We have a company here in Kingsport, a fast food restaurant, the only one in the country to win the Malcom Baldridge award twice, that does the same. For the interview they tell you what parking space and what door to enter. Then they send a representative out the other door to inspect your car. Nasty car.....no job. I love it!!
That’s interesting, Randall. What do you think the symbolic display is between a restaurant and what they’re looking for in the spot check of the car? Is it cleanliness?
Nice article. Great message. I believe that we all use our judgments to filter out the noise based on our experience. The better leaders have fine-tuned this to what is truly needed; the not-so-great leaders are typically just selecting a version of themselves they prefer. Back in my HR days, when I was involved in hiring at a medium-sized factory, and Monster was gaining momentum, to give a time reference, I would sometimes sit in the lobby dressed like a typical applicant and observe the people as they waited for their interview. I would learn more relevant information in 5 minutes of doing that than I would in an hour of interviewing them.
This was back in the days of paper applications, when you had to fill them out on the spot. I found that some people were not prepared and had to leave to fill them out; some were unhappy about having to fill them out; and some people quietly did what they were told. I found that those who were disappointed about filling out the application process did not work out well in the factory, as following a mundane process is what a factory is all about. Now, if I were hiring someone in a leadership role, it would be the opposite. Different skill set.
Curious how you use your judgment and observation to filter out some of the noise?
Interesting that you tracked it. Clearly you didn't want this to be anecdotal evidence based on your preferences. When conducting it like an experiment you were able to see if your pass/fail hunches actually proved out.
That might be the best filter against the noise... Test.
This reminds me of the famed Stanford Marshmallow Experiment, in which preschool-aged children were offered a choice between eating one marshmallow now or waiting 15 minutes and receiving two marshmallows instead.
Years later, the researchers followed up with the participants, and claimed that the children who delayed gratification demonstrated better emotional coping and stress tolerance, had better SAT scores, described by their parents as "more competent," and had lower rates of substance abuse.
The study has often been held up as scientific evidence of virtue.
Not everybody bought it. In 2018, a study was published that showed that the long-term impacts of delayed gratification were much smaller when controlling for socioeconomic status, home environment, and parental education. The ability to delay gratification, it turned out, could be influenced by the level of trust children had in adults and their environment.
The Marshmallow Experiment conclusions turned out to be complex and heavily dependent on context.
Small and seemingly inconsequential choices may or may not reveal deep truths about values, priorities, and future behavior.
Is my car a mess because I'm a slob who can't be trusted? Or is it because I have a one-year-old who snacks messily in the backseat and I drove through the mud on my way to a run this morning?
True - but in your specific line of work, some things might be unquestionably corollary.
In you practice, Dr T. if you discovered (somehow) that a person you were hiring as vet assistant didn't keep up with their own pets vaccinations and heart worm - would that be a pass/fail for you?
I think it would depend on why, right? If it was because they thought vaccines caused canine autism and heartworm prevention is government mind control, then that's a hard line we've crossed.
But if it's because they've been out of work for a while or that their dog has terrible reactions to ivermectin, then maybe I don't mind so much.
I recall reading (in an excellent leadership publication, on December 15th, 2024) that good leaders may employ one of the idiosyncratic interview tests, but that they don't view the responses as a litmus test. And "eliminating a candidate," as Knaus is said to have done, "based upon a simple act, gesture, or choice borders on the ridiculous."
I think the reality is probably that these things get highlighted, often in hindsight or by way of explanation or justification, as the story of "why not," when they're really part of an overall assessment. Good leaders easily distinguish between pattern recognition and lazy decision-making.
And perhaps I'm just sensitive because I know I don't keep my car as clean as I used to. ;)
We have a company here in Kingsport, a fast food restaurant, the only one in the country to win the Malcom Baldridge award twice, that does the same. For the interview they tell you what parking space and what door to enter. Then they send a representative out the other door to inspect your car. Nasty car.....no job. I love it!!
That’s interesting, Randall. What do you think the symbolic display is between a restaurant and what they’re looking for in the spot check of the car? Is it cleanliness?
Responsibility!
