Impossible Interviews

An interesting thread that I have only just picked up on,

 

Andy’s quote from Max Eggert largely nails it for me and his other comments are aslo very insightful. Interviews in their various forms have been studied extensively by various types of behavioural scientists , but still remain an something of an enigma. We fall in love, we instinctively like some people and dislike others, we use intuition etc.

 

HR professionals and industrial psychologists developed practices to make selection decisions more structured and “objective”. These include psychometric tests and/or structured “competency based” interview questions. However the reality of most people’s experience of a job selection process is different and probably seems quite “amateur” at times, which it often is.

As in many fields, something  “fit for purpose” applying rules of thumb, might achieve similar results to a costly “professionally optimised” approach at the cost of slightly higher risk.     

 

Prospective external recruits often first come into contact with recruitment organisations e.g. https://www.rec.uk.com/ which at the front end are often sales led and commission incentivised. At this point they are “matchmaking” not selecting, trying to generate a credible pool for their client to select from. If they exclude you it is because they don’t think that their customer will “buy” you. At the next stage they are typically acting as an “outsourced HR function”. Some specialist Recruitment Consultants are highly professional experts in selecting for their field and may interview on behalf of clients. Assuming that they don’t actually  make the final selection, then the responsible manager will interview, although a panel of two or three is common. In some sectors the “agencies” are themselves the employer, renting people to the client.    

 

Internal selection, because the prospective candidate is known and understood should be simpler, but in my experience can be quite difficult. In multi-division organisations candidates and interviewers may not be known to each other, avoiding a political dimension. But in an a local situation there is usually someone in “pole position” and interviews can feel like something of a sham to unsuccessful candidates. “Promotion Boards”, PhD vivas etc. are usually designed to offer a challenge rather than to “fail” people. IET Professional Registration Interviews fall into that category, some candidates are unsuccessful because they weren’t able to fully the satisfy the required criteria, but everyone can in principle succeed.  The success rate of interviews is an important indicator of overall process health.

 

Much of my career was spent with an emphasis on “development” rather than “selection” although obviously the fields overlap. For example an “assessment centre”, commonly used for graduate recruitment could be have similarities to a “development centre” for managers or even “select and develop”.  The key difference as I see it is the psychology of "rejection" for the individual and the implications for others (e.g. the organisation).  

 

Returning to selection interview questions, a structured interview would ensure that each candidate was asked the same obviously relevant questions, with the answers evaluated and recorded in the same way. For example “tell me about a project that you were involved in” with supplementary questions if needed  to tease out relevant issues. “Off the wall” or “outside the box” questions are risky, because no one, often including the questioner, may understand what answers they are actually seeking and how to evaluate them.  If mathematical fluency is relevant to performance of the role, then that is reasonable. But as James correctly pointed out this could easily become a smokescreen for “selecting in our own image”, or at worst forms of illegal discrimination.  

 

James also highlighted the problem of changing relationships. I experienced myself a situation (in a senior role) of going from “hero to zero” under a “new broom” leader. Reorganisation also seems to have become normal rather than exceptional and tenure in companies shorter.   

 

There are plenty of myths and folklore around, including the brilliant “detective” or “legal advocate” model using clever questions or The Oxbridge Professor's intellectual jousting questions. There are proven sales techniques using types of questions.  There are also people who are more naturally insightful about others for different reasons, but many who overate themselves.

 

Ideally the question of “can the candidate do the job” should mostly be answered before the interview by their track record , although we might be verifying or trying to evaluate the extent of any gap. The questions of “will they do it and fit in” are two-way. On that basis my focus would be on trying to develop a good rapport , helping me to understand and “warm” to this candidate. I would like ideally at the end of the interview for both parties to be willing to enter the relationship and if not, know why not. Choice would come after reflecting on the options. A problem with this type of approach is that it is probably best served by being 1 to 1 or at least relatively informal and intimate, which has obvious risks. Perhaps this is the “final” or “second” interview approach?

 

Probably the commonest problem is the “horns and halo effect”, where sub-consciously the interviewer comes to a decision very quickly, often based on superficial impressions and then tends only to accept information that confirms this bias.  Even consciously there can be a rush to judgement and strong characters may persuade others in panel situations. Self-awareness by interviewers is important. For example if I feel instinctively negatively towards someone (which isn’t often, but it happens) I try consciously to find reasons to like or at least to respect them. 

