WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.779 Hello and welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today 00:00:02.779 --> 00:00:05.339 we are going to talk about something that is, 00:00:05.519 --> 00:00:08.480 well, it's a near universal human experience. 00:00:08.820 --> 00:00:10.960 It really is. It's something that I think almost 00:00:10.960 --> 00:00:13.199 every single person listening to this has gone 00:00:13.199 --> 00:00:15.000 through. Usually with a fair amount of sweaty 00:00:15.000 --> 00:00:18.239 palms, a racing heart, and that, you know, that 00:00:18.239 --> 00:00:20.280 desperate hope that you don't say something incredibly 00:00:20.280 --> 00:00:23.059 stupid. We are talking, of course, about the 00:00:23.059 --> 00:00:25.559 job interview. The job interview. It's the great 00:00:25.559 --> 00:00:28.219 equalizer, isn't it? I mean, whether you're applying 00:00:28.219 --> 00:00:30.820 to be a barista, a high level software engineer 00:00:30.820 --> 00:00:34.240 or a CEO, you generally have to sit across from 00:00:34.240 --> 00:00:36.939 someone and stare into a webcam these days. Right. 00:00:37.000 --> 00:00:40.460 Or stare into a webcam and prove in 30 to 60 00:00:40.460 --> 00:00:43.939 minutes that you are worthy of their time and 00:00:43.939 --> 00:00:47.259 their money. Exactly. It's this incredibly high 00:00:47.259 --> 00:00:49.859 stakes conversation. Your entire future, your 00:00:49.859 --> 00:00:54.479 income, your career path, your ability to pay 00:00:54.479 --> 00:00:56.840 your rent. Everything. It all hangs in the balance 00:00:56.840 --> 00:00:59.320 of this one short chat. And because we've all 00:00:59.320 --> 00:01:01.020 done it, and I think a lot of us have been on 00:01:01.020 --> 00:01:03.380 both sides of the table eventually, we all kind 00:01:03.380 --> 00:01:06.379 of assume we know how it works. We do. We assume 00:01:06.379 --> 00:01:08.959 it's a good way, maybe even the best way, to 00:01:08.959 --> 00:01:11.099 find the right person for the job. And you're 00:01:11.099 --> 00:01:14.219 saying that assumption is what? Wrong. That is 00:01:14.219 --> 00:01:16.799 exactly where the paradox lies. That assumption 00:01:16.799 --> 00:01:19.120 is the shaky foundation we're standing on today. 00:01:19.280 --> 00:01:22.280 A paradox. OK, explain that. Yes. The research 00:01:22.280 --> 00:01:24.379 we have in front of us today paints a really 00:01:24.379 --> 00:01:27.260 complex and, to be honest, a somewhat disturbing 00:01:27.260 --> 00:01:30.519 picture. On one hand, the job interview is the 00:01:30.519 --> 00:01:32.840 single most common selection method used worldwide. 00:01:33.200 --> 00:01:35.299 It's considered indispensable. Right. You'd never 00:01:35.299 --> 00:01:36.920 hire someone without meeting them. It feels like 00:01:36.920 --> 00:01:40.109 common sense. Of course not. But on the other 00:01:40.109 --> 00:01:42.849 hand, the data suggests that the way most people 00:01:42.849 --> 00:01:46.790 conduct interviews is notoriously unreliable. 00:01:47.049 --> 00:01:49.829 Unreliable. So we're stressing out, buying uncomfortable 00:01:49.829 --> 00:01:53.230 suits, rehearsing our greatest weakness answers 00:01:53.230 --> 00:01:55.609 in the mirror. Yes. And the whole process might 00:01:55.609 --> 00:01:58.549 not even work. Often it fails to identify the 00:01:58.549 --> 00:02:01.379 optimal person for the job. It actually gets 00:02:01.379 --> 00:02:03.540 worse than that, as we'll see later in this deep 00:02:03.540 --> 00:02:06.060 dive. Sometimes the very traits that make you 00:02:06.060 --> 00:02:09.020 win the interview are actually massive red flags 00:02:09.020 --> 00:02:12.180 for how you'll perform on the job. We might be 00:02:12.180 --> 00:02:14.680 selecting for the wrong things entirely. OK, 00:02:14.759 --> 00:02:17.740 let's unpack this, because if the system is broken. 00:02:18.349 --> 00:02:21.289 or at least significantly flawed, we need to 00:02:21.289 --> 00:02:24.389 understand why. So our mission today is to deconstruct 00:02:24.389 --> 00:02:26.469 this black box. Exactly. We're going to look 00:02:26.469 --> 00:02:28.430 at the science of structure versus intuition. 00:02:28.629 --> 00:02:31.030 We're going to break down the psychology of first 00:02:31.030 --> 00:02:33.449 impressions. And this is where it gets really 00:02:33.449 --> 00:02:35.090 interesting. We're going to talk about the dark 00:02:35.090 --> 00:02:38.770 triad. The dark triad is a fascinating area of 00:02:38.770 --> 00:02:41.949 research. It explains why certain dangerous personalities, 00:02:42.509 --> 00:02:45.250 narcissists, psychopaths and Machiavellians, 00:02:45.389 --> 00:02:48.030 often excel in these settings. While honest people 00:02:48.030 --> 00:02:50.229 might struggle. That sounds absolutely terrifying 00:02:50.229 --> 00:02:52.409 and I cannot wait to get there. We'll also touch 00:02:52.409 --> 00:02:55.069 on the legal minefields, the bias that's just 00:02:55.069 --> 00:02:57.370 baked into the system and how technology is changing 00:02:57.370 --> 00:03:00.409 the game. We have a huge stack of source material 00:03:00.409 --> 00:03:04.030 here. Studies on validity, psychology, legal 00:03:04.030 --> 00:03:06.930 frameworks, a bunch of meta -analyses. So let's 00:03:06.930 --> 00:03:09.110 dive in. Where do we even start with something 00:03:09.110 --> 00:03:11.270 this big? We have to start with the fundamental 00:03:11.270 --> 00:03:14.789 debate that divides the entire field. It's structure 00:03:14.789 --> 00:03:18.689 versus intuition. Or, to put it another way... 00:03:18.689 --> 00:03:21.949 The science versus the chat. Okay, the science 00:03:21.949 --> 00:03:24.389 versus the chat. I think I know which side most 00:03:24.389 --> 00:03:27.169 people fall on naturally. When I've interviewed 00:03:27.169 --> 00:03:29.229 people in the past or when I've been interviewed, 00:03:29.550 --> 00:03:32.289 I usually want it to feel natural, you know. 00:03:32.389 --> 00:03:34.889 A conversation. Yeah, just a conversation. Get 00:03:34.889 --> 00:03:36.770 a feel for the person. See if we click. Hey, 00:03:36.870 --> 00:03:38.849 I see you like hiking. I like hiking, too. That 00:03:38.849 --> 00:03:41.849 kind of thing. And that is a perfect description 00:03:41.849 --> 00:03:45.370 of what the research calls an unstructured interview. 00:03:45.710 --> 00:03:48.509 It's informal. It's free -flowing. You might 00:03:48.509 --> 00:03:51.169 ask one candidate. about their hobbies because 00:03:51.169 --> 00:03:53.909 you see a golf trophy on their resume. Right. 00:03:54.050 --> 00:03:56.069 And another candidate about their college major 00:03:56.069 --> 00:03:58.750 because you went to the same school. The questions 00:03:58.750 --> 00:04:01.110 aren't set in stone. Right. It feels organic. 00:04:01.210 --> 00:04:03.210 It gives me confidence that I'm really getting 00:04:03.210 --> 00:04:05.210 to know the human being behind the resume. I 00:04:05.210 --> 00:04:08.449 feel like I can trust my gut. And that feeling 00:04:08.449 --> 00:04:11.250 of confidence is the trap. The trap. The research 00:04:11.250 --> 00:04:14.189 shows that interviewers overwhelmingly prefer 00:04:14.189 --> 00:04:17.569 unstructured interviews precisely because it 00:04:17.569 --> 00:04:19.860 validates their own judgment. They trust their 00:04:19.860 --> 00:04:22.800 gut. They believe they have a special, almost 00:04:22.800 --> 00:04:26.519 magical ability to spot a fake or identify talent 00:04:26.519 --> 00:04:30.139 just by chatting. It feels good to trust your 00:04:30.139 --> 00:04:33.620 intuition. It feels great. But the data violently 00:04:33.620 --> 00:04:36.160 disagrees with your gut. Violently. Okay. The 00:04:36.160 --> 00:04:38.920 reality check here is that unstructured interviews 00:04:38.920 --> 00:04:42.829 are highly, highly unreliable. There's a classic 00:04:42.829 --> 00:04:44.870 finding in the literature where you have two 00:04:44.870 --> 00:04:47.230 different interviewers talk to the exact same 00:04:47.230 --> 00:04:50.410 candidate on the same day. Now, if the interview 00:04:50.410 --> 00:04:52.970 was a valid measurement tool, like a ruler or 00:04:52.970 --> 00:04:55.329 a scale, they should get the same result, right? 