Reworking the Interview Paradigm
Reworking the Interview Paradigm
The standard interview process is primed for change. For decades, the interview consisted of a job seeker coming into a place of business and then enduring an hour-long session of “stump the dummy.” Sometimes, it’s a panel interview where four or five people fire off random questions to an individual put in an impossible position—having to prepare for every random question without appearing nervous or unconfident.
The goal of the interview process is not to fill a position; it is to find someone who will provide value to your organization. My early mentors advised that speaking to someone face to face and asking them questions about their life and experiences are of the utmost importance. Whether interviewing a laborer or a nuclear physicist, the interviewer is trying to see if the interviewee (1) can do the job, (2) has the potential to move up in the company, and (3) will be a good cultural fit in the organization.
The number of fallacies in the current interview process is laughable. First, the person being interviewed is often nervous, which the interviewer typically views negatively. Second, the power dynamic is off. The interviewer has something the candidate wants, which changes the interview from a conversation to a persuasive sales pitch.
Interview Questions
Next, the interview turns to questions. Sometimes the questions are relevant; many times they are not. For example, an interviewer can ask the interviewee about a project they’ve led in the past, believing that is how they will lead a project in the future. Or, they can ask them about their leadership style, and they can tell them what they want it to be—but it may be drastically different, especially in times of stress.
Interviewers at Google used to ask brain teasers during the interview process, such as how many golf balls would fit in a school bus. The questions were designed to see how interviewees worked through problems, but in reality, they were trivia that made the interviewees feel incompetent. This pop-quiz style of questions leads to off-the-cuff answers and doesn’t reflect what people will do when they are on the job.
Every hiring manager has observed the outcomes. Typically, the interview process is a 50–50 hit rate. Half are a good fit, but the other half are not what was advertised. The people who get hired are really good at the interview process, not necessarily the job. They are strong in social situations, but the interviewer really has no idea about their ability to do the job. This instills hiring regret. The new hires start with high potential and quickly lead the team to disappointment.
Rethinking The Approach
As hiring managers, why do we still do this? Even if this has been the standard over decades and an HR-enforced process, isn’t it our responsibility to change it? This process is all based on the fallacy that we, as semi-trained managers, can evaluate a person’s value to the organization after an hour-long question-and-answer session. My guess is that the top psychologists in the world couldn’t accomplish this task. Why do we think that we can? We are defaulting to a process that resembles a popularity contest. It opens us up to confirmation bias and further perpetuates our tendency to hire people like ourselves.
The time to rethink the interview process is upon us. To make an informed decision, it is pertinent for organizations to gain the best insights into how candidates would perform on the job. During a typical work interaction, most managers never call an employee into their office and grill them for answers. Mostly, managers assign work, and the employee gets a chance to digest the entire picture and complete the assignment. Knowledge work isn’t the memorization of a two-sentence answer; it is analysis, understanding, and compelling others to act.
The modern-day office has brought forward a handful of innovations into the hiring process, such as using case studies to better understand a candidate’s approach to solving problems. Another is using a blind interview process where the interviewer and interviewee cannot see one another to reduce racial bias. I propose the additional step of giving your interview questions to the candidate beforehand.
Desire for Future Talent
As a hiring manager, I want my future employees to be prepared. This mirrors work reality, and it is a more accommodating process. Those candidates who are nervous or not the quickest at thinking on their feet endure a natural disadvantage during the interview process. Their reactions don’t mean they’re not smart; they mean they need more time to think than a split second.
During the recruiting process, we are attempting to eliminate bad candidates. The job seekers looking to wing it without preparation are not the people we want to hire. Giving candidates the questions beforehand controls for great speakers who can verbalize buzzwords but have little depth or understanding. It also provides a true image of what work products you can expect in the future.
Moving forward, do your organization a favor and rethink how you approach interviews. Suggested here is one simple change that could revolutionize your hiring practices. It will bring you one step closer to bringing better talent to your organization.