When you were a child, your mother may have cautioned you about talking to strangers. That was good advice then, and it’s good advice today when you have a vacancy to fill.
Almost everyone you interview will be a stranger, as those you contact when checking references will be, too. When making your hiring decisions, be careful about believing everything these strangers tell you.
All may not be as it seems.
In his 2019 book Talking to Strangers Canadian writer Malcolm Gladwell identifies two reasons we are so often wrong about the people we encounter: defaulting to the truth and transparency.
We default to the truth by tending to take at face value what people tell us, even if we should know better.
He cites several examples of people believing what they wanted to believe, rather than proceeding with caution. One of the most notable examples occurred in 1939 when British prime minister Neville Chamberlain returned from a meeting with Adolf Hitler with a document signed by both leaders that Chamberlain believed guaranteed “peace in our time.”
As the world would soon learn, Chamberlain had been deceived by the German leader.
Like Chamberlain who wanted to believe Hitler, we want to believe what candidates tell us during interviews and what we hear from strangers when checking references.
We would make better hiring decisions if we exercised a bit more skepticism.
Books, films and television portray police as skeptical by nature about what they hear during investigations, as illustrated by this dialogue from the British TV series Midsomer Murders:
DS Jamie Winter: You think it was the killer?
DCI John Barnaby: Maybe, or maybe Lena made up the whole story to throw us off the scent.
Winter: You think she’s lying?
Barnaby: I think she is holding back.
Winter: Why would she do that?
Barnaby: To protect herself or someone else.
(Season 19, Episode 2: “Crime and Punishment”)
We would do well to follow Barnaby’s cautious approach when we are gathering evidence on which to base hiring decisions.
Gladwell uses the TV show Friends to illustrate the concept of transparency, which refers to our tendency to judge people against what we consider to be “acceptable norms” in terms of both appearance and behaviour, which we believe provides insight into their beliefs and values.
The actors on the show were very demonstrative in showing their feelings. He writes, “I think you can probably follow along even if you turn off the sound.”
Gladwell also cites examples of judges deciding whether to grant prisoners bail based on their demeanors. The accused who appears remorseful is more likely to be granted bail.
Continuing within the context of criminal trials, it is common to hear and read about defendants who “show no emotion” when convicted and sentenced, as if reporters can tune into their thoughts from across a courtroom.
What the judges in Gladwell’s book and journalists covering trials are doing is judging strangers against what they consider would be acceptable behaviour under the circumstances.
The problem with this approach to understanding people is that individuals react differently to situations. Not everyone wears their heart on their sleeve. Few of us are as demonstrative as the characters on Friends.
“There is no perfect mechanism … for any of the rest of us to peer, clairvoyantly, inside the minds of those we don’t know,” Gladwell writes. “What is required of us is restraint and humility. We can put up barriers on bridges to make it more difficult for the momentary impulse to become permanent.”
When hiring, it’s important to avoid making hiring decisions based on first impressions, which is one of the 13 reasons managers are “unlucky” when making hiring decisions.
“There are clues to making sense of a stranger. But attending to them requires care and attention,” Gladwell writes. “The right way to talk to strangers is with caution and humility.”
Doing so will improve the odds of hiring the right person to fill vacant positions.
brieflynotedonline.wordpress.com 