Back then I based my decision on ensuring that the person knew what they were getting into. I think I've kept the same approach because you have to have the right person for the right situation. That's really the bottom line.

No. When I was younger, I read all these management books, but I read them for the sole purpose of being able to throw a wrench in it. I worked three jobs and went to school at night. I had very little patience, unfortunately, (I'm just being honest) for managers who would go from one [management] philosophy to another. They would flip from "one minute manager" to "management by objective." It was as though the people they managed where their little ponds and whatever new idea they had from going to conferences on management, they were going to try that out on their little group. But they never really adopted those philosophies. It was their costume for a time. So that's how I trained myself. I learned how to deal with difficult people because I was one.

I think it's both because you have instinct, but you can learn better ways to act on your instinct. You learn to be more fair to the person who's applying for the job. It goes back to not expecting them to have all the answers when they come in. A lot of people tend to put all of the responsibility on the person interviewing for the position. But you as the interviewer have the responsibility to articulate what you're looking for; you can't expect a candidate to articulate that for you.