00:04:55.649 --> 00:04:58.009 Ideally, yeah. If I weigh myself on two different 00:04:58.009 --> 00:04:59.810 scales, I expect the number to be pretty much 00:04:59.810 --> 00:05:02.649 the same. Exactly. But in unstructured interviews, 00:05:02.949 --> 00:05:04.569 because they're having different conversations 00:05:04.569 --> 00:05:06.889 based on their own whims and what they feel like 00:05:06.889 --> 00:05:08.930 talking about, they will come away with completely 00:05:08.930 --> 00:05:11.110 different impressions. So one person loves the 00:05:11.110 --> 00:05:13.230 candidate, the other one doesn't. One might think 00:05:13.230 --> 00:05:15.290 the candidate is a superstar because they laughed 00:05:15.290 --> 00:05:17.310 at their joke. The other might think they're 00:05:17.310 --> 00:05:19.430 unqualified because they didn't talk enough about 00:05:19.430 --> 00:05:22.050 a specific project. It's totally subjective. 00:05:22.410 --> 00:05:25.870 So my gut feeling is basically just random noise. 00:05:26.310 --> 00:05:29.750 It's worse than noise. It's bias wrapped in confidence. 00:05:30.410 --> 00:05:33.750 When you rely on intuition, you aren't measuring 00:05:33.750 --> 00:05:36.250 job capability. You're often just measuring how 00:05:36.250 --> 00:05:38.990 much you like the person or, you know, how similar 00:05:38.990 --> 00:05:41.490 they are to you. Wow. The research is so clear 00:05:41.490 --> 00:05:44.410 on this. Unstructured interviews often fail to 00:05:44.410 --> 00:05:46.670 identify high -quality candidates. They have 00:05:46.670 --> 00:05:49.769 very low predictive validity. Honestly, you might 00:05:49.769 --> 00:05:51.550 as well be flipping a coin in some cases. OK, 00:05:51.649 --> 00:05:54.050 that's humbling and a little terrifying for anyone 00:05:54.050 --> 00:05:55.829 who's ever hired someone that way. So if the 00:05:55.829 --> 00:05:57.910 chat is out, what's the alternative? A robot 00:05:57.910 --> 00:06:00.589 interrogation. The structured interview. Yeah. 00:06:00.649 --> 00:06:02.569 And while you might jokingly call it robotic, 00:06:02.810 --> 00:06:05.509 the science calls it superior. OK. Structure 00:06:05.509 --> 00:06:09.050 is all about one thing. Standardization. It's 00:06:09.050 --> 00:06:11.050 about treating the interview like a scientific 00:06:11.050 --> 00:06:13.129 experiment where you control as many variables 00:06:13.129 --> 00:06:16.589 as you can. Standardization. So treating every 00:06:16.589 --> 00:06:19.610 single candidate exactly the same. Precisely. 00:06:19.610 --> 00:06:22.389 And it comes down to two main pillars, content 00:06:22.389 --> 00:06:24.850 structure and evaluation structure. Okay, let's 00:06:24.850 --> 00:06:26.870 break those down. Content structure first. What 00:06:26.870 --> 00:06:28.870 does that actually look like in the room? Content 00:06:28.870 --> 00:06:31.250 structure means you ask the exact same questions 00:06:31.250 --> 00:06:35.009 in the exact same order to every single candidate 00:06:35.009 --> 00:06:37.529 who walks through that door. Every single one. 00:06:37.649 --> 00:06:40.689 No exceptions. No exceptions. And crucially, 00:06:40.790 --> 00:06:43.949 those questions are based on a job analysis. 00:06:44.910 --> 00:06:47.629 Meaning they are actually relevant to the work 00:06:47.629 --> 00:06:49.850 that needs to be done, not just things you're 00:06:49.850 --> 00:06:52.509 curious about. So no. If you were a flavor of 00:06:52.509 --> 00:06:54.930 ice cream, what would you be and why? Unless 00:06:54.930 --> 00:06:58.250 you are hiring an ice cream taster, no. But here 00:06:58.250 --> 00:07:00.569 is the part that is really, really hard for most 00:07:00.569 --> 00:07:02.949 people. You also have to limit prompting and 00:07:02.949 --> 00:07:05.189 follow -up questions. Limiting prompting. You 00:07:05.189 --> 00:07:06.910 mean I can't help them along if they're stuck? 00:07:07.129 --> 00:07:09.129 That's right. So if a candidate is stumbling, 00:07:09.230 --> 00:07:11.009 I can't just jump in and say, oh, did you mean 00:07:11.009 --> 00:07:12.569 maybe when you worked at that other company? 00:07:12.930 --> 00:07:17.009 Exactly. If you help candidate A because you 00:07:17.009 --> 00:07:19.430 like their smile, but you don't help candidate 00:07:19.430 --> 00:07:22.870 B because they seem nervous, you've broken the 00:07:22.870 --> 00:07:25.129 standardization. You've corrupted the data. I 00:07:25.129 --> 00:07:27.829 see. You are no longer comparing their ability. 00:07:28.170 --> 00:07:30.629 You are comparing your willingness to help them. 00:07:30.829 --> 00:07:33.290 You've introduced a massive variable. I feel 00:07:33.290 --> 00:07:36.350 so cold. But I guess I see the logic. If it's 00:07:36.350 --> 00:07:39.310 a test, you can't give hints to only some of 00:07:39.310 --> 00:07:41.509 the students. It is a test. That's exactly what 00:07:41.509 --> 00:07:43.709 it is. Okay, so that's content structure. What 00:07:43.709 --> 00:07:45.930 about evaluation structure? This is all about 00:07:45.930 --> 00:07:48.430 how you score them. In an unstructured interview, 00:07:48.610 --> 00:07:50.629 you might just give a thumbs up or thumbs down 00:07:50.629 --> 00:07:52.750 at the end. You walk out of the room and say 00:07:52.750 --> 00:07:55.050 to your colleague, I liked him. Right. He's got 00:07:55.050 --> 00:07:57.310 a good vibe. Exactly. In a structured setting, 00:07:57.470 --> 00:08:00.350 you rate each individual answer as it happens. 00:08:00.529 --> 00:08:03.410 Yeah. You often use what are called BARIs. BARIs. 00:08:03.589 --> 00:08:05.550 That sounds like an intense workout regimen. 00:08:05.629 --> 00:08:07.769 It stands for Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales. 00:08:07.790 --> 00:08:11.319 Okay. It's a way to remove subjectivity. So instead 00:08:11.319 --> 00:08:13.360 of just thinking that was a good answer, you 00:08:13.360 --> 00:08:15.279 have a sheet in front of you that literally defines 00:08:15.279 --> 00:08:18.420 what a one answer looks like, what a three looks 00:08:18.420 --> 00:08:20.939 like, and what a five looks like for that specific 00:08:20.939 --> 00:08:22.939 question. Can you give me an example? Like if 00:08:22.939 --> 00:08:25.220 we were interviewing for a customer service job. 00:08:25.399 --> 00:08:27.620 Sure. Let's say the question is, tell me about 00:08:27.620 --> 00:08:30.449 a time you dealt with an angry customer. A one 00:08:30.449 --> 00:08:34.210 on the rating scale might be predefined as candidate 00:08:34.210 --> 00:08:36.929 blamed the customer or asked a manager to deal 00:08:36.929 --> 00:08:39.470 with it immediately. Okay, a bad answer. A three 00:08:39.470 --> 00:08:42.070 might be candidate listened to the customer and 00:08:42.070 --> 00:08:44.909 offered a standard refund. You know, competent. 