Hope should not be a basis for hiring decisions

Hope should not be a basis for hiring decisions

I don’t think of myself as a pessimist, but perhaps I am if pessimism is the opposite of the optimism shown by some managers when hiring. They have inadequate information about the candidates’ past performance and therefore must base their hiring decisions merely on the hope that everything will turn out right. Too often, it doesn’t.

Hope is the word that came to mind as I reviewed a list of questions that were asked when interviewing to fill a vacant support staff position. What did I think of them? 

I thought they covered the right topics and I liked that they had identified criteria by which to assess the candidates’ responses. What I didn’t like was how the questions were asked—a typical office scenario was followed by,  “How would you respond?” or “How do you proceed?”

 The only questions that alluded to the candidates’ past performance were the first ones, which asked candidates to reflect on how their training and experience had prepared them for the job for which they were applying and about their familiarity with a software program used in the office.

Most of the interview script consisted of “what if?” questions which invite candidates to answer with how they hope they would respond if dropped into the scenario. If their response fits the criteria, the interviewer may hire them and hope that the new employee will behave as described during the interview.

Asked what they would do if approached by an angry customer, candidates could potentially respond with how they hope they would deal with the situation, how they hope they would be consistent with how they were trained to deal angry customers, or how they hope the interviewer would want them to respond.

But without evidence about how they have dealt with an angry customer in the past, how can the interviewer know how they will deal with a similar situation? Have they ever responded in the way they would hope to respond in the future?

A far better inquiry would ask the candidates to describe a time when they dealt with an angry customer.

Leaders should not dwell in a world of hope when hiring. Candidates (and their references) should be required to provide evidence of how they have performed in the past. Have they done the right things in the right way? 

If they have, the interviewer will have reason to be hopeful that this is the right person to hire and to be optimistic about that decision.

==

During Interview Right to Hire Right workshops, participants create questions to determine if candidates have done the right things in the right way, making them the right people to hire. Contact Nelson (email: nmscott@telus.net or phone/text: 780-232-3828) to schedule an  Interview Right to Hire Right workshop for your leadership team or to learn more.

Barack Obama’s unintended advice for hiring interviews

“I don’t know what’s in his mind and what’s in his heart. What I can say is that his rhetoric has often-times tapped into themes that have been used in this country for years in order to block the full participation of African Americans in our country’s lives. He is more than happy to fan racist sentiments.”

In this assessment of his successor, former US president Barack Obama provided some unintended insight into how we should conduct interviews.

He was responding to a question from Matt Galloway, the host of CBC radio’s The Current during an interview on November 22, 2020: “Do you think that Donald Trump is a racist?”

In the context of a hiring interview—or a reference check—Galloway’s question was the equivalent of asking, “What would you do if … ?”

From “what-if” questions, we may learn what candidates think they may do under the circumstance the interview described, without saying what they have done.

Poor hiring decisions are the result of interviewers’ beliefs that candidates will do what they say they will do, rather than seeking evidence of their past behaviour.

The purpose of interviews and reference checks is to uncover evidence of what the candidate has done—information that you require to be able to predict what the candidate would do if hired. The adage that, “Past performance is the best predictor of future performance,” should not be ignored.

How Obama answered Galloway’s question was to move beyond assumptions about Trump’s beliefs and motivation. He shared his observations about the soon-to-be-former president’s behaviour.

As an interviewer, you should ask candidates to describe what they have done and ask references to share what they have witnessed. What’s important are your conclusions formed by what you hear about candidates’ past performance during interview and reference checks, not what candidates say they will do or references’ assessments of their personalities and performance.

Most poor hiring decisions are based on assumptions of what the candidate would do based on what interviewers understanding of “what’s in his mind and what’s in his heart.”

Post-interview discussions among panels who rely on their perception of candidates’ personality, beliefs and intentions include such comments as, “I like him. He seems like a great guy. I’m sure others would like working with him and he would do a great job.”

The candidate may be a great guy and have a great personality, but what evidence is there to support the assumption that he will do a great job? 