Nice article. Great message. I believe that we all use our judgments to filter out the noise based on our experience. The better leaders have fine-tuned this to what is truly needed; the not-so-great leaders are typically just selecting a version of themselves they prefer. Back in my HR days, when I was involved in hiring at a medium-sized factory, and Monster was gaining momentum, to give a time reference, I would sometimes sit in the lobby dressed like a typical applicant and observe the people as they waited for their interview. I would learn more relevant information in 5 minutes of doing that than I would in an hour of interviewing them.
Thanks for sharing Andrew. Did symbolic gestures take on repetitive significance for you? What did you find yourself looking for while you sat there?
This was back in the days of paper applications, when you had to fill them out on the spot. I found that some people were not prepared and had to leave to fill them out; some were unhappy about having to fill them out; and some people quietly did what they were told. I found that those who were disappointed about filling out the application process did not work out well in the factory, as following a mundane process is what a factory is all about. Now, if I were hiring someone in a leadership role, it would be the opposite. Different skill set.
Curious how you use your judgment and observation to filter out some of the noise?
Interesting that you tracked it. Clearly you didn't want this to be anecdotal evidence based on your preferences. When conducting it like an experiment you were able to see if your pass/fail hunches actually proved out.
That might be the best filter against the noise... Test.
If you're the employer, and you see my two car seats and toys strewn about the floor, do you not give me the job?
In this hypothetical, are you applying to be part of a NASCAR pit crew?
Yes, I want to be Brad Pitt in F1 :)
What is the job in question? The recommendation is not that the pass/fail is always about clean cars.
This reminds me of the famed Stanford Marshmallow Experiment, in which preschool-aged children were offered a choice between eating one marshmallow now or waiting 15 minutes and receiving two marshmallows instead.
Years later, the researchers followed up with the participants, and claimed that the children who delayed gratification demonstrated better emotional coping and stress tolerance, had better SAT scores, described by their parents as "more competent," and had lower rates of substance abuse.
The study has often been held up as scientific evidence of virtue.
Not everybody bought it. In 2018, a study was published that showed that the long-term impacts of delayed gratification were much smaller when controlling for socioeconomic status, home environment, and parental education. The ability to delay gratification, it turned out, could be influenced by the level of trust children had in adults and their environment.
The Marshmallow Experiment conclusions turned out to be complex and heavily dependent on context.
Small and seemingly inconsequential choices may or may not reveal deep truths about values, priorities, and future behavior.
Is my car a mess because I'm a slob who can't be trusted? Or is it because I have a one-year-old who snacks messily in the backseat and I drove through the mud on my way to a run this morning?
Edit: It could be all of those things!
True - but in your specific line of work, some things might be unquestionably corollary.
In you practice, Dr T. if you discovered (somehow) that a person you were hiring as vet assistant didn't keep up with their own pets vaccinations and heart worm - would that be a pass/fail for you?
I think it would depend on why, right? If it was because they thought vaccines caused canine autism and heartworm prevention is government mind control, then that's a hard line we've crossed.
But if it's because they've been out of work for a while or that their dog has terrible reactions to ivermectin, then maybe I don't mind so much.
I recall reading (in an excellent leadership publication, on December 15th, 2024) that good leaders may employ one of the idiosyncratic interview tests, but that they don't view the responses as a litmus test. And "eliminating a candidate," as Knaus is said to have done, "based upon a simple act, gesture, or choice borders on the ridiculous."
I think the reality is probably that these things get highlighted, often in hindsight or by way of explanation or justification, as the story of "why not," when they're really part of an overall assessment. Good leaders easily distinguish between pattern recognition and lazy decision-making.
And perhaps I'm just sensitive because I know I don't keep my car as clean as I used to. ;)
Love this concept.
I was always told by my Grandmother that you can judge someone by how well they look after their shoes. 👞
And by the same token that Knaus does cars I was always intrigued by how well their shoes were or how well they were looked after.
I was always told by my Grandmother that you can judge someone by how well they look after their shoes. 👞
And by the same token that Knaus does cars I was always intrigued by how well their shoes were or how well they were looked after.
I was always told by my Grandmother that you can judge someone by how well they look after their shoes. 👞
And by the same token that Knaus does cars I was always intrigued by how well their shoes were or how well they were looked after.
Would you aspire to be on a NASCAR pit crew?