00:08:45.389 --> 00:08:47.850 but not amazing. And a five? A five might be. 00:08:48.190 --> 00:08:50.909 Candidate de -escalated the emotion, solved the 00:08:50.909 --> 00:08:52.970 root problem so it wouldn't happen again, and 00:08:52.970 --> 00:08:55.409 followed up later to ensure satisfaction. Ah, 00:08:55.590 --> 00:08:57.590 I see. So you aren't just judging their vibe 00:08:57.590 --> 00:08:59.629 or how they tell the story. You are literally 00:08:59.629 --> 00:09:02.990 matching what they said to a pre -written rubric. 00:09:03.330 --> 00:09:07.490 Exactly. You are categorizing evidence. And this 00:09:07.490 --> 00:09:10.509 is key. You take detailed notes and you absolutely 00:09:10.509 --> 00:09:13.330 do not discuss the candidate with other interviewers 00:09:13.330 --> 00:09:16.120 until... Everyone has submitted their independent 00:09:16.120 --> 00:09:18.120 ratings. Oh, I've definitely been guilty of that 00:09:18.120 --> 00:09:20.539 one. The huddle right after the candidate leaves 00:09:20.539 --> 00:09:22.899 where everyone says, so what did you think? That 00:09:22.899 --> 00:09:25.799 huddle is where groupthink happens. It's poison 00:09:25.799 --> 00:09:29.580 to good decision making. If the most senior person 00:09:29.580 --> 00:09:32.340 in the room says, I didn't like her, everyone 00:09:32.340 --> 00:09:34.899 else subconsciously adjusts their opinion to 00:09:34.899 --> 00:09:36.980 match. You don't want to be the one to disagree 00:09:36.980 --> 00:09:39.200 with the boss. Of course not. So the data is 00:09:39.200 --> 00:09:41.980 crystal clear. Independent, structured interviews 00:09:41.980 --> 00:09:45.179 are far, far more accurate predictors of future 00:09:45.179 --> 00:09:47.820 job performance. The validity coefficients, which 00:09:47.820 --> 00:09:49.539 is just a fancy statistic for how well the interview 00:09:49.539 --> 00:09:52.059 predicts success, they range from about 0 .20 00:09:52.059 --> 00:09:55.179 for a totally unstructured chat to as high as 00:09:55.179 --> 00:09:58.440 0 .57 for a highly structured one. And 0 .57 00:09:58.440 --> 00:10:00.740 is good. In the world of social science and hiring, 00:10:00.960 --> 00:10:05.840 0 .57 is excellent. It's huge. It's a much better 00:10:05.840 --> 00:10:08.059 predictor than reference checks, better than 00:10:08.059 --> 00:10:10.379 years of experience listed on a resume, better 00:10:10.379 --> 00:10:13.960 than GPA. And the research shows that as you 00:10:13.960 --> 00:10:16.039 increase the amount of structure, that number 00:10:16.039 --> 00:10:18.500 just keeps going up. So the more disciplined 00:10:18.500 --> 00:10:21.779 and, I guess, scientific we make it, the better 00:10:21.779 --> 00:10:24.799 we are at actually hiring the right person. Yes. 00:10:25.470 --> 00:10:27.970 It's about fairness and it's about accuracy. 00:10:28.389 --> 00:10:31.610 It reduces the chance that you hire someone just 00:10:31.610 --> 00:10:33.529 because they happen to support the same football 00:10:33.529 --> 00:10:35.669 team as you. OK, so we know we need structure, 00:10:35.769 --> 00:10:37.970 but structure is just the framework, right? We 00:10:37.970 --> 00:10:39.990 still have to fill it with good questions. That's 00:10:39.990 --> 00:10:41.950 right. And I feel like there are two main camps 00:10:41.950 --> 00:10:43.970 of questions I always hear. There's the what 00:10:43.970 --> 00:10:46.690 would you do if and the tell me about a time 00:10:46.690 --> 00:10:49.110 when. You've hit on the two major types found 00:10:49.110 --> 00:10:52.059 in the literature. Situational questions and 00:10:52.059 --> 00:10:54.440 behavioral questions. Let's start with situational. 00:10:54.460 --> 00:10:57.000 That's the what would you do if, right? Yeah. 00:10:57.059 --> 00:11:00.159 The hypothetical. Correct. These are future -oriented. 00:11:00.340 --> 00:11:04.179 You present a hypothetical dilemma. Imagine you're 00:11:04.179 --> 00:11:07.580 dealing with an angry client who demands a refund 00:11:07.580 --> 00:11:11.379 we can't give according to our policy. What do 00:11:11.379 --> 00:11:14.080 you do? I can see the benefit there. Even if 00:11:14.080 --> 00:11:16.220 I've never had that specific job before, I can 00:11:16.220 --> 00:11:18.460 walk you through my thought process. It tests 00:11:18.460 --> 00:11:21.779 my judgment. Exactly. It levels the playing field 00:11:21.779 --> 00:11:24.659 for candidates who might not have direct experience 00:11:24.659 --> 00:11:27.320 but have the right instincts or problem -solving 00:11:27.320 --> 00:11:30.860 skills. Everyone faces the exact same hypothetical 00:11:30.860 --> 00:11:33.360 dilemma, so you can compare their logic directly, 00:11:33.600 --> 00:11:36.039 apple to apples. But isn't there a risk that 00:11:36.039 --> 00:11:37.860 I just tell you what I think you want to hear? 00:11:38.080 --> 00:11:40.100 That's the main criticism. Like I'll just say, 00:11:40.159 --> 00:11:42.000 oh, I would be perfect and polite and I'd follow 00:11:42.000 --> 00:11:44.279 all the rules and make the customer happy, even 00:11:44.279 --> 00:11:46.299 if in reality I would probably lose my temper. 00:11:46.440 --> 00:11:49.279 Yes, that is downside. Situational questions 00:11:49.279 --> 00:11:52.740 measure intention or, more accurately, knowledge 00:11:52.740 --> 00:11:56.080 of the socially desirable answer, not necessarily 00:11:56.080 --> 00:11:58.440 what you would actually do under pressure. Okay, 00:11:58.539 --> 00:12:00.480 so that's why we also have the other type. That's 00:12:00.480 --> 00:12:02.480 why we have behavioral questions. Tell me about 00:12:02.480 --> 00:12:04.820 a time when... Past -oriented. The premise here 00:12:04.820 --> 00:12:07.850 is simple and powerful. Past behavior is the 00:12:07.850 --> 00:12:10.409 best predictor of future performance. Makes sense. 00:12:10.629 --> 00:12:12.950 So you asked, tell me about a time you had to 00:12:12.950 --> 00:12:16.230 persuade a colleague to change their mind. Or 00:12:16.230 --> 00:12:19.129 give me a specific example of a goal you set 00:12:19.129 --> 00:12:21.990 and how you achieved it. I find these much harder 00:12:21.990 --> 00:12:24.029 as a candidate, to be honest. I have to dig through 00:12:24.029 --> 00:12:26.450 my memory bank while I'm nervous. Did I ever 00:12:26.450 --> 00:12:28.850 persuade anyone as getting my cat to come inside 00:12:28.850 --> 00:12:32.110 count? They are cognitively demanding, and that's 00:12:32.110 --> 00:12:35.210 by design. but they are very effective because 00:12:35.210 --> 00:12:38.149 they force you to provide evidence. You can't 00:12:38.149 --> 00:12:39.909 just hypothesize about being a great leader. 00:12:39.970 --> 00:12:41.690 You have to prove you've done it. You have to 00:12:41.690 --> 00:12:44.070 tell a story with a beginning, a middle, and 00:12:44.070 --> 00:12:47.210 an end. The famous star method. Exactly. Situation, 00:12:47.350 --> 00:12:50.009 task, action, result. And because it requires 00:12:50.009 --> 00:12:53.330 specific granular details, it's much harder to 00:12:53.330 --> 00:12:55.789 fake, though not impossible, as we'll discuss 00:12:55.789 --> 00:12:58.210 later. So which is better, situational or behavioral? 00:12:58.779 --> 00:13:01.039 The verdict in the research is that a mix of 00:13:01.039 --> 00:13:04.259 both is best practice. Use situational questions 00:13:04.259 --> 00:13:06.700 for scenarios the candidate might not have faced 00:13:06.700 --> 00:13:09.899 yet, and use behavioral questions for core competencies 00:13:09.899 --> 00:13:11.820 that you expect them to have already demonstrated. 