starting line-up. While younger stars, including Caitlin Clark, Paige Bueckers, and Angel Reese, are getting some playing time, the coach was still placing the spotlight on older and more experienced players, apparently due to their sophistication in international play and their reliability toward the end of games. 
     

    After the third game, I heard commentary from 5 knowledgeable sports commentators and podcasters: Three black men, one white fellow, and one white woman. They agreed strongly that Caitlan Clark, and possibly Paige Bueckers, should be starting at point guard ahead of veteran Chelsea Gray. While they described Chelsea as a good shooter who can bring stability and sophistication at crunch time, they viewed Caitlan and Paige as providing a quicker pace, creating more scoring opportunities, taking better advantage of open players, and as more versatile scorers. There were feelings that Kara Lawson, the coach, undervalues Caitlian’s play and potential contribution by describing her as a “young player who is feeling her way through.” This description is contrary to Caitlin’s record going into the tournament, and her actual tournament play, particularly in two of the three games. Paradoxically, after one game, Kara described Caitan as markedly picking up the pace and enabling the team to capture a big and lasting lead. (contrary to a young player feeling her way through)  In the game against Italy, there was criticism that 3 veteran players were freezing Caitlan out when they should have been feeding her the ball. These pundits all agreed that there should be a more optimal mix of veterans and younger bench players in the starting lineup to max scoring, sustain defensive pressure, and optimize excitement.
    29 min
  • Meddlesome Mentoring of a Reluctant Successor
    I’ve had numerous experiences in my career as a business psychologist with multi-generational companies. Not too long ago, I encountered Dan,  a Gen Z, third generation family member who was contributing in a line-leadership job within the fulfillment operation for a regional bricks and mortar retailer who also has a significant on-line business. He currently manages 30 people. He is considered a potential successor to his father, the second-generation CEO, in 10 to 15 years. Prior to his present role, he worked in department and store management, and as a buyer for 6 years. Before joining the family business, he was employed by a major on-line retailer out of college for 4 years. His last job was distribution center manager supervising about 100 people.
    Dan is perceived as a nice guy and bright manager, and as developing a solid, well-rounded knowledge of the business. However, his performance is considered adequate at best, but not  impressive, and he appears to have gotten bored relatively quickly in his various placements. He has been quick to identify problems, but unwilling to suggest and implement solutions.
    He has put in the essential time, but not much more. His Dad, the CEO, is a successful entrepreneur in the way he has significantly grown the company. He is considered a good leader who effectively blends a results and humanistic focus. He regularly carves out time each month to mentor Dan. He views his son as a bit of an enigma, and is not sure Dan truly wants to be in the business. He has asked Dan often about what he wants to do, but doesn’t get a definitive answer.  As an heir, with another sibling in the financial department, Dan has participated in an equity sharing program beyond his salary and is viewed as wealthy enough not to work. Apparently, that arrangement cannot changed if he continues to work at the company.

    Dad engaged me to help him gain insight and a developmental strategy.
    28 min
  • Meddlesome Mentoring of a Reluctant Successor
    I’ve had numerous experiences in my career as a business psychologist with multi-generational companies. Not too long ago, I encountered Dan,  a Gen Z, third generation family member who was contributing in a line-leadership job within the fulfillment operation for a regional bricks and mortar retailer who also has a significant on-line business. He currently manages 30 people. He is considered a potential successor to his father, the second-generation CEO, in 10 to 15 years. Prior to his present role, he worked in department and store management, and as a buyer for 6 years. Before joining the family business, he was employed by a major on-line retailer out of college for 4 years. His last job was distribution center manager supervising about 100 people.
    Dan is perceived as a nice guy and bright manager, and as developing a solid, well-rounded knowledge of the business. However, his performance is considered adequate at best, but not  impressive, and he appears to have gotten bored relatively quickly in his various placements. He has been quick to identify problems, but unwilling to suggest and implement solutions.
    He has put in the essential time, but not much more. His Dad, the CEO, is a successful entrepreneur in the way he has significantly grown the company. He is considered a good leader who effectively blends a results and humanistic focus. He regularly carves out time each month to mentor Dan. He views his son as a bit of an enigma, and is not sure Dan truly wants to be in the business. He has asked Dan often about what he wants to do, but doesn’t get a definitive answer.  As an heir, with another sibling in the financial department, Dan has participated in an equity sharing program beyond his salary and is viewed as wealthy enough not to work. Apparently, that arrangement cannot changed if he continues to work at the company.

    Dad engaged me to help him gain insight and a developmental strategy.
    28 min
  • Can Leaders Be Smart Before They Get Stupid?
    A few of weeks ago we talked about Leaders sabotaging Leaders. Our program revolved around a manufacturing company where a new COO, John, was hired to help the President focus on shaping the business’ future and spend less time with day-to-day operations. The business had just gone through a major space increase, and significant upgrades in equipment and technology to meet customer demand and boost competitive advantage. The COO’s expectation is to sustain an efficient operation but also enable incremental vs major improvements. After about 2.5 months on the job, the President was sensing that John was having difficulty establishing credibility and influencing and connecting with his managers.
    I also noted that John, age 42, had good knowledge of manufacturing, but his experience was more focused fixing troubled operations than developing them over time
    30 min

About Inside the Mind of Hiring with Dr. Mickey Fineberg

From the publisher's feed

*Step into the intricate world of hiring with Dr. Mickey in "Inside the Mind of Hiring." This show dives deep into the psychology and strategy behind one of the most critical decisions leaders face:…