There is none, unless the interviewer asks the candidate to describe a time he dealt with an upset customer or resolved a conflict with a co-worker.

Another panel member might observe that, “She has some really good ideas about she would do if she had deal with student who misbehaved or how she would prioritize tasks if there were several demands on her time. If she does what she says she would do, she will become one of our top performers.”

Maybe … or maybe not. 

As Obama illustrated in discussing Trump, the best way to judge someone is to look at what they have done and assess this behaviour against what you would expect of a new staff member.

In Obama’s mind, and likely that of many Americans, “fan[ning] racist sentiments” is not the behaviour you would want from a president.

Previous articles that attempted to draw parallels between elections and hiring have focused on judging politicians based on their track records in the same way we should assess job applicants based on what they have done and not on what they would do. 

You can’t expect to hire—or elect—the right people if you base decisions on their personalities or what they say they would do if hired. You must ask questions to learn about what they have done in previous jobs and decide who to hire based on that evidence. 

Is how they performed in the past consistent with how you want them to perform in the future if hired?

Caution: Job candidates may say what they “would do,” rather than describe what they “have done”

Even if you follow the advice I provide and ask questions about past performance, candidates can still sabotage the interview, often without intending to do so.

Here’s how it happens:

You ask the candidate to “ describe a time when several people and tasks required your attention.” 

The candidate responds by describing what they might do if there were several demands on his time.

The candidate has just taken your behaviour description question and turned it into a “what-would-you-do-if” type of question (“What would you do if several people and tasks required your attention?”)

That this happens is hardly surprising. Jobseekers are future-focused—they are thinking about what they will do if hired.

There are three ways in which candidates may respond to the “what-if” questions substituted for your BDI question:

• Describe what they think they would do
• Describe what their training says they should do
• Describe what the candidates thinks you (the “boss”) would want them to do

No matter how candidates answer, they never have to lie to you, because the actions being described are what they believe they would do.

What they say may be exactly what you hope members of your staff would do, but something is missing. There is no evidence that the candidates have actually done what is being described and have done so successfully.

The purpose of interviews and reference checks is to gather evidence about past performance which you can use to predict what the candidate will do if hired.

This reflects the principle underlying Behaviour Description Interviewing: past performance is the best predictor of future performance.

To gather high-quality information about their past performance, you must discourage responses filled with promises of what the candidate will do.

One way to reduce the number of “what-if” responses you receive is to begin the interview by explaining how you expect the candidate to respond to your questions:

“The process we are using today is called Behaviour Description Interviewing, or BDI. We will be asking you to recall specific, work-related circumstances or events. In your response, tell us when and where these events occurred, what the situation was, what action you took and what the results were. Don’t feel that you have to go into great detail. If we need more information, we will ask.”

This isn’t a guarantee that you’ll never hear future-focused responses. So, be prepared to refocus the conversation on past performance. Interrupt to remind the candidate that you want to hear examples of what he or she did in previous work situations.

Another approach is to allow candidates to finish describing what they would do before asking them to describe a time when they did what was just described.

“Your description of what you believe you would do if there were several demands on your time was interesting. Now, could you provide an example of a time when you used this approach in a work situation?”

By maintaining a focus on past performance, you are able to gather evidence on which to base your hiring decision. By learning what the candidate has done in the past, you are better able predict what he or she will do in the future. It’s your predictions about how candidates will perform, and not the candidates’ promises of how they would perform, that must guide your hiring decision.

Related Article: The most dangerous questions interviewers ask

Suggested Action: The next time you interview, beware of the tendency of candidates to shift the focus from past performance to what they think they would do if hired. Use the scripts included in this article to prevent conversations becoming future-focused or to refocus the conversation if this happens.

Participants in my Interview Right to Hire Right workshops practise different techniques to respond when the candidate takes the conversation off-track. Email nmscott@telus.net or call (780)232-3828 to learn more, or to schedule training for those responsible for making hiring decisions.