00:13:12.080 --> 00:13:14.360 Okay. Now we have to talk about the weird questions, 00:13:14.559 --> 00:13:16.860 the ones that become like urban legends in the 00:13:16.860 --> 00:13:19.539 tech industry. Ah, yes. I remember hearing about 00:13:19.539 --> 00:13:22.500 Microsoft in the 90s asking things like, Why 00:13:22.500 --> 00:13:25.639 are manhole covers round? Or how would you weigh 00:13:25.639 --> 00:13:28.620 an airplane without a scale? The infamous puzzle 00:13:28.620 --> 00:13:31.820 interview. These were huge for a while, popularized 00:13:31.820 --> 00:13:34.460 by tech giants like Microsoft and Google. What 00:13:34.460 --> 00:13:36.679 on earth is the point of asking about manhole 00:13:36.679 --> 00:13:39.299 covers? I mean, unless you're hiring a city planner. 00:13:39.789 --> 00:13:42.629 The idea, the theory anyway, was to measure g 00:13:42.629 --> 00:13:45.230 -factor, which is another term for general intelligence, 00:13:45.429 --> 00:13:48.549 along with creativity and on -the -spot problem 00:13:48.549 --> 00:13:50.929 solving. So the logic was, if you can reason 00:13:50.929 --> 00:13:53.549 through an abstract puzzle, you can solve complex 00:13:53.549 --> 00:13:56.409 coding problems. That was the theory. How do 00:13:56.409 --> 00:13:59.460 they work in practice? The jury is largely out, 00:13:59.580 --> 00:14:02.840 but the consensus is leaning heavily towards 00:14:02.840 --> 00:14:05.419 no, especially when you compare them to structured 00:14:05.419 --> 00:14:07.759 behavioral interviews. So they don't really predict 00:14:07.759 --> 00:14:11.019 anything. Not reliably. But more importantly, 00:14:11.200 --> 00:14:14.299 the applicant reaction is usually terrible. I 00:14:14.299 --> 00:14:16.460 can imagine. It feels like hazing. Like, dance 00:14:16.460 --> 00:14:19.899 for me, monkey. It does. Candidates often view 00:14:19.899 --> 00:14:23.480 them as unfair, gimmicky, or completely unrelated 00:14:23.480 --> 00:14:26.909 to the job. And think about it. If a high -quality 00:14:26.909 --> 00:14:28.909 candidate thinks your interview process is silly, 00:14:29.049 --> 00:14:31.730 they might assume your company is silly. And 00:14:31.730 --> 00:14:33.750 go work for a competitor who takes them seriously. 00:14:34.029 --> 00:14:36.470 Exactly. Unless you are hiring a structural engineer 00:14:36.470 --> 00:14:40.210 asking why a manhole cover is round. And by the 00:14:40.210 --> 00:14:42.090 way, it's round so it can't fall through the 00:14:42.090 --> 00:14:44.210 hole diagonally. Right, a square one could. It 00:14:44.210 --> 00:14:46.350 might just alienate your best talent. It sends 00:14:46.350 --> 00:14:48.210 the wrong signal. That makes a lot of sense. 00:14:48.289 --> 00:14:50.330 It feels like a trick, not a genuine question. 00:14:50.730 --> 00:14:53.029 So where do the good questions come from? You 00:14:53.029 --> 00:14:56.049 mentioned job analysis earlier. Yes, and specifically 00:14:56.049 --> 00:14:58.429 a method called the critical incident technique. 00:14:58.889 --> 00:15:01.429 This actually has a fascinating origin story 00:15:01.429 --> 00:15:04.029 dating back to research with the U .S. Army on 00:15:04.029 --> 00:15:07.450 combat leadership during World War II. Combat 00:15:07.450 --> 00:15:10.789 leadership? That's intense. How did that relate 00:15:10.789 --> 00:15:13.549 to interview questions? Well, back then, they 00:15:13.549 --> 00:15:16.129 wanted to figure out what actually made... an 00:15:16.129 --> 00:15:18.509 effective officer. So instead of just sitting 00:15:18.509 --> 00:15:20.809 in a boardroom and guessing, you know, oh, bravery 00:15:20.809 --> 00:15:23.830 is important and being tall. Right. They went 00:15:23.830 --> 00:15:25.529 to the veterans. They went to the people who 00:15:25.529 --> 00:15:27.570 had been there and they asked them to describe 00:15:27.570 --> 00:15:31.070 specific factual incidents of both effective 00:15:31.070 --> 00:15:33.889 and ineffective behavior they had witnessed from 00:15:33.889 --> 00:15:36.529 officers during combat. So not was he a good 00:15:36.529 --> 00:15:38.909 leader, but. But tell me exactly what he did 00:15:38.909 --> 00:15:41.409 when the tank broke down under fire. Tell me 00:15:41.409 --> 00:15:43.529 exactly what he said when the platoon was lost 00:15:43.529 --> 00:15:45.799 and morale was low. So they collected actual 00:15:45.799 --> 00:15:47.919 stories from the field. Yeah. Hard evidence. 00:15:48.179 --> 00:15:51.500 Thousands of them. And by analyzing these specific 00:15:51.500 --> 00:15:54.519 stories, these critical incidents, they built 00:15:54.519 --> 00:15:57.580 a picture of what good actually looks like in 00:15:57.580 --> 00:16:00.539 practice. It wasn't abstract. It was behavioral. 00:16:01.080 --> 00:16:04.399 In this specific crisis, the good leader did 00:16:04.399 --> 00:16:07.779 X and the bad leader did Y. And that translates 00:16:07.779 --> 00:16:11.299 directly to the corporate world. Perfectly. Instead 00:16:11.299 --> 00:16:13.120 of guessing what makes a good sales manager, 00:16:13.399 --> 00:16:16.320 you go ask the current sales team. Tell me about 00:16:16.320 --> 00:16:18.519 a time a manager saved a deal that was falling 00:16:18.519 --> 00:16:21.039 apart. Or tell me about a time a manager's actions 00:16:21.039 --> 00:16:24.460 lost a major client. So you gather those critical 00:16:24.460 --> 00:16:26.500 incidents. And you build your interview questions 00:16:26.500 --> 00:16:29.740 directly from those real -world scenarios. You 00:16:29.740 --> 00:16:31.879 aren't asking, are you a good leader? You're 00:16:31.879 --> 00:16:34.440 asking, here is a situation that actually happens 00:16:34.440 --> 00:16:36.460 on our sales floor. A client is threatening to 00:16:36.460 --> 00:16:38.240 leave. What do you do? That's how you get high 00:16:38.240 --> 00:16:41.039 validity. Exactly. You are testing for things 00:16:41.039 --> 00:16:43.539 that actually happen on the job. Okay. So we've 00:16:43.539 --> 00:16:45.340 got our structure. We've got our scientifically 00:16:45.340 --> 00:16:47.580 derived questions. We are armed with the best 00:16:47.580 --> 00:16:50.840 practices. But an interview isn't just a written 00:16:50.840 --> 00:16:53.539 test. Not at all. It's a live performance. It's 00:16:53.539 --> 00:16:55.799 theater. And this brings us to the psychology 00:16:55.799 --> 00:16:58.220 of the room. Or the psychology of the candidate. 00:16:58.379 --> 00:17:00.529 Right. Because it turns out how you say something 00:17:00.529 --> 00:17:03.009 matters just as much, if not sometimes more, 00:17:03.169 --> 00:17:05.349 than what you say. I knew it. It's not just about 00:17:05.349 --> 00:17:07.509 my skills. It's about my vibe. It's about whether 00:17:07.509 --> 00:17:09.509 I can sell it. It's about nonverbal behaviors. 00:17:10.289 --> 00:17:12.849 The research breaks this down into two main categories, 00:17:13.190 --> 00:17:16.789 visual cues and vocal cues. Visual cues like 00:17:16.789 --> 00:17:20.569 smiling. Making eye contact. Exactly. Smiling, 00:17:20.569 --> 00:17:23.789 eye contact, body orientation. For example, leaning 00:17:23.789 --> 00:17:26.349 forward slightly shows interest and engagement. 00:17:26.910 --> 00:17:28.849 Nodding shows that you're an active listener. 00:17:29.029 --> 00:17:31.869 Small things. Tiny things. But their impact is 00:17:31.869 --> 00:17:34.730 massive. The research is very clear that candidates 00:17:34.730 --> 00:17:37.349 who do these things are perceived as more likable, 00:17:37.470 --> 00:17:40.109 more trustworthy, more competent, and ultimately 00:17:40.109 --> 00:17:42.589 more successful. Even if their answers are just 00:17:42.589 --> 00:17:45.829 mediocre. To an extent, yes. Yeah. If you give 00:17:45.829 --> 00:17:48.420 a solid B answer but you deliver... with A plus 00:17:48.420 --> 00:17:51.180 eye contact and a warm, engaging smile, you might 00:17:51.180 --> 00:17:53.099 very well get the job over the person with the 00:17:53.099 --> 00:17:54.619 A -ing answer who looked at the floor the whole 00:17:54.619 --> 00:17:56.319 time. So you're not just being judged on the 00:17:56.319 --> 00:17:58.660 content, but the packaging. Packaging matters 00:17:58.660 --> 00:18:00.859 immensely. And then you have the vocal cues. 00:18:01.099 --> 00:18:03.839 The sound of your voice. Pitch, fluency, speed, 00:18:04.059 --> 00:18:08.019 pauses. There is a concept called vocal attractiveness. 