Jerry Seinfeld once remarked that “the only difference between a job interview and a blind date is that there is a slightly higher chance you'll be naked at the end of the date – otherwise, they're not that much different." Indeed, both share a lot in common; two strangers meeting for the first time, trying to figure each other out, trying to see beyond the facade and evaluate the person.One of my Hogan colleagues just shared an interesting survey of nearly 7,000 organizations in Canada concerning their use of various selection practices. Of the organizations surveyed, 79% use interviews, 10% use a job knowledge test, and only 9% use a personality assessment.Yet, the traditional job interview is tainted by a number of factors:• Questions Used – logically, the nature of the questions asked is critical to the reliability and validity of the interview (using job-related, structured interview questions doubles validity).• Applicant Characteristics – the effect of the interviewer’s personal liking of the applicant has consistently been found to be related to interviewers’ evaluations. ("Wow, he reminds me of Uncle Billy.") Again, it has been shown that this similar-to-me effect is much less pronounced when the interview is structured and job requirements are clear. • Nonverbal Behaviors – most studies have concluded that nonverbal cues are, in fact, related to evaluations. Eye contact, head movement, smiling, hand movement, and general body posture (rigidity versus movement) are cues that are related to favorable interview decisions.• Verbal Facility – articulate and verbally-capable individuals can create strong positive impressions, leading to what communications experts call the “halo effect.” Poor or inconsistent articulation can lead to negative summations; just witness the latest debate gaffes, flubs, and lapses of memory from our current crop of presidential wannabes. • Weighting Information – it has been found that more weight is given to negative information over positive information in the interviewer’s decision, even for experienced interviewers.One of the big disadvantages of using a typical employment interview is that the interviewees are not given the chance to demonstrate the job-related skills he or she may possess. There is a glaring exception; if the interview context places the interviewee in a situation that mimics the job-related setting, then it is possible to evaluate the interviewee’s ability to handle this kind of job. This can give the interviewer a better idea of whether or not the applicant can truly perform the job.Up until 1945, National League baseball played with an ugly, unwritten rule of membership: no Black baseball players allowed. That was until Branch Rickey, general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, interviewed the great Jackie Robinson for the opportunity to be the first baseball player to break the color barrier in baseball. Rickey closely scrutinized Robinson during their first interview and solemnly warned him of the abuse, ridicule, and scorn he would receive from fans, sportswriters, and even fellow players. If he were not able to take the abuse and insults by not fighting back, then he would fail and set integration of baseball back twenty years.Robinson listened calmly and pondered Rickey's verbal picture of what life would be like for this pioneering role. Then for five minutes Robinson sat absolutely silent; Robinson thought while Rickey waited. He finally responded that he had full confidence in his ability to play in the National League without incident. Rickey hired him. Rickey was very impressed with Robinson's silent control, his obvious ability in demonstrating he would not be provoked.So whether you’re preparing for a job interview or blind date, you might heed some advice from Henry Kissinger, who once opened a press conference with this famous line, “I hope you have questions for the answers that I’ve prepared today!”
Giving Thanks and Giving Back
High Stakes Hiring
Like many people, my coworker is afraid of flying. We encourage him to take sleeping pills and try to distract him with entertaining stories during takeoff, but despite our best efforts, he usually remains anxious throughout the flight.
Because of his fear, my coworker is drawn to news stories about plane crashes and equipment malfunctions, and shares them with us as proof that his fear is legitimate. And there have been many headlines about pilot error leading to tragedy; in early 2009, a commuter plane crashed into a New York house after the pilots were mindlessly chatting and then panicked when they realized the aircraft was in trouble. More recently, a Russian passenger airplane missed the runway and crashed because the navigator was drunk.
Given all of the doom and gloom in the headlines, it’s refreshing to hear about pilots who do things right. For example, in 2009, US Airways flight 1549 famously crash-landed into the Hudson River after striking a flock of geese during takeoff. The pilot, Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, was described as “cool, calm and collected” as he maneuvered the plane into a safe landing position. Because of Sully’s focus and composure, a tragic accident was averted and all 155 people onboard survived.
Earlier this month, pilot Tadeusz Wrona safely crash-landed a passenger plane in Warsaw’s main airport after the landing gear failed to deploy. Luckily, all 230 passengers and crew members survived the belly-landing. Wrona and his crew remained vigilant and focused during the flight, immediately taking notice when the landing gear failed to open on the second attempt. After identifying the problem, the crew began to review belly-landing training guidelines while flight attendants explained emergency landing procedures to passengers. The flight crew remained calm and steady during the perilous situation, preventing hysteria from breaking out in the cabin.
