Hiring People Based On Interviews Is Stupid And Counterproductive
When I've hired assistants, I've looked at writing (very important) and talked to them on the phone about a few things (like about how edited their writing was by another person).
When we talk, my main purpose is really to tell them what the job entails and to see whether that might be a problem for them. (For example, if you are a feminist and cling fervently to po-mo theory, you probably won't be happy working for me.)
However, the main judgment that goes into giving an assistant the job is a test of their editing skills and how we work together.
I do the test in a day, for which I pay the person, and then there is a trial period, in which they can decide, "Whoa, you're nuts," and/or "This is too hard." And no hard feelings.
It turns out that the interview as a way to hire people is a pretty counterproductive way to go about it. Personality psychologist Jason Dana writes in The New York Times:
People who study personnel psychology have long understood this. In 1979, for example, the Texas Legislature required the University of Texas Medical School at Houston to increase its incoming class size by 50 students late in the season. The additional 50 students that the school admitted had reached the interview phase of the application process but initially, following their interviews, were rejected. A team of researchers later found that these students did just as well as their other classmates in terms of attrition, academic performance, clinical performance (which involves rapport with patients and supervisors) and honors earned. The judgment of the interviewers, in other words, added nothing of relevance to the admissions process.Research that my colleagues and I have conducted shows that the problem with interviews is worse than irrelevance: They can be harmful, undercutting the impact of other, more valuable information about interviewees.
In one experiment, we had student subjects interview other students and then predict their grade point averages for the following semester. The prediction was to be based on the interview, the student's course schedule and his or her past G.P.A. (We explained that past G.P.A. was historically the best predictor of future grades at their school.) In addition to predicting the G.P.A. of the interviewee, our subjects also predicted the performance of a student they did not meet, based only on that student's course schedule and past G.P.A.
In the end, our subjects' G.P.A. predictions were significantly more accurate for the students they did not meet. The interviews had been counterproductive.
Much more at the link.
via @cfchabris
I have read accounts (some on this site, I think) about people who have done things at interviews such as bring their mothers to negotiate or their lunch to eat during the interview. I have interviewed a guy who showed up wearing sweat pants for a job in a hotel.
Sometime the interview lets you weed out the undesirables.
Steamer at April 11, 2017 9:03 AM
Sometimes the statistics don't tell the whole story. As Steamer points out, sometimes you gotta meet the person face to face to get an accurate picture of a potential hire.
And Dana's study measured performance in school, not the working world. GPA does not predict performance on the job. GPA can be highly relevant in evaluating future school performance, but it can fall short in evaluating on-the-job performance.
Conan the Grammarian at April 11, 2017 10:37 AM
Do away w/the perception that interviews are the way to get hired and how many minorities will get a chance w/WASPs? You think the 'ole boy's club was a 'miss'? (think Kermit saying myth)
Bob in Texas at April 11, 2017 11:39 AM
I agree that interviews may not be the greatest at choosing between two desirable candidates, but they're great at weeding people out.
We had a candidate (who was great on paper) treat our receptionist horribly (and not in an "oops I was nervous and said something stupid" way). We've had people arrive hours late without apologizing.
When I interview candidates, I rarely ask about skills, but use the opportunity to chat, answer their questions, and see if they're a total asshole.
sofar at April 11, 2017 12:02 PM
Interviews work both ways. The interview is also a chance for the interviewee to gauge the company, to see if this is a place he/she wants to work. To see if these are people alongside of whom he/she wants to work. To see what the duties of the job are and what the work environment is like. Not a perfect way, but better than he/she will get through e-mails and phone conversations.
Conan the Grammarian at April 11, 2017 12:10 PM
For starters, students interviewing other students to judge their future grades is a horrible test. I understand that resources are limited, but no wonder they got terrible results. Two, what everyone else is saying. An interview is useful to weed out people who look good on paper and fail in person. It doesn't weed out all the failures and it does weed out some great people. But that is life. No test is perfect.
