I’ve run into this nonsense before. Another one is rejecting candidates because they used a word you don’t like in their application. I worked with someone who refused to interview anyone who wrote they were “passionate.”
Not only do these silly tests say more about the interviewer than the candidate, but they are reflective of overall wrongheaded thinking about hiring. Good managers don’t try to eliminate or “whittle down” candidates. Instead they give them the opportunity to shine.
Interesting to see all of this written down. I think we're making judgements about people all of the time, whether we acknowledge them or not. Who's polite to the receptionist, who clears the coffee cup. Even if we don't make it an explicit and formal part of an interview, we're doing it anyway. Humans are like that!
Do you think there might ever be a time where a particular random social faux pas should be disqualifying to a candidate?
Does an organizational culture have the freedom to generate something silly that matters to them that way -- or should those kinds of tendencies always be struck down?
Should be? I think they already are. Whether consciously or unconsciously I think they already are.
I talk a lot about behaviour modelling and how leaders have to live and breathe what they expect to see in their organisations. Culture is simply the behaviour of individuals that happens in organisations (ie encouraged, rewarded, tolerated, prevented). We can write all of this down and we can have leaders put these behaviours in to practice. But we can’t get away from the reality of human nature. What we can do is raise awareness of biases so that people realise they have the choice in whether to question them or irrationally follow them or not, to act on them or not
It probably happened at some point when it was written up as a shortcut. It doesn’t take much for popular culture to be convinced of a single data point to over-index on.
Hmm, not keen on these random tests - shows an unprofessional manager to my mind. Sure, if someone is rude to the receptionist, that's not a good sign. But cars? It might not even be the candidate's car. Their car may have broken down on the day and they borrowed one from a friend.
These things do happen though. I was rolling out an Everyday Sexism workshop and one of the attendees said he ruled out a female candidate because she had high heels on. The job was to do with surveying and involved going on to building sites. I asked him if he disqualified all the men not wearing work boots.
Managers should know what skills and experience they need in the role, and how to interview candidates fairly.
Yes, there's always going to be more data to be had. There are two old sayings that come to mind, when reading this:
-"Sh*t or get off the pot."
-"Too many chefs, and not enough cooks."
I believe the current trends/behavior of many organizations push people who aren't managers, to go into management. The Leadership verbiage is a lucrative business. It doesn't mean it's an effective business though.
In this day and age companies need quality workers. These individuals should be compensated well and expected to put in overtime when necessary.
A job is just that; a way to provide a service, good, and/or promotion to one's target audience. Let's stop trying to make for profit folks into heroes.
You want a hero, spend time at the firehouse, police station, VA, in the hospital, at the local shelter, and/or your local food bank.
When I was responsible for hiring, I asked three questions. Depending on how the candidates answered, I would look for the best department for them.
The car test is a tough one. Everyone I have met, that'd pass, carries themselves professionally. That said, some of the scrappiest, most diligent, and knowledgeable team members, I have worked with didn't have immaculate cars (myself included)... I suppose if you're after egotistical and bougie people, that may be a good entry level hire.
Ultimately, it comes down to experience and intuition.
I’ve run into this nonsense before. Another one is rejecting candidates because they used a word you don’t like in their application. I worked with someone who refused to interview anyone who wrote they were “passionate.”
Not only do these silly tests say more about the interviewer than the candidate, but they are reflective of overall wrongheaded thinking about hiring. Good managers don’t try to eliminate or “whittle down” candidates. Instead they give them the opportunity to shine.
We made a rule to delete any comment that references whittling.
Violation noted.
I fell seen, and I don’t like it!
:)
Interesting to see all of this written down. I think we're making judgements about people all of the time, whether we acknowledge them or not. Who's polite to the receptionist, who clears the coffee cup. Even if we don't make it an explicit and formal part of an interview, we're doing it anyway. Humans are like that!
Do you think there might ever be a time where a particular random social faux pas should be disqualifying to a candidate?
Does an organizational culture have the freedom to generate something silly that matters to them that way -- or should those kinds of tendencies always be struck down?
Should be? I think they already are. Whether consciously or unconsciously I think they already are.
I talk a lot about behaviour modelling and how leaders have to live and breathe what they expect to see in their organisations. Culture is simply the behaviour of individuals that happens in organisations (ie encouraged, rewarded, tolerated, prevented). We can write all of this down and we can have leaders put these behaviours in to practice. But we can’t get away from the reality of human nature. What we can do is raise awareness of biases so that people realise they have the choice in whether to question them or irrationally follow them or not, to act on them or not
Love this post -- and also it's the stories of small acts that circulate, about interview anecdotes and their value to CEOs. https://hollisrobbinsanecdotal.substack.com/p/anecdotal-value-in-the-age-of-ai
When did hiring become a detective game where coffee cups, salt shakers, and car floors are the clues?
Talent is found in actions, answers, and achievements. Making wide generalizations from small things doesn't seem like a good idea.
Still a fun read though. Thanks!
It probably happened at some point when it was written up as a shortcut. It doesn’t take much for popular culture to be convinced of a single data point to over-index on.
Hmm, not keen on these random tests - shows an unprofessional manager to my mind. Sure, if someone is rude to the receptionist, that's not a good sign. But cars? It might not even be the candidate's car. Their car may have broken down on the day and they borrowed one from a friend.
These things do happen though. I was rolling out an Everyday Sexism workshop and one of the attendees said he ruled out a female candidate because she had high heels on. The job was to do with surveying and involved going on to building sites. I asked him if he disqualified all the men not wearing work boots.
Managers should know what skills and experience they need in the role, and how to interview candidates fairly.
Good morning,
Yes, there's always going to be more data to be had. There are two old sayings that come to mind, when reading this:
-"Sh*t or get off the pot."
-"Too many chefs, and not enough cooks."
I believe the current trends/behavior of many organizations push people who aren't managers, to go into management. The Leadership verbiage is a lucrative business. It doesn't mean it's an effective business though.
In this day and age companies need quality workers. These individuals should be compensated well and expected to put in overtime when necessary.
A job is just that; a way to provide a service, good, and/or promotion to one's target audience. Let's stop trying to make for profit folks into heroes.
You want a hero, spend time at the firehouse, police station, VA, in the hospital, at the local shelter, and/or your local food bank.
When I was responsible for hiring, I asked three questions. Depending on how the candidates answered, I would look for the best department for them.
The car test is a tough one. Everyone I have met, that'd pass, carries themselves professionally. That said, some of the scrappiest, most diligent, and knowledgeable team members, I have worked with didn't have immaculate cars (myself included)... I suppose if you're after egotistical and bougie people, that may be a good entry level hire.
Ultimately, it comes down to experience and intuition.
I don't think you can teach either;)
Take care, and have a good week.
Thank you for your time.