When reading news stories like these, you realize the importance of the pilot’s training, skills, and personality when you board any airplane. From unsuccessful crash-landings to heroic ones, pilots’ behavior greatly affects passengers, crew members, the airline industry, and the general public (not to mention my co-worker). As such, organizations must take great care when hiring for jobs like pilots where the consequences of an unsafe decision can mean life or death.
Movember: A Proud 30 Days with a Prostache
November 1 was the official kick off to the month of Movember. For those unaware of the meaning behind this portmanteau, simply substitute the popular abbreviation for moustache “Mo”, with the first two letters of November. Some of you may already be familiar with Movember’s distant November facial hair movement “No-Shave November.” However, there are several distinct differences worth noting which make Movember (aka: Novembeard) a much worthier contender of your attention. On a facial hair spectrum, Movember is exclusively reserved for the moustache. But, ultimately, what lies behind the scenes of Movember are truly altruistic efforts through charity for cancer research and men’s health awareness.
Read More »
Scouting Out Future Leaders
No Bull, Just the Basics
Chasing Shadows to the C Suite
At the recent Conference Board in Chicago, a number of talent management professionals and consulting experts gave presentations on next-generation leadership. These discussions included a variety of topics, from recruiting generation Y and Millennial employees to social networking and overcoming the talent management gap as Baby Boomers retire. The common thread in these topics there were three recurrent questions 1) how do we develop next generation high potentials for senior leadership roles, 2) do we tell them they are high potentials, and 3) how will this impact their ability to be authentic leaders?
Read More »
Chasing Your Shadow: Leadership Brand and Derailment
Five Essentials of Execution
Self-Deception and Evolutionary Theory
I have been interested in the problem of self-deception (doing things for reasons that we don’t properly understand or acknowledge) my entire adult life. Writers as diverse as Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and JP Sartre thought self-deception was the primary source of human misery. They also argued that people should try to overcome their self-deception for moral reasons – self-deception is the cause of most bad behavior. In everyday life, self-deception most often appears as hypocrisy.
I have also been interested in evolutionary theory my entire adult life, but my views on evolutionary theory tend to depart from the conventional wisdom as set forth by John Tooby and Leda Cosmides. A central assumption of their view is that the mind is modular, that different components of the cognitive system evolved to solve different problems and that the degree to which these different mental modules communicate is an open question, and in many cases they may not.
Robert Kurzban recently published a book, Why Everyone (Else) is a Hypocrite, applying this mainstream evolutionary thinking to the problem of self-deception. Elliott Spitzer, the disgraced former Governor of New York, provides a good example of the problem. Spitzer notoriously campaigned publicly against prostitution while allegedly privately employing call girls with enthusiasm. The mainstream view of evolutionary psychology (Kurzban) explains Spitzer’s hypocrisy by arguing that his moralistic module didn’t communicate with his lust module. I think there are two problems with this argument.
First, the modular theory of the mind bears an eerie resemblance to 19th century phrenology. But more importantly, it seems wrong-headed. Karl Lashley (1890-1958) proposed what he called the law of mass action, based on a great deal of careful research on the actual workings of rats’ brains. The law of mass action maintains that the brain operates as an organized whole; specific thoughts are distributed across the brain and somehow become organized to generate appropriate solutions or behavioral responses. Lashley is generally credited with showing that the brain is much more complex than earlier researchers realized. But more importantly, it seems intuitively obvious that inputs from the various sensory systems feed into some kind of central processing unit which organizes the data, and generates appropriate responses. Otherwise, how could an organism coordinate thought and action and survive?
Second, the propensity to reflect on one’s actions and to compare them with internalized norms is an individual differences variable. People with low scores on HPI Adjustment and high scores on HPI Prudence are prone to intensive self-examination and self-criticism. People with high scores on HPI Adjustment and low scores on HPI Prudence are not prone to self-examination. Spitzer fits the second pattern to perfection.
But evolutionary theory provides a straightforward alternative account. In every social living species, cheaters or free-riders inevitably emerge. Free-riders participate in the benefits of social living – cooperation, group support, shared food – but act selfishly and contribute nothing to the welfare of the larger social group. Parenthetically, I think politicians are the free riders of democratic society. Social interaction is about impression management. Hypocrisy is the free-rider’s solution to the problem of how to endorse altruistic values while behaving selfishly. And it is worth noting that Elliott Spitzer was a career politician.