 

I hope to have offered some additional insight without being too long-winded or self-indulgent.  James perhaps you should apply for Countdown if Rachel Riley moves on

 

An interesting thread that I have only just picked up on,

 

Andy’s quote from Max Eggert largely nails it for me and his other comments are aslo very insightful. Interviews in their various forms have been studied extensively by various types of behavioural scientists , but still remain an something of an enigma. We fall in love, we instinctively like some people and dislike others, we use intuition etc.

 

HR professionals and industrial psychologists developed practices to make selection decisions more structured and “objective”. These include psychometric tests and/or structured “competency based” interview questions. However the reality of most people’s experience of a job selection process is different and probably seems quite “amateur” at times, which it often is.

As in many fields, something  “fit for purpose” applying rules of thumb, might achieve similar results to a costly “professionally optimised” approach at the cost of slightly higher risk.     

 

Prospective external recruits often first come into contact with recruitment organisations e.g. https://www.rec.uk.com/ which at the front end are often sales led and commission incentivised. At this point they are “matchmaking” not selecting, trying to generate a credible pool for their client to select from. If they exclude you it is because they don’t think that their customer will “buy” you. At the next stage they are typically acting as an “outsourced HR function”. Some specialist Recruitment Consultants are highly professional experts in selecting for their field and may interview on behalf of clients. Assuming that they don’t actually  make the final selection, then the responsible manager will interview, although a panel of two or three is common. In some sectors the “agencies” are themselves the employer, renting people to the client.    

 

Internal selection, because the prospective candidate is known and understood should be simpler, but in my experience can be quite difficult. In multi-division organisations candidates and interviewers may not be known to each other, avoiding a political dimension. But in an a local situation there is usually someone in “pole position” and interviews can feel like something of a sham to unsuccessful candidates. “Promotion Boards”, PhD vivas etc. are usually designed to offer a challenge rather than to “fail” people. IET Professional Registration Interviews fall into that category, some candidates are unsuccessful because they weren’t able to fully the satisfy the required criteria, but everyone can in principle succeed.  The success rate of interviews is an important indicator of overall process health.

 

Much of my career was spent with an emphasis on “development” rather than “selection” although obviously the fields overlap. For example an “assessment centre”, commonly used for graduate recruitment could be have similarities to a “development centre” for managers or even “select and develop”.  The key difference as I see it is the psychology of "rejection" for the individual and the implications for others (e.g. the organisation).  

 

Returning to selection interview questions, a structured interview would ensure that each candidate was asked the same obviously relevant questions, with the answers evaluated and recorded in the same way. For example “tell me about a project that you were involved in” with supplementary questions if needed  to tease out relevant issues. “Off the wall” or “outside the box” questions are risky, because no one, often including the questioner, may understand what answers they are actually seeking and how to evaluate them.  If mathematical fluency is relevant to performance of the role, then that is reasonable. But as James correctly pointed out this could easily become a smokescreen for “selecting in our own image”, or at worst forms of illegal discrimination.  

 

James also highlighted the problem of changing relationships. I experienced myself a situation (in a senior role) of going from “hero to zero” under a “new broom” leader. Reorganisation also seems to have become normal rather than exceptional and tenure in companies shorter.   

 

There are plenty of myths and folklore around, including the brilliant “detective” or “legal advocate” model using clever questions or The Oxbridge Professor's intellectual jousting questions. There are proven sales techniques using types of questions.  There are also people who are more naturally insightful about others for different reasons, but many who overate themselves.

 

Ideally the question of “can the candidate do the job” should mostly be answered before the interview by their track record , although we might be verifying or trying to evaluate the extent of any gap. The questions of “will they do it and fit in” are two-way. On that basis my focus would be on trying to develop a good rapport , helping me to understand and “warm” to this candidate. I would like ideally at the end of the interview for both parties to be willing to enter the relationship and if not, know why not. Choice would come after reflecting on the options. A problem with this type of approach is that it is probably best served by being 1 to 1 or at least relatively informal and intimate, which has obvious risks. Perhaps this is the “final” or “second” interview approach?

 

Probably the commonest problem is the “horns and halo effect”, where sub-consciously the interviewer comes to a decision very quickly, often based on superficial impressions and then tends only to accept information that confirms this bias.  Even consciously there can be a rush to judgement and strong characters may persuade others in panel situations. Self-awareness by interviewers is important. For example if I feel instinctively negatively towards someone (which isn’t often, but it happens) I try consciously to find reasons to like or at least to respect them. 

 

I hope to have offered some additional insight without being too long-winded or self-indulgent.  James perhaps you should apply for Countdown if Rachel Riley moves on