00:18:08.720 --> 00:18:11.900 It sounds shallow, I know, but it's a real psychological 00:18:11.900 --> 00:18:15.000 measurable. What makes a voice attractive in 00:18:15.000 --> 00:18:17.559 this context? It's an appealing mix of speech 00:18:17.559 --> 00:18:20.880 rate, not talking too fast, not talking too slow, 00:18:21.059 --> 00:18:24.400 and having some pitch variability that's positively 00:18:24.400 --> 00:18:27.400 related to higher interview ratings. Pitch variability, 00:18:27.680 --> 00:18:30.900 so not speaking in a monotone robot voice. Exactly. 00:18:30.900 --> 00:18:33.539 If you speak in a monotone, even if you are explaining 00:18:33.539 --> 00:18:36.079 the theory of relativity perfectly, listeners 00:18:36.079 --> 00:18:38.460 will tune out. They will perceive you as having 00:18:38.460 --> 00:18:41.440 low energy or low social intelligence. It's just 00:18:41.440 --> 00:18:43.660 how our brains are wired. Okay, but the most 00:18:43.660 --> 00:18:46.400 potent bias in this whole area has to be physical 00:18:46.400 --> 00:18:48.420 attractiveness. We always hear about pretty privilege. 00:18:48.460 --> 00:18:51.779 Is it real in the interview room? Oh, it is very 00:18:51.779 --> 00:18:54.480 real. It's called the halo effect, and it is 00:18:54.480 --> 00:18:56.779 one of the most robust and replicated findings 00:18:56.779 --> 00:18:59.759 in all of psychology. Interviewers consistently 00:18:59.759 --> 00:19:02.920 judge attractive individuals more favorably on 00:19:02.920 --> 00:19:05.180 job -related factors, even when attractiveness 00:19:05.180 --> 00:19:07.519 is completely and utterly irrelevant to the role. 00:19:07.869 --> 00:19:10.609 So we just unconsciously assume attractive people 00:19:10.609 --> 00:19:12.569 are smarter. We assume they're smarter, more 00:19:12.569 --> 00:19:15.069 socially competent, happier, and have better 00:19:15.069 --> 00:19:17.490 mental health. It's an unconscious cognitive 00:19:17.490 --> 00:19:21.690 bias. We see one positive trait, physical beauty, 00:19:21.829 --> 00:19:24.730 and we let that halo extend to all these other 00:19:24.730 --> 00:19:27.269 unrelated traits like intelligence and leadership 00:19:27.269 --> 00:19:29.710 potential. That is deeply depressing for those 00:19:29.710 --> 00:19:32.089 of us who, you know, aren't supermodels. It is. 00:19:32.170 --> 00:19:34.349 However, there is a nuance in the research that 00:19:34.349 --> 00:19:35.930 offers a little bit of hope. Okay, I'll take 00:19:35.930 --> 00:19:59.640 it. What does that mean? If it's a tie between 00:19:59.640 --> 00:20:08.380 you and someone else? Tiebreaker. So if I'm average, 00:20:08.480 --> 00:20:11.660 I better look good. But if I'm great, I can just 00:20:11.660 --> 00:20:15.000 be myself. In a perfect world, yes. But it certainly 00:20:15.000 --> 00:20:17.559 never hurts. Okay, let's talk about faking it. 00:20:17.619 --> 00:20:19.519 Because we all try to present the best version 00:20:19.519 --> 00:20:21.660 of ourselves in an interview. Where does the 00:20:21.660 --> 00:20:25.039 research draw the line between polishing and 00:20:25.039 --> 00:20:28.480 just lying? The literature distinguishes between 00:20:28.480 --> 00:20:31.660 honest impression management and deceptive impression 00:20:31.660 --> 00:20:34.160 management. Okay. Honest impression management 00:20:34.160 --> 00:20:37.470 is what? Self -promotion? Right. Highlighting 00:20:37.470 --> 00:20:39.730 your real achievements. Taking credit where it's 00:20:39.730 --> 00:20:42.369 due. Using positive language to describe your 00:20:42.369 --> 00:20:44.710 actual work. That's not just okay, it's necessary. 00:20:45.069 --> 00:20:47.630 If you don't self -promote, you might be seen 00:20:47.630 --> 00:20:50.750 as disinterested or lacking confidence. And deceptive 00:20:50.750 --> 00:20:53.089 is just straight up lying, making things up. 00:20:53.190 --> 00:20:55.349 Exaggerating your role, inventing experiences, 00:20:55.569 --> 00:20:58.230 hiding negative information. One study found 00:20:58.230 --> 00:21:01.529 that over 80 % of participants admitted to lying 00:21:01.529 --> 00:21:06.250 about their job -related skills. 80 %? Yes. The 00:21:06.250 --> 00:21:08.630 interesting middle ground, and the research shows 00:21:08.630 --> 00:21:11.390 this is the most prevalent tactic of all, is 00:21:11.390 --> 00:21:14.930 something called ingratiation. Ingratiation. 00:21:15.069 --> 00:21:17.349 That's a fancy word for sucking up. Essentially, 00:21:17.410 --> 00:21:20.569 yes, kissing up. It's complimenting the interviewer, 00:21:20.569 --> 00:21:23.009 complimenting the organization. Oh, I've always 00:21:23.009 --> 00:21:25.190 admired this company's vision. I read that article 00:21:25.190 --> 00:21:27.170 you wrote on LinkedIn, and I just loved it. That's 00:21:27.170 --> 00:21:29.869 a great tie. Yes, all of that. Does it work, 00:21:29.869 --> 00:21:31.789 or do interviewers see right through it? The 00:21:31.789 --> 00:21:35.089 research shows it works frighteningly well. Really? 00:21:35.369 --> 00:21:37.690 Yes. Candidates who use ingratiation tactics 00:21:37.690 --> 00:21:41.589 receive significantly higher scores in person 00:21:41.589 --> 00:21:44.230 organization fit. The interviewer walks away 00:21:44.230 --> 00:21:46.309 from the conversation thinking, wow, this person 00:21:46.309 --> 00:21:48.609 really gets us. They'd be a great cultural fit. 00:21:48.750 --> 00:21:50.269 When really they just know how to stroke your 00:21:50.269 --> 00:21:53.890 ego. Exactly. It leads to higher hiring recommendations. 00:21:53.910 --> 00:21:56.869 Yeah. Which raises a really uncomfortable question. 00:21:57.029 --> 00:21:59.450 Which is? Are we hiring the best person for the 00:21:59.450 --> 00:22:01.990 job? Or are we just hiring the person who makes 00:22:01.990 --> 00:22:04.720 us feel the best about ourselves? That is a terrifying 00:22:04.720 --> 00:22:07.380 thought, that we're so easily manipulated by 00:22:07.380 --> 00:22:10.160 basic flattery. It's a powerful tool. And speaking 00:22:10.160 --> 00:22:12.599 of manipulation, let's transition to the part 00:22:12.599 --> 00:22:14.339 of the research that really stopped me in my 00:22:14.339 --> 00:22:18.279 tracks, the dark triad. This is a critical area 00:22:18.279 --> 00:22:21.140 of study, and it's where the flaws of the unstructured 00:22:21.140 --> 00:22:23.740 interview, the chat, really become dangerous. 00:22:24.140 --> 00:22:29.059 The dark triad refers to three specific and malevolent 00:22:29.059 --> 00:22:31.779 personality traits, narcissism, psychopathy. 00:22:32.980 --> 00:22:35.299 and Machiavellianism. These sound like movie 00:22:35.299 --> 00:22:37.359 villains, but you're telling me that people with 00:22:37.359 --> 00:22:39.880 these traits actually do better in job interviews. 