Interviews are 80% Performance Art

Imagine you are hiring for a key position.

A good looking, well dressed candidate confidently walks in on time, smiles, looks you in the eye and warmly shakes your hand. You exchange pleasantries for a few moments and you can feel yourself beginning to relax.

You think “Oh good, they seem like a great candidate!” So you might be tempted to begin talking more. You know, to get them interested in the job.

Except, of course, you don’t know a thing about them yet.

Interviewing is full of traps like these.

• We’re drawn to good looking resumes that fit our mental picture of what the resume should look like (regardless of who actually wrote that resume, or whether people from other backgrounds might be more qualified).
• We’re seduced by appearances in the interview (regardless of the fact that interviewing ability does not predict anything about the candidate’s ability to do the job).
• We’re most comfortable with people who are “like us” even though teams are strengthened by diversity.

Traditional interviews are 80% theatrics (performance art) and 20% substance–your instincts will routinely fail you unless you methodically guard against your unconscious biases. Don’t wing it.

Skilled researchers pored through 85 years of scientific literature to identify which employee selection methods were the best predictors of job performance, and they distilled it down to a few things anyone can do.

Making a Job Offer? Don’t Make This Mistake

Client emails me and says “Hey, I want to offer the job to Kathy, but I only have her salary on her past two jobs, can you get her salary from the company before that? That would be helpful to arrive at a fair compensation package for both her and us.”

Sounds pretty reasonable, right?

Except it’s not the right way to set salary.

If my client wants to retain Kathy, her past salary is irrelevant – the only factor that matters is market rate. And in this search, all the other qualified candidates were within 5% of each other in total compensation–that’s market rate. (Here is more information about how to calculate it).

If you want to attract and retain good people, take your nose out of the salary surveys, ignore individual salary histories, don’t go into an excel-spreadsheet-trance with your budget, and pay at least fair market rate. Because what Kathy earned in 2005 will not help you retain her when your competitors come calling.

Managing Expectations in the Hiring Process

Have you ever interviewed an ideal candidate, gone through a lengthy interview process, excitedly put together a job offer, expected a quick acceptance … and then you were rejected?

Of course you felt disappointed, and perhaps even embarrassed. When it comes unexpectedly, the rejection stings even more. But why does disappointment feel so bad? Neuroscience can explain why … and neuroscience also yields a few clues why your job offer might have been rejected.

It’s all about expectations.

In a recent column in the New York Times, Alina Tugend interviews David Rock, author of “Your Brain at Work.” It’s a fascinating read, but this quote really stands out:

“When we don’t hit our expectations, our brain doesn’t just get slightly unhappy, it sends out a message of danger or threat.”

Woah. When your expectations are not met, you actually feel threatened.

OK, well enough about you, now let’s talk about why your ideal candidate might have rejected you. If you are like most employers, you did not do a very good job of managing their expectations during that lengthy interview process. You left them hanging several times by not clearly communicating what your interview sequence would be, or how long things would take, or how many times they would need to come back for additional interviews. In my experience with hundreds of small to mid-size organizations, the normal interview process almost always fails to meet candidate expectations.  So your normal hiring process constantly puts your ideal candidate’s brain into danger and threat mode. No wonder they rejected your job offer.

Three years ago, one of my first blog posts was about managing candidate expectations during the interview sequence. Candidates assume that how you manage the hiring process is how you manage the organization. If employing top performers is important to you, candidates assume you’ll demonstrate it during the interview process.

What High Performing Organizations Do Differently

Imagine a problem has just occurred that will cause your company to lose $15,000 per month in revenue, and might soon cause a string of similar problems. Which solution to the problem would you choose?

Solution A) This solution has no upfront costs, but it diverts your internal resources away from their current work, takes 4 months to implement (costing $60,000 in revenue) and is projected to lose an additional $24,000 during year one, with the likelihood of continuing losses of $36,000 per year thereafter. This solution has a 50% chance of failing completely and if it does fail, it might trigger a cascade of similar problems.

