What we ask, is all we know

“What you see, is all there is” 

Daniel Kahneman used this phrase to describe how our brain is wired to believe that all the relevant information we need to make a decision on any give topic, we already have. 

I think about this phrase, and it's context, most days of the week. It proves especially true when it comes to Interviewing, candidate selection, and even performance evaluations. 

So for the purposed of this article, and for my own sharpening of interview skills, I will rephrase just a bit and say "What we ask, is all we know".

How do our interviews often look? We exchange pleasantries, ask a few questions, assess the answers, and take (hopefully) a lot of notes. After we're done, we are tasked with answering the question...“Will this person be an essential value add to our company for the foreseeable future”? 

I'm exaggerating a bit, but ultimately this is what we mean we we decide "Hire or No Hire".. In its essence, it is an impossible question to answer with 100% accuracy, yet we rely on it to build our teams, grow our culture, and plan for the future.

I think this is why we hear so often “the interview process is broken”.  

Personally, I don’t often see issue with a company's process, but that the role of an interviewer in that process is misrepresented. We as a single individual; regardless of tenure, title, or experience, cannot know if someone will be successful in a particular role just by asking questions, giving a take home assignment, or hearing a presentation of our products...BUT

What we can know is if a candidate answered the questions we’ve presented to them accurately.. and with a combination of other interviewers evaluating the same way (with obviously different questions, focus areas, and assessments), we can leave the decisions of "hire or no hire" in the the hands of the leader/s of that team. 

As simple as this sounds, we are humans.. we see likenesses, differences, pet peeves, and semblance of past successes/failures in ever candidate we meet. Knowing this we need to rebalance how we give our feedback. "What we ask, is all we know".

"They didn't answer all my questions, but I've worked with people at that company, and they tend do do great"...... "What we ask, is all we know"

"I'm on the fence, they had great answer but their resume says they have limited experience" ......"What we ask, is all we know"

The best time to deal with ambiguity and concerns of being "on the fence" is when the process is being built. So, if we continue to fine craft the questions we ask, come to terms with "what we ask, is all we know", and coach leaders to how to assess "Hire or No Hire" from a wider lens.. our teams will find more confidence receiving candidate answers and in the ability to give more objective feedback.

Of course, we still won't know with 100% accuracy that someone will be successful long term at our companies, but we will have made our process more equitable for finding successful candidate and at very minimum, feel confident that all we now know about a candidate, is because of what we took the time to ask.