Tonight I was watching a program on SBS, ‘Foolproof equations for a perfect life,’ a look at the decision making process and the human brain. The show itself was interesting and engaging on a number of levels. The show had a couple of experiments which highlighted potential pitfalls of the interview process in bringing about objective and rational hiring decisions.
The first was a couple of Scandinavian academics from Harvard who ran an experiment showing the subject pictures of two different faces. They were then asked to select which face they preferred and to say a few words as to why they made this decision. They were then given the card of the face they selected, or so they thought. Now and then they would be slipped the card of the face they did not select. None of the subjects said anything to the contrary and went on to explain why they selected the card, even if it was not the card they selected. The deduction being that we all post rationalize our inconsistent bad decisions! So what does this mean for the interview process, be it for the interview or the interviewee? Taking this even further with a panel interview or an interview process that involves a number of stages and interviewees – do we go along with the most senior person’s decision about the interviewees to keep our jobs and to fit it be in consciously or unconsciously?
The second experiment was one that sounds ludicrous yet was incredibly consistent. A group of subjects each separately met with and had a brief chat with a guy. Prior to the chat they were given a hot beverage to drink. After chatting with the guy in a room, they were asked by the person running the experiment if they would hire him. All three subjects had a resounding yes and spoke positively about the guy. A new group of subjects were brought in and were all given a cold beverage to drink and hold before the meeting with the same guy. Again after the meeting the same person running the experiment asked them if they would hire the guy, the responses were all negative, with a definite no from one guy. The deduction being that when interviewing, if someone has a hot beverage before meeting or during meeting with you they are more inclined to view you more favorably than those who have a cold beverage. One is therefore provoked to question the randomness of the interview selection process. Are we selecting the best person for the job or is it a series of random events! What are your thoughts be it as an interviewer or interviewee?
Kelly Magowan
2 Comments
The last question is very interesting. When I was doing my first sales training, I was told that all buying decisions were, finally, subjective. The logic was that apparent objective reasons were used to justify the subjective decision, so that it appeared that the decision was objective. Human nature being what it is, this hypothesis is quite attractive. As hiring decisions are fundamentally buying decisions, perhaps the same applies. It’s always challenging for the candidate to interpret what the hirer is really after, and how much the hirer is influenced by subjective matters.
When hiring I always have a hot tea or coffee, so I guess I am treating all candidates fairly.
On the other hand, when applying for a position I now have to figure out how to persuade the interviewer to have a nice hot cuppa!