The interview remains the most common selection device, and tends to carry a disproportionate influence on the hiring decision. Yet the evidence is clear that, left unstructured, it is a weak predictor of who will actually succeed in the job.
Very often the candidate most skilled in interview technique is the one hired, even when they are not the right person for the role. The applicant who interviews poorly, by contrast, is likely to be eliminated regardless of experience, fit, or even references. Numerous studies, going back to Schmidt and Hunter’s landmark 1998 review of selection methods, have found that the unstructured interview predicts performance far less reliably than its dominance in hiring would suggest.
Here are five common traps that less experienced interviewers fall into.
Interviewers’ ratings are influenced by the order in which candidates are seen. When an average applicant follows one or more below-average ones, the average applicant is usually rated well above average. The same process works in reverse: an average applicant who follows a strong one is rated below average. So you had better hope you are following a dud. There is also evidence that going first or last in the shortlist can help; sit in the middle of a long shortlist and the game may be over before you start.
Interviewers tend to decide on an applicant in the first few minutes, before all the relevant information has been gathered, and then spend the rest of the interview seeking evidence that confirms that first impression. I once met a former Global Head of Fixed Income at BlackRock who, before entering a room, would summon the spirit of Jimmy Stewart: high energy, a beaming smile, bowling in and setting the room alight. It carried him all the way to the top.
Interviewers tend to weigh negative information more heavily than positive. Where an interviewer does change their mind during the interview, the shift is usually from positive to negative rather than the other way round. In most cases the interview becomes, in effect, a search for reasons to say no.
Interviewers carry overt or subconscious preconceptions about physical appearance. I once had a client reject out of hand a highly skilled Emerging Markets PM simply because he wore the three-day stubble look. Others are swayed by surface signs of composure, manner of speech and appearance (see The Warren Harding Error): it is well documented that conventionally ‘good looking’ people do better in interviews, and that the candidate a panel finds most ‘likeable’ more often than not gets the job. Some biases also work against minority groups, or in favour of candidates whose background resembles the interviewer’s own, which is an obvious diversity and inclusion pitfall, and one reason a shortlist needs more than one diverse candidate.
When interviewers are told they must make several hires, they tend to rate applicants more highly than those interviewing for a single position. Pressure to fill places lowers the threshold, so the bar for a multiple hire is often lower than for a single one.
At Godliman, we know the danger of leaning too heavily on any one part of the hiring process, and on the interview most of all. Most hires that fail do so for reasons of fit and temperament rather than technical skill, which is exactly what the interview judges least well. Our Best-Fit Assessment process subjects every candidate to a structured, three-step evaluation that roots out bias in identification and selection, and weighs fit with the hiring company alongside the skills and experience the role demands. It is one reason 79% of the candidates we have placed since 2013 are still with the same firm.
If you would like to discuss how a structured, evidence-based assessment process could take some of the guesswork, and the bias, out of your own hiring, please contact us at hello@godliman.com.
Most of what separates a good Search from a cheap one happens behind the scenes. We set out the eight invisible elements that determine whether the hire is the right one – and whether it lasts.
When just one woman is included in a candidate shortlist, her odds of being hired are, statistically, zero. Adding a second changes everything. Here is why.
