Interviewing and Hiring

“Death by interview” is the harsh but unfortunately all-too accurate name that I give to the majority of corporate interview processes because of the way that they literally abuse candidates.

In my experience people worry far too much about fundamentally respectful things like asking tough questions, including lots of people in the interview sequence and doing smart work sample testing. Conversely, people worry far too little about actually disrespectful things like allowing vague performance expectations, running a sloppy interview sequence, and not providing candidates information about where they stand in the process.

If you want to hire exceptional HR talent for your organization, look for people who have handled these kinds of issues. 

A recent study on what makes a person successful in a job interview found that narcissists do much better than non-narcissists. Apparently, the tendency to promote oneself, by engaging and speaking at length, aggressiveness, and using ingratiation tactics such as smiling, gesturing, and complimenting others, gets interpreted as confidence and expertise, which impresses interviewers. Even trained interviewers...

First of two parts By Dr. John Sullivan What’s wrong with corporate job interviews? Pretty much everything. Interviews are the second most used and “flawed” tool in HR (right after performance appraisals).

When interviewing, hiring executives usually place huge emphasis on a candidate's track record of achievement. But they often overlook the context of that achievment. 

This article brilliantly outlines what psychologists call “the fundamental attribution error”—our tendency to ignore context and attribute an individual’s success or failure solely to their inherent personal qualities.

Understanding the environment that helped shape a candidate's success or failure is one of the most important lessons to learn in hiring. 

Consider the impact of our social economy on recruiting new employees and professional development. Given a choice of hiring an expert with a high IQ or a generalist with a high Klout score (a measure of social influence), whom do you hire? Or does it depend upon the task? In sales and marketing roles, the extent of one’s personal and professional network along with his or her influence score should be considered. Shouldn’t it?

What is the right balance between intelligence and social connectivity? From an innovation perspective, this difference is very significant. In fact, it can mean the difference between success and failure.

When we are deciding who to hire, promote, or do business with, it turns out that we don’t like the Big Thing nearly as much as we like the Next Big Thing. We have a bias - one that operates below our conscious awareness - leading us to prefer the potential for greatness over someone who has already achieved it.

When human brains come across uncertainty, they tend to pay attention to information more because they want to figure it out, which leads to longer and more in-depth processing. High-potential candidates make us think harder than proven ones do

I'm often asked about the utility of interviewing candidates in groups--like a cattle-call. I always recommend against them. This author was more open minded, but  he does make 4 strong points about what you must consider before you try group interviews. (Bear in mind, I am a fan of panel interviews--several people interviewing one candidate. But doing a cattle-call interview is not appropriate for most hiring situations). 

You need a top-notch team to do your best work--but you need to hire them first. Here's half a dozen common ways managers shoot themselves in the human-resources foot.

Deciders have such a firmly rooted belief in their ability to shape the events more than events shape them, that they aren’t afraid to make decisions. That simple willingness to make a call gives them a tremendous advantage that snowballs throughout their life.

Employee compensation is probably your largest budget line item. It's also a significant component in your ability to attract people who drive business results. Yet many organizations don't think about compensation strategically. Here is how to start that conversation.

I've long said that salary surveys are a poor way to set a salary target for hiring. Apparently I'm not alone. According to a 2010 survey of Mercer clients, 72% of the executives said the focus in the future would be placed more on paying for critical skills and less on market comparisons