No Quick Route to Hiring Right

Fleur Perkins: Which do you want? You can have it quick or you can have it right.”

John Barnaby: How about both?

— Midsomer Murders, Season 21, Episode 1: “The Point of Balance”  

What Deputy Chief Inspector Barnaby wants—a quick path to identifying the murderer—is similar to what many managers, school principals and others in leadership positions wish for when hiring: to fill the vacancy with the right person as quickly as possible.

Barnaby wants immediate answers to his questions so he can quickly fill a vacant jail cell. What killed her? Is there DNA under her fingernails? When did she die?

The pathologist deflects each question by saying that she will know more after she  “gets back to the lab,” where she can examine the body before providing definitive responses to Barnaby’s inquiries.

When Barnaby’s impatience with the pathologist’s cautious approach becomes obvious, the pathologist responds with a question of her own: does the police officer want quick answers or does he want them to be correct?

Receiving answers that are both quick and right when investigating a crime or when hiring would be ideal, but if you can have only one, making the right decision always trumps one that is quick.

As legendary western lawman (and some historians would suggest, occasional outlaw) Wyatt Earp said, “Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything.” True during gun fights. True when hiring.

Success in detective work or in hiring comes from slow but steady progress after examining all the available evidence to make the  arrest or hire the right person. It’s not done by acting quickly.

The temptation to fill a vacancy quickly is hard to resist, particularly in the face of pressure from other staff, from clients or customers. Vacancies mean that some tasks will go undone and existing staff may be required to assume a greater workload.

Getting it wrong comes with consequences. Failing to hire the right person is the equivalent of arresting the wrong suspect. Wishing to avoid the short-term pain caused by a vacancy can lead to the long-term pain of living with a hiring mistake.

Like detectives, you want to get it right the first time.

Taking time to review the evidence gathered from resumes and during interviews and from reference checks before making a job offer is as important as taking time to examine all the clues before identifying the killer.

As we learned from Aesop’s fable of the tortoise and the hare, success can come from proceeding with caution rather than acting quickly and carelessly. Slow and steady wins the race.

Fleur Perkins gets it. Whether investigating crime or hiring staff, you must want to “have it right.”

A cautious approach when talking to strangers can lead to better hiring decisions

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.