00:22:40.160 --> 00:22:42.839 That is the scary anomaly. These dark traits 00:22:42.839 --> 00:22:45.039 actually help candidates perform better in the 00:22:45.039 --> 00:22:47.500 short term, specifically in the interview context, 00:22:47.759 --> 00:22:50.680 despite being strongly linked to poor job performance, 00:22:50.920 --> 00:22:53.700 unethical behavior, and toxicity later on. Let's 00:22:53.700 --> 00:22:56.019 break them down one by one. Narcissism. I think 00:22:56.019 --> 00:22:57.500 we all have a pretty good idea of what that looks 00:22:57.500 --> 00:23:01.150 like. Narcissists excel at interviews. I mean, 00:23:01.170 --> 00:23:03.069 think about what an interview is. It's a stage 00:23:03.069 --> 00:23:05.289 where you are asked to talk about how great you 00:23:05.289 --> 00:23:07.910 are for an hour. It's a narcissist's dream scenario. 00:23:08.369 --> 00:23:10.569 It is. They are charming. They're incredibly 00:23:10.569 --> 00:23:13.650 confident. They often dress impeccably. And they 00:23:13.650 --> 00:23:16.150 are highly, highly skilled at self -promotion 00:23:16.150 --> 00:23:18.609 and ingratiation. So the interviewer sits there 00:23:18.609 --> 00:23:20.970 thinking, wow, this person is so confident. They're 00:23:20.970 --> 00:23:22.930 a natural leader. They've got that star quality. 00:23:23.130 --> 00:23:25.509 Precisely. They mistake the narcissism for competence. 00:23:26.059 --> 00:23:28.200 Interviewers consistently rate them as highly 00:23:28.200 --> 00:23:31.859 agreeable and capable. But the reality is, narcissism 00:23:31.859 --> 00:23:34.859 is not related to actual job performance. In 00:23:34.859 --> 00:23:37.339 fact, it's often negatively correlated. That 00:23:37.339 --> 00:23:39.859 positive first impression is incredibly short 00:23:39.859 --> 00:23:42.279 -lived. Once they're hired, the charm wears off. 00:23:42.460 --> 00:23:44.519 The charm wears off, the entitlement kicks in, 00:23:44.599 --> 00:23:46.559 they refuse to take responsibility for failure, 00:23:46.759 --> 00:23:49.240 they steal credit from others, and they become 00:23:49.240 --> 00:23:53.279 toxic to the team. Okay, next up, psychopathy. 00:23:53.970 --> 00:23:57.450 specifically corporate psychopaths. Now, to be 00:23:57.450 --> 00:23:59.289 clear, we aren't talking about serial killers 00:23:59.289 --> 00:24:01.450 here, right? No, absolutely not. We are talking 00:24:01.450 --> 00:24:03.809 about high -functioning, nonviolent corporate 00:24:03.809 --> 00:24:06.730 psychopaths. This is a subclinical trait. These 00:24:06.730 --> 00:24:08.650 are individuals who make distinctively positive 00:24:08.650 --> 00:24:11.890 first impressions. They appear alert, friendly, 00:24:12.109 --> 00:24:14.950 and surprisingly, emotionally well -adjusted. 00:24:14.970 --> 00:24:18.119 How is that possible? Isn't the very definition 00:24:18.119 --> 00:24:20.819 of a psychopath that they lack empathy? Wouldn't 00:24:20.819 --> 00:24:23.299 they seem cold and calculating? You would think 00:24:23.299 --> 00:24:26.539 so, but they are masters of mimicry. They have 00:24:26.539 --> 00:24:29.220 spent their lives observing others and learning 00:24:29.220 --> 00:24:30.980 how to fake the emotions they're supposed to 00:24:30.980 --> 00:24:34.279 feel. And their core traits can be dangerously 00:24:34.279 --> 00:24:37.000 misinterpreted by a naive interviewer. How so? 00:24:37.420 --> 00:24:40.180 Their thrill -seeking nature and impulsivity 00:24:40.180 --> 00:24:45.029 is seen as high energy and passion. Their irresponsibility 00:24:45.029 --> 00:24:48.390 is spun as being an entrepreneurial risk taker. 00:24:48.509 --> 00:24:51.349 Their superficial charm is read as charisma. 00:24:51.589 --> 00:24:54.309 So we mistake all these danger signals for leadership 00:24:54.309 --> 00:24:57.390 potential. Consistently. And unlike the narcissist 00:24:57.390 --> 00:24:59.630 who might just be full of themselves, the psychopath 00:24:59.630 --> 00:25:01.670 is completely comfortable with outright deception. 00:25:01.849 --> 00:25:04.349 They will fabricate credentials, stories, and 00:25:04.349 --> 00:25:07.059 results without blinking an eye. They don't have 00:25:07.059 --> 00:25:09.319 the normal physiological stress response, the 00:25:09.319 --> 00:25:11.799 guilt or the anxiety that gives a normal person 00:25:11.799 --> 00:25:13.839 away when they lie. So they're calm under pressure 00:25:13.839 --> 00:25:15.819 because they literally do not care. That's it. 00:25:15.940 --> 00:25:19.299 And finally, Machiavellianism. The master manipulators, 00:25:19.380 --> 00:25:22.019 named after Machiavelli, of course. These are 00:25:22.019 --> 00:25:24.519 people who view others as pawns in their own 00:25:24.519 --> 00:25:28.000 game. They are strategic, cynical, and highly 00:25:28.000 --> 00:25:30.420 skilled at faking a manipulation to achieve their 00:25:30.420 --> 00:25:32.619 goals. And how do they present in an interview? 00:25:33.500 --> 00:25:35.980 Interestingly, the research points to some gender 00:25:35.980 --> 00:25:39.619 differences here. Men who are high in this trait 00:25:39.619 --> 00:25:42.220 tend to try to control the interview content. 00:25:42.400 --> 00:25:44.819 They dominate the conversation to steer it where 00:25:44.819 --> 00:25:47.319 they are strongest. And women? Women high in 00:25:47.319 --> 00:25:49.619 Machiavellianism might allow the interviewer 00:25:49.619 --> 00:25:52.079 more freedom on the surface, but they are just 00:25:52.079 --> 00:25:54.220 as willing to be deceptive to get what they want. 00:25:54.339 --> 00:25:56.759 They adapt their manipulative strategy to the 00:25:56.759 --> 00:25:59.700 target. So if we rely on unstructured interviews. 00:26:00.380 --> 00:26:02.799 The friendly chat where we trust our gut. You 00:26:02.799 --> 00:26:04.640 are basically rolling out the red carpet for 00:26:04.640 --> 00:26:06.779 these personalities. The unstructured interview 00:26:06.779 --> 00:26:10.299 is a playground for the dark triad. It is. They 00:26:10.299 --> 00:26:13.140 thrive on charm manipulation and the ability 00:26:13.140 --> 00:26:16.539 to spin a good story. An interviewer's gut feeling 00:26:16.539 --> 00:26:19.059 is what they are experts at manipulating. So 00:26:19.059 --> 00:26:21.299 how do we stop them? How do we screen these people 00:26:21.299 --> 00:26:24.309 out? Structure. It all comes back to structure. 00:26:24.670 --> 00:26:27.170 Structure is the only thing that neutralizes 00:26:27.170 --> 00:26:30.150 their advantage. Because when you use a structured 00:26:30.150 --> 00:26:33.269 interview with behavioral questions, you force 00:26:33.269 --> 00:26:35.849 them to provide concrete evidence rather than 00:26:35.849 --> 00:26:39.349 just charm. You force them to be specific. Narcissists 00:26:39.349 --> 00:26:41.410 struggle to give credit to others in their stories. 00:26:42.029 --> 00:26:44.369 Psychopaths have to invent complex, detailed 00:26:44.369 --> 00:26:47.269 lies on the spot, which is much harder to do 00:26:47.269 --> 00:26:50.519 against a specific anchored rating scale. Structure 00:26:50.519 --> 00:26:52.559 is your defense. That really drives home the 00:26:52.559 --> 00:26:54.740 point. It's not just about being organized. It's 00:26:54.740 --> 00:26:56.740 about protecting the organization. It's about 00:26:56.740 --> 00:26:59.220 protecting the organization from predators who 00:26:59.220 --> 00:27:01.599 are very, very good at talking. Let's zoom out 00:27:01.599 --> 00:27:03.859 a bit and look at the hiring process as a whole, 00:27:03.980 --> 00:27:05.960 because the interview doesn't just start when 00:27:05.960 --> 00:27:08.740 we shake hands or log on to the Zoom call. It 00:27:08.740 --> 00:27:11.119 starts way before that. The pre -interview phase. 00:27:11.759 --> 00:27:14.799 Impressions form incredibly early, based on resumes, 00:27:15.180 --> 00:27:17.759 test scores, and increasingly, social media. 