If you were to ask a professional business manager the question, “What are the things you enjoy the most?" you might hear, “Solving problems, Thinking how to better market our product line, Coaching a struggling employee, Making presentations to new clients, or Opening up a new branch. " You would get a hundred answers before hearing, “I really enjoy interviewing candidates for our open positions. "
Many view hiring decisions as a crap shoot with a 50% chance of success. These are lousy odds. So why do most hiring managers struggle with the interview process, take short cuts, and end up hiring the wrong candidate?
Malcolm Gladwell, author of “The Tipping Point" and “Blink", believes he has the answer. Gladwell was the first speaker at the May 2008 New Yorker Conference - “Stories from the near future" - and his topic was the “challenge of hiring in the modern world. "
According to Gladwell, our society is undergoing a kind of collective crisis when it comes to hiring, and the root of this crisis is what Gladwell calls the “mismatch problem" - the mismatch between the criteria we use to evaluate a person and the skills and abilities that are actually required to succeed in a particular job.
Gladwell demonstrates his point in how teachers are hired. It is a common goal to hire the “best-educated, smartest, most experienced people possible" for teaching assignments. These three criteria are used because we believe it is “the surest way to ensure" we have hired the best teachers.
Gladwell debunks the logic of using credentialing criteria. He questions the relationship between “hard, objective, reliable standardized predictors of performance" and the quality of teacher and concludes, “There isn't any. " This mismatch occurs because “We have a desire to impose certainty on something that is inherently uncertain. "
His solution is to “wait until they actually do the job. Analyze them when they are on their job and use your own subjective evaluation. "
Gladwell highlights a typical hiring strategy - “You want to get the best-educated, smartest, most experienced people possible" to “ensure that we had better quality teachers in the classroom. " On the surface, the three criteria (best-educated, how smart they are, their experience level) seem plausible for candidate screening. But let's look deeper.
Education is a valid consideration, and any position will have an established threshold. However, our education only underscores what we know. A teacher's education will not predict how they will organize a lecture, convey information, our how they connect, engage and motivate a student - all tenants of an effective educator.
How smart we are is a weak predictor. Studies have shown that our IQ contributes only about 10% to 15% towards our success. While our social and emotional intelligence has a much stronger proven correlation to our success, our IQ is one of the least likely predictors. This is a big surprise to hiring managers.
Experience is also a tricky one. We all know mediocre engineers, analysts, car mechanics and leaders that have 10 or 15 years experience. But do they have necessary job competencies like Initiative, Integrity, and Organizational Commitment? Probably not. Many companies have “rookie" awards. They focus on results and not tenure. In the 90's, I filled in one semester at Texas Christian University, while they completed their search for a full-time professor. At the end of the semester, students graded their instructors in 17 areas. For my first teaching gig, I was pleased to receive higher scores in 15 areas that compared my effectiveness to other instructors on campus. Enthusiasm and a deep desire to develop others rendered neutral my experience deficit.
Gladwell states that “we raised the bar, really dramatically, on a number of academic levels because we felt that was the surest way to ensure that we had better quality teachers in the classroom. " So, why do institutions of learning engage in such misguided missions? Why do all those really smart educated people do such really dumb things? The answer highlights the inherent difficulty of the hiring process and underscores a universal mistake most companies fall prey to in their hiring decisions. Hiring decisions are made on assumptions not fully vetted in the interview. This increases the risk of hiring a “mismatch. " To mitigate risk and save time, a shortcut strategy is used.
- An internal referral of a candidate is one of the most popular ways to reduce risk. Referrals cut the hiring risk by 40%.
- They have 8 years of industry experience. Reduced training and quicker ramp up time reduced the hiring risk by 15%
- They have worked for a reputable competitor for 4 years. The competitor is known for its tough standards. Competitor experience reduces the hiring risk by another 15%.
- They have recent certification in a highly desired skill and belong to a local user group. The certification and local user group reduces the hiring risk by 10%.
- The candidate graduated from the same university as the hiring manager and had the same Marketing professor. This is good karma and must count for something. Let's give them a 5% risk reduction.
- We didn't talk to a reference, but their letter of recommendation was glowing. How about another 5% reduction?
We need to discover the candidate's most likely pattern of behavior to support our decision. Uncovering behavior is typically done through a formal behavioral interview, which is sometimes augmented by third-party assessments. A behavioral interview draws from the past to uncover a candidate's actions. A candidate might be asked to share a particularly stressful situation. What actions did they take and what were the results? Their answers could provide insight into how they handle stress, their style of teamwork and cooperation, their ability to persuade others, or their analytical thinking. Through a series of probing questions we start to get a better picture of how the candidate might behave in our environment.
The more we know about what drives the success of our current employees, the better we can craft interview questions to determine if there is a match or mismatch of candidates in the hiring process. Over time, we will develop a rich understanding of the “hard, objective, reliable standardized predictors of performance" required for our company's success.
Author of InterviewRX and SalaryNegotiationsRX
“I've interviewed more than 3,000 people face-to-face so you can know exactly what to do. "
FREE Audio Seminar - “10 Steps to Crush Your Competition In A Job Interview"