Secret Interview Tests Make Big Inferences From Small Acts

Assessing the true nature and character of prospective team members is never easy.

To cut through the red tape of interview noise, some leaders rely upon secret tests to evaluate whether people possess the values and character they seek in an ideal candidate.

They use undercover trials to make big inferences, often eliminating or accepting a candidate based upon their passing or failing the test.

One CEO rejects any candidate who does not clear their coffee cup after using it, indicating that they leave menial tasks to others.

Another leader eliminates any candidate who salts their food before tasting it (because they are making a decision before knowing the facts).

Another leader follows each candidate to their car to observe how messy it is. They surmise that an unkempt vehicle is a sign of an unkempt and lazy mind.

Yet another leader will not hire any candidate who sits at the head of the table, presuming they are status-conscious and not team players. The list goes on and on.

On the one hand, it seems logical that experienced leaders would rely upon secret tests to help them evaluate who people really are. They realize eager candidates are putting their best foot forward during actual interviews.

Making inferences from small acts is something all good decision-makers do. But eliminating a candidate based upon a simple act, gesture, or choice borders on the ridiculous.

Every scrap of data about a prospective team member should be used in the final calculus about whether they are a good fit and hire. But over-indexing on a secret tell or sign turns a serious interview process into an absurd act of poor decision-making.

There are a host of sound secret tests all leaders might consider using. Some examples:

• Observing candidates in social and not just formal situations and activities.

• Scrutinizing a candidate’s social media for indications of a lack of professionalism.

• Asking unexpected and provocative questions that require candidates to think on their feet.

• Requesting candidates display their skills and talents on the spot by performing some of the tasks they would be required to do in the job.

Good leaders may even employ one of the idiosyncratic tests popularized by news profiles of eccentric leaders, like whether they defer to others to select the wine at a restaurant or offer to pick up the tab at an interview lunch.

But they don’t view the responses as a litmus test for selection. They incorporate every piece of data into the decision-making process without making wild or unfounded inferences from any one act.

Leaders who cling to farcical secret tests to determine who should be eliminated from consideration lack the objectivity needed to accurately assess candidates.

Their experience may point strongly to a particular inference being the solution to the team’s poor selection record, but in reality, it only makes hiring more of a coin toss.

If leaders are going to put people to the test, as they should, they need to use many reasonable examples that reveal the complete portrait of a candidate.

Let’s be wary of the leader who is only interested in asking a candidate to describe everything in their briefcase or handbag so they may draw an inference about sloppy or organized thinking.

They may think they have landed on a secret portal into the mind of a candidate, but all they have really done is show they are comically bad at making talent decisions.