00:27:18.019 --> 00:27:21.220 Ah, the dreaded Google search. Let me just see 00:27:21.220 --> 00:27:23.500 what this candidate is like on Facebook. It's 00:27:23.500 --> 00:27:26.660 a legal and ethical minefield. The research shows 00:27:26.660 --> 00:27:29.809 that if an interviewer Googles a candidate, and 00:27:29.809 --> 00:27:32.930 finds non -job -related information like a picture 00:27:32.930 --> 00:27:36.170 of them holding a beer at a BBQ or a political 00:27:36.170 --> 00:27:38.569 post they made. It affects their judgment. It 00:27:38.569 --> 00:27:41.670 absolutely influences the evaluation. Even if 00:27:41.670 --> 00:27:43.849 it has zero relevance to their ability to be 00:27:43.849 --> 00:27:47.049 an accountant, the bias sets in before the candidate 00:27:47.049 --> 00:27:49.490 has even said a word. And once that bias sets 00:27:49.490 --> 00:27:51.650 in, it affects the actual interview, right? It's 00:27:51.650 --> 00:27:53.190 not just a thought in the interviewer's head. 00:27:53.269 --> 00:27:55.450 It changes the dynamic in the room. It creates 00:27:55.450 --> 00:27:58.029 a self -fulfilling prophecy via something called 00:27:58.029 --> 00:28:02.210 leakage. Leakage. That sounds unpleasant. It 00:28:02.210 --> 00:28:04.730 refers to nonverbal behavioral cues leaking out. 00:28:05.230 --> 00:28:08.269 So if I, as the interviewer, have already decided 00:28:08.269 --> 00:28:10.490 I think you are unqualified because of your resume, 00:28:10.609 --> 00:28:13.549 your Facebook profile, I subconsciously leak 00:28:13.549 --> 00:28:15.710 that opinion through my body language. So you're 00:28:15.710 --> 00:28:18.089 colder. I might act colder. I might make less 00:28:18.089 --> 00:28:20.210 eye contact. I might not smile. I might wrap 00:28:20.210 --> 00:28:22.609 things up quicker. I might sit further away or 00:28:22.609 --> 00:28:25.289 angle my body towards the door. And as the candidate, 00:28:25.349 --> 00:28:28.089 I sense that coldness immediately. You pick up 00:28:28.089 --> 00:28:30.710 on it instantly. You become anxious. You think, 00:28:30.710 --> 00:28:33.549 oh no, this is going badly. Your confidence tanks. 00:28:33.789 --> 00:28:36.710 You stumble over your words. You perform poorly. 00:28:36.970 --> 00:28:38.930 And then you confirm the interviewer's initial 00:28:38.930 --> 00:28:42.289 negative bias. Exactly. I walk away thinking, 00:28:42.490 --> 00:28:45.230 see, I knew they were bad, but I actually paused 00:28:45.230 --> 00:28:49.049 it. I sabotaged the interview with my nonverbal 00:28:49.049 --> 00:28:51.650 leakage. And the reverse is also true. Absolutely. 00:28:51.910 --> 00:28:54.130 If I think you're a star. Maybe you went to my 00:28:54.130 --> 00:28:56.750 alma mater or your resume is impressive. I act 00:28:56.750 --> 00:28:59.690 warmer. I smile more. I nod encouragingly. And 00:28:59.690 --> 00:29:02.210 the candidate relaxes. You relax. You feel confident. 00:29:02.289 --> 00:29:04.849 You perform at your best. I am literally coaching 00:29:04.849 --> 00:29:08.329 you to success with my body language because 00:29:08.329 --> 00:29:10.609 I want my initial impression to be right. That 00:29:10.609 --> 00:29:13.490 is wild. We are literally creating the reality 00:29:13.490 --> 00:29:16.529 we expect to see in that room. It's a powerful 00:29:16.529 --> 00:29:19.630 cycle. And it really complicates this whole concept 00:29:19.630 --> 00:29:22.029 of fit. We hear that word all the time. We're 00:29:22.029 --> 00:29:23.849 looking for a good cultural fit. We just want 00:29:23.849 --> 00:29:25.630 someone who fits in with the team. But what does 00:29:25.630 --> 00:29:28.509 that mean? We need to distinguish between person 00:29:28.509 --> 00:29:31.829 job fit and person organization fit. Person job 00:29:31.829 --> 00:29:35.130 fit is do you have the knowledge, skills, and 00:29:35.130 --> 00:29:38.970 abilities, the KSAOs, to actually do the tasks 00:29:38.970 --> 00:29:41.390 of the job? This is usually what we screen for 00:29:41.390 --> 00:29:43.369 early on with resumes. And person organization 00:29:43.369 --> 00:29:47.289 fit. That's about values. Do your values and 00:29:47.289 --> 00:29:50.509 personality match the company culture? This is 00:29:50.509 --> 00:29:53.430 usually assessed in the final stages. But the 00:29:53.430 --> 00:29:56.069 danger is that fit is incredibly subjective. 00:29:56.349 --> 00:29:58.630 Right. Often when an interviewer says they're 00:29:58.630 --> 00:30:02.089 a good fit, what they really mean is they ingratiated 00:30:02.089 --> 00:30:04.950 themselves to me or they share my hobbies or 00:30:04.950 --> 00:30:07.009 they look like me. They'd be fun to have a beer 00:30:07.009 --> 00:30:09.650 with. Exactly. Which is not a valid predictor 00:30:09.650 --> 00:30:11.650 of performance. Yeah. And it often leads to a 00:30:11.650 --> 00:30:13.990 lack of diversity and becomes a cover for discrimination 00:30:13.990 --> 00:30:15.970 against anyone who is different from the existing 00:30:15.970 --> 00:30:18.250 team. Now, we can't talk about interviewing today 00:30:18.250 --> 00:30:20.569 without talking about technology. The days of 00:30:20.569 --> 00:30:22.450 flying everyone in for a face -to -face meeting 00:30:22.450 --> 00:30:25.750 are, for many jobs, fading. We have Zoom. We 00:30:25.750 --> 00:30:27.990 have automated video interviews where you talk 00:30:27.990 --> 00:30:30.490 to a computer. Yes. Is this good or bad for the 00:30:30.490 --> 00:30:32.109 candidate? Well, let's look at it through the 00:30:32.109 --> 00:30:35.220 lens of media richness theory. This theory ranks 00:30:35.220 --> 00:30:37.279 communication methods by how much information 00:30:37.279 --> 00:30:40.380 they convey. Face -to -face is the richest medium. 00:30:40.559 --> 00:30:43.660 It has visual cues, audio cues, immediate feedback, 00:30:43.900 --> 00:30:46.980 smell, touch, the whole thing. And video is leaner. 00:30:47.000 --> 00:30:48.940 Video is leaner. You lose some of those cues, 00:30:49.259 --> 00:30:52.180 the phone is leaner still. And the research consistently 00:30:52.180 --> 00:30:55.539 shows there's a tech penalty. A penalty? You 00:30:55.539 --> 00:30:57.900 mean you actually do worse? Yes. Multiple studies 00:30:57.900 --> 00:31:00.140 show that applicants receive lower ratings in 00:31:00.140 --> 00:31:02.359 phone and video interviews compared to face -to 00:31:02.359 --> 00:31:04.700 -face interviews, even when the content of their 00:31:04.700 --> 00:31:07.420 answers is identical. They're seen as less likable 00:31:07.420 --> 00:31:10.619 and even less intelligent. Why? Is it just the 00:31:10.619 --> 00:31:12.880 awkwardness of the technology? It's the loss 00:31:12.880 --> 00:31:15.539 of signal fidelity. Even tiny technical delays, 00:31:15.740 --> 00:31:18.880 what we call latency, can completely ruin nonverbal 00:31:18.880 --> 00:31:21.559 cues. Think about it. If I smile at your joke, 00:31:21.640 --> 00:31:23.500 but there's a half -second delay on the video, 00:31:23.720 --> 00:31:26.329 the rhythm is off. The moment is gone. You don't 00:31:26.329 --> 00:31:29.329 get that instant feedback. You don't. And you 00:31:29.329 --> 00:31:32.089 struggle to make real eye contact because you're 00:31:32.089 --> 00:31:34.069 supposed to look at the little camera dots, not 00:31:34.069 --> 00:31:37.150 at my eyes on the screen. It flattens the personality 00:31:37.150 --> 00:31:40.529 and makes it harder to build rapport. That explains 00:31:40.529 --> 00:31:43.529 so much about why Zoom interviews feel so draining. 