We were taught as children that honesty is the best policy. But our parents may not have faced many interviews with a panel of committee members. Honesty can be a gray area; ultimately, ethics and morals are the truest guides to truth. Everything else is part of the conversation.
People often ask why I left the kitchen. The diplomatic answer is that I wanted to grow, develop, and expand my potential as an executive in different roles. The honest answer is that I grew tired of brides changing every dish at tastings to match their preferred colors and designs. Since their expectations were unlikely to change, I chose to change my career instead. Those beautiful brides helped drive a Master Chef out of the kitchen at the peak of his career.
After sitting through hundreds of interviews, my advice to candidates is simple: Get the job first, then work on improving the place. You cannot help a club until you are employed by it. That is where honesty becomes difficult, as candidates must navigate a minefield of questions. Even after forty years, I am not sure I could answer some of them correctly, or honestly, without offending someone on the interview panel.
In the public sector, succession planning and professional ambition are not only understood; they are encouraged. General managers and other C-suite executives have advanced their own careers, so they often seek candidates with similar drives. In private clubs, however, committees hire for the needs of their specific club, and the question, “How long do you want to stay with us?” can become a minefield of opinions. That became clear recently when a candidate honestly shared his long-term goal: “I hope to stay ten years, then move to a club like Ocean Reef.” Since he wasn’t interviewed with Ocean Reef, I can tell you this didn’t feel good for the hiring club. “I would like to stay as long as you will have me” would have felt better to the hiring club.
When candidates hold a title other than Executive Chef, they must remember they are still interviewing for that role. In this case, the candidate had been promoted to Assistant General Manager but hoped to become Executive Chef at a larger club. When asked, “Do you want to be an Assistant General Manager or an Executive Chef?” he replied, “My goal in life is to be a good human being.” The answer may have confused, or even offended, the committee member, but it reflected the candidate’s honest personal, not professional, aspiration. Maybe the ideal response would be, “My love has always been the kitchen, cooking for you, and being your Executive Chef for a long period.”
Hobbies and personal causes are another area open to interpretation. When asked, “What do you like to do in your free time?” one finalist said he was an avid hunter who had enjoyed tracking game with his father since childhood. Some committee members disliked hunting and viewed the hobby negatively. The answer nearly derailed his candidacy until one committee member defended the relevance of asking about personal interests. Perhaps take center-of-the-road hobbies, like staying in shape, reading, eating out, or spending time with family—ones that are less extreme. You can’t be dishonest, but you don’t have to volunteer information unless you are asked a direct, specific question.
Food is deeply personal, which makes one question especially difficult: “What specialty dish would you bring to our club?” The honest answer may be, “Whatever you want,” but the committee often hopes to hear that the candidate’s tastes align with theirs. One candidate suggested a light, tangy jalapeño gazpacho with grilled summer tomatoes, burrata, and a focaccia crisp. Unfortunately, the person who asked the question disliked spicy food, and the response was interpreted negatively. The safe answer in America always lies in grilled meats, fish, or pasta, with generalized comments.
A committee question that is always asked more as a statement: “We are a feedback-rich environment; how will you handle member complaints or comments?” The candidate’s response: “A member’s opinion or preference doesn’t always mean it is a problem.” The author of the question was looking for a different response, with empathy or an apology involved. I know this because these comments surface during end-of-day interview briefings. Those discussions can be unpredictable, shaped by personal views, member concerns, fears, and preferences. Candidate statements are often magnified when their tone, dress, and accent are judged at