Solution B) This solution has an upfront cost of $15,000 (which was not in your budget). It requires no diversion of internal resources, and takes 2 months to implement (2 months faster than Solution A). By the end of year one, Solution B will recoup the $30,000 revenue lost during its two month implementation, and is likely to generate an additional $36,000 in annual revenue thereafter. Solution B has a performance guarantee, and significantly reduces your risk of this problem cascading into other areas.

If Solution B seems like the obvious choice, let’s review what happened the last time a vital person with hard-to-find skills resigned from your firm.  Did you consider using a search firm to fill the job?  If so, did the conversation sound like this? “I hoped our HR department might be able to find someone to fill this job. We thought if we could handle the search internally, we might save money on search fees. And if HR failed, we could always hire a search firm later.” Or, perhaps your internal deliberations sounded like this? “We did not budget for any search fees, so we had to do it on our own.” Both conversations probably sound familiar, and on the surface they might even sound reasonable. But when you look carefully, you realize that that both conversations make the same four assumptions. They assume:

1. There is no cost to leaving a position vacant. There is zero cost to the lost productivity of both the employee and the team.
2. There is no risk to leaving a position vacant. Under-staffing and over-working the current team will not result in any turnover risk. Zero.
3. Any hiring process that results in a hire is just as good as any other. A hiring decision will be just as good whether you have only one candidate to consider, or a full slate of 6 qualified people.
4. Any person hired in this job will deliver equivalent results. There is no difference in productivity or performance between an “A player” and a “C player.” Zero difference.

So if all four assumptions are laughably wrong, how did you ignore them in your decision making? Research shows exactly why it happens. Recruiting costs are very easy to calculate, but it is far harder to calculate the cost of not hiring, and harder still to calculate the cost of hiring badly. When faced with that kind of complexity, busy executives look at what they do understand (recruiting costs), and ignore what they don’t understand (the cost of hiring slowly and badly). The snap decision becomes: “We can’t afford to pay a search fee.”

High performing organizations are different. Because they have specific performance targets to meet for every position, the cost of not hiring (or hiring badly) is far more obvious. So they have an easier time balancing their recruiting costs against the return on investment of making a good hire quickly.

This is exactly what our Solution A and Solution B example did for you above. With good information, the trade-offs were easy to make. It was the gathering of the information that was complex. (Which is precisely why so many people will skip the next section of this post and just read the conclusion).

It That Good Interviewing Advice or Just a Cheap Parlor Trick?

When you read advice about interviewing, it usually falls in one of these categories:

1) Self-serving studies where the study sponsored by pre-employment testing company X, shockingly, recommends you use pre-employment testing. Whatever… your eyes start to bleed in a few seconds and you can click away without much harm done.

2) An interview with a successful CEO where the journalist asks them their secret to hiring. As if you could take the hiring process used at a PR firm in New York and apply it to hiring forklift operators in Tulsa Oklahoma. While this sort of thing is amusing, it will not help make you a better interviewer. What works in one culture is irrelevant to another.

3) Thoroughly researched works that deal with the real-world complexity of hiring, and methodically track the results over time. A good example is  George Anders book, “The Rare Find.” Research this good is indeed a rare find. Read it, learn from it, wrestle with it–it’s worth it.

4) My real problem is category four. The stuff that sounds like science, and may even be decent science–but is not grounded in any kind of hiring process. People who have not rigorously worked on their hiring process gravitate to this stuff, like a “magic bean”–a panacea for all that ails their hiring process. But when you put it in practice, you find it’s just a parlor trick.  Here are a couple examples that people sent me this month:

One article says not to lean to the left when negotiating your salary. Pish posh. Interviewing is not a game of Twister. You’ll tie yourself in knots trying to pay attention to this stuff.

Watch the video below and you will think that giving someone a hot or cold beverage will influence your opinion of them (Hint: if you are interviewing, go for the hot beverage):

This stuff is ridiculous. If you want better hiring results, ignore the parlor tricks and focus your interview process on the factors that really do predict job performance.