Honestly, until someone has been on the job doing the work I never really know if they can do it or are just blowing smoke. I had one guy I worked with who scored the absolute best on any of the technician tests of anyone who applied at the company (myself included). But he had some sort of mental issue. As long as the question was presented in the format a textbook presented it he could do it. Any variation and he was lost. I gotta say that most real world problems don't come in textbook format. I worked with another guy who looked great on paper and interviewed like a dream, but he was worthless. Just couldn't get anything done. I have no idea how to weed people like that out before hiring.
In the end that is why it is important to be able to fire people. If you can't fire them you can't take the risk to hire them.
Ben at April 11, 2017 12:14 PM
An exception would be a salesperson. When I used to hire sakespeople, the only thing that mattered was the interview. I knew within 5 minutes if they would be a fit. The resume was just to see what their background was like before I brought them in for an interview.
David H at April 11, 2017 2:17 PM
Since I decided to become self-employed I no longer have to deal with interviews, thank God. When I start a job for a new client, I call it "an audition"!
The one thing I've especially hated at interviews was being asked "What are your goals?" It's a sure sign the person doesn't know how to conduct a meaningful interview. My own goals are none of your business.
I've realized, that question needs to be turned around, and ask the interviewer what goals he expects me to achieve on the job. If he can't give me a good answer, it means he doesn't have an advancement plan. It's also a good way to torpedo an interview for a sucky job.
jefe at April 11, 2017 2:51 PM
The Federal government basically forbids anything but telephone interviews.
It hasn't improved anything.
Blind hiring based on paper resumes has gotten them people who look good on paper.
Isab at April 11, 2017 2:52 PM
"undercutting the impact of other,"
NO Goddammit! The word is effect!
Steven Daniels at April 11, 2017 3:49 PM
Last week, HR asked me to sit in on an interview. I declined. Just find me people who can read and follow instructions. I don't care about experience. I want people that work efficiently and effectively.
Cat at April 11, 2017 7:09 PM
Sofar wrote:
I agree that interviews may not be the greatest at choosing between two desirable candidates, but they're great at weeding people out.
Agreed. I hire this way:
1. Resumes and cover letters. I classify each applicant as green, yellow or red and ask my two most senior employees to do the same.
2. Three greens means an interview. Two greens and a yellow get discussed and possibly invited in.
3. Short interviews, with HR in the room.
4. Either one person stands out completely, or we lineup two or three finalists for a final meeting.
I don't think I could hire without significant in-person interaction. That said, we had one hire who was young but obviously had a brilliant career ahead of her. She got hired away by a New York firm after two years.
They hired her based on a 5-minute Skype interview, so there you go. Everyone is different.
Kevin at April 11, 2017 8:32 PM
In none of the hireings I have been involved has there been a good source of information about previous work like the GPA in the example. The one horrible time I was assigned to follow up on experience etc-- well, it turns out every one was good -- I got no specifics at all on any candidates.
So the study is not comparable to the working environment.
A closer one would be to ask teacher/professors what grade a student would get in a class they teach.
The Former Banker at April 11, 2017 9:46 PM
I was once told that the main purpose of a job interview is to see that the interviewee: (1) shows up on time, (2) took a shower before coming in, (3) is dressed in a not-totally-outrageous manner, and (4) doesn't sass the interviewer. You'd be surprised how many interviewees don't pass these four tests.
Cousin Dave at April 12, 2017 6:56 AM
If he can't give me a good answer, it means he doesn't have an advancement plan. It's also a good way to torpedo an interview for a sucky job.
I've dodged a few bullets because the interviewer didn't like how I answered a dumb question.
I had one interviewer ask me, not five minutes into the interview, "Are you willing to bond and socialize with coworkers outside work hours?"
I asked if I would be expected to do so.
He told me my "retort" showed I wouldn't be a good fit, because the company was "like family." I recall speed-walking out of that building.
sofar at April 12, 2017 11:28 AM
Leave a comment