00:31:43.769 --> 00:31:46.269 You're working twice as hard to connect and you're 00:31:46.269 --> 00:31:48.990 getting half the feedback. Exactly. Your brain 00:31:48.990 --> 00:31:51.250 is trying to fill in the missing data and it's 00:31:51.250 --> 00:31:53.539 exhausting. What about some of these other weird 00:31:53.539 --> 00:31:56.180 formats like stress interviews? I've heard horror 00:31:56.180 --> 00:31:58.880 stories of interviewers intentionally yelling 00:31:58.880 --> 00:32:01.480 at or ignoring a candidate just to see what happens. 00:32:01.759 --> 00:32:04.420 Yes, these are very controversial for good reason. 00:32:05.000 --> 00:32:08.079 The stated goal is to intentionally intimidate 00:32:08.079 --> 00:32:10.059 the candidate to see how they handle pressure. 00:32:10.400 --> 00:32:12.380 Give me an example of a tactic they might use. 00:32:12.599 --> 00:32:15.180 A classic one is the interviewer will refuse 00:32:15.180 --> 00:32:17.819 to make eye contact. They'll just look down and 00:32:17.819 --> 00:32:20.519 shuffle papers. Or they'll roll their eyes at 00:32:20.519 --> 00:32:24.109 your answers. Or they might ask a totally bizarre 00:32:24.109 --> 00:32:26.849 off the wall question like, what would you change 00:32:26.849 --> 00:32:29.730 about the design of a hockey stick? Purely to 00:32:29.730 --> 00:32:31.769 throw you off balance. Or demanding an immediate 00:32:31.769 --> 00:32:34.170 presentation with zero prep time. That's another 00:32:34.170 --> 00:32:36.430 one. Does this actually work? Does it tell you 00:32:36.430 --> 00:32:38.910 anything useful? It tells you how that person 00:32:38.910 --> 00:32:41.970 handles that specific type of bizarre artificial 00:32:41.970 --> 00:32:46.099 stress. But it comes at a huge cost. It tends 00:32:46.099 --> 00:32:48.420 to make high quality candidates run for the hills. 00:32:48.640 --> 00:32:50.579 Because they have other options. Right. If you 00:32:50.579 --> 00:32:53.720 are a top tier engineer and an interviewer treats 00:32:53.720 --> 00:32:56.579 you like garbage, you don't think, wow, what 00:32:56.579 --> 00:32:58.559 a rigorous and challenging process. You think 00:32:58.559 --> 00:33:01.619 this company's culture is toxic and abusive and 00:33:01.619 --> 00:33:03.819 you go accept the offer from their competitors. 00:33:03.940 --> 00:33:06.079 So you end up filtering out the people who have 00:33:06.079 --> 00:33:08.220 self -respect and options. You're left with the 00:33:08.220 --> 00:33:11.039 desperate and the compliant. It's a terrible 00:33:11.039 --> 00:33:13.619 strategy for attracting top talent. What about 00:33:13.619 --> 00:33:16.039 panel interviews versus group interviews? What's 00:33:16.039 --> 00:33:18.319 the difference? A panel interview is multiple 00:33:18.319 --> 00:33:21.200 interviewers and one candidate. This can actually 00:33:21.200 --> 00:33:23.980 be good. Why is that? Because it reduces individual 00:33:23.980 --> 00:33:27.319 bias. You have multiple witnesses seeing and 00:33:27.319 --> 00:33:29.380 hearing the exact same thing at the same time. 00:33:29.660 --> 00:33:32.480 It's harder for one person's weird personal bias 00:33:32.480 --> 00:33:34.940 to dominate the decision. You can compare notes 00:33:34.940 --> 00:33:37.240 on the data. Okay, that makes sense. And group 00:33:37.240 --> 00:33:39.880 interviews. That's the other way around. One 00:33:39.880 --> 00:33:43.019 interviewer, multiple candidates at once. like 00:33:43.019 --> 00:33:45.619 a reality show competition oh i hate those they 00:33:45.619 --> 00:33:48.619 feel so awkward they are it's efficient for the 00:33:48.619 --> 00:33:50.660 company they can screen six people in an hour 00:33:50.660 --> 00:33:53.700 yeah but it's chaotic and it can be deeply unfair 00:33:53.700 --> 00:33:56.660 if i ask a question and you answer first The 00:33:56.660 --> 00:33:58.779 next candidate can just copy your answer and 00:33:58.779 --> 00:34:01.299 maybe improve it slightly. It rewards who speaks 00:34:01.299 --> 00:34:04.680 first and loudest. Exactly. It favors the bold 00:34:04.680 --> 00:34:07.099 and loud, not necessarily the most thoughtful 00:34:07.099 --> 00:34:09.800 or competent. Let's shift gears to the really 00:34:09.800 --> 00:34:13.119 serious legal and ethical side of this. The interview 00:34:13.119 --> 00:34:15.579 is a legal minefield, isn't it? Especially in 00:34:15.579 --> 00:34:17.800 the U .S. context. Absolutely. We have the Civil 00:34:17.800 --> 00:34:20.019 Rights Act, Title VII. We have the Americans 00:34:20.019 --> 00:34:23.039 with Disabilities Act, the ADA, the Age Discrimination 00:34:23.039 --> 00:34:26.039 and Employment Act. The law is very clear. You 00:34:26.039 --> 00:34:28.460 cannot make hiring decisions based on a person's 00:34:28.460 --> 00:34:30.460 protected characteristics. So there are literally 00:34:30.460 --> 00:34:33.539 illegal questions. In the U .S., yes. You generally 00:34:33.539 --> 00:34:35.940 cannot ask about a candidate's age, their arrest 00:34:35.940 --> 00:34:38.000 records, their religion, their plans for marriage 00:34:38.000 --> 00:34:40.059 or children, or their health and disability status. 00:34:40.590 --> 00:34:43.050 But the bias still creeps in, right? Even if 00:34:43.050 --> 00:34:44.989 they don't ask the illegal question directly. 00:34:45.349 --> 00:34:47.929 It does. It absolutely does. Let's look at disability, 00:34:48.230 --> 00:34:50.869 for example. The research here is really complex. 00:34:51.469 --> 00:34:53.869 There's a big difference between how visible 00:34:53.869 --> 00:34:56.869 disabilities, like using a wheelchair, and non 00:34:56.869 --> 00:34:59.469 -visible disabilities, like chronic pain or mental 00:34:59.469 --> 00:35:02.150 health condition, are perceived. And how does 00:35:02.150 --> 00:35:04.750 that play out in the interview? Interestingly... 00:35:04.889 --> 00:35:07.530 For non -visible disabilities, the research suggests 00:35:07.530 --> 00:35:09.889 that applicants who choose to disclose their 00:35:09.889 --> 00:35:12.610 disability early in the interview are often rated 00:35:12.610 --> 00:35:15.269 more highly than those who wait until the end. 00:35:15.429 --> 00:35:18.110 Really? Why? I would think hiding it for as long 00:35:18.110 --> 00:35:20.710 as possible would be safer. It's about trust 00:35:20.710 --> 00:35:23.610 and managing perceptions. If you disclose it 00:35:23.610 --> 00:35:26.150 early and confidently, you are seen as honest 00:35:26.150 --> 00:35:28.030 and forthright. You're controlling the narrative. 00:35:28.429 --> 00:35:31.010 If you wait until the very end or after the offer, 00:35:31.230 --> 00:35:33.650 it can be perceived by a biased interviewer. 00:35:33.900 --> 00:35:36.280 as hiding something, and it creates a feeling 00:35:36.280 --> 00:35:38.079 of surprise that they might react negatively 00:35:38.079 --> 00:35:40.619 to. That's a tricky line to walk for the candidate. 00:35:40.800 --> 00:35:42.900 What about criminal background? This is a huge 00:35:42.900 --> 00:35:45.280 topic. Yeah. You have the Ban the Box campaigns, 00:35:45.579 --> 00:35:47.960 which have tried to remove the criminal history 00:35:47.960 --> 00:35:51.420 checkbox from initial applications just to give 00:35:51.420 --> 00:35:53.000 people a chance to get in the door and be seen 00:35:53.000 --> 00:35:55.380 as a person. Right. The research on this suggests 00:35:55.380 --> 00:35:58.280 that, similar to disability, employers prefer 00:35:58.280 --> 00:36:01.000 applicants who disclose a criminal history up 00:36:01.000 --> 00:36:03.489 front. and take responsibility for it rather 00:36:03.489 --> 00:36:05.510 than having the employer find it on a background 00:36:05.510 --> 00:36:07.690 check later and feel like they were deceived 00:36:07.690 --> 00:36:10.170 so again it's about owning the narrative yes 00:36:10.170 --> 00:36:13.079 and then there are the biases that aren't necessarily 00:36:13.079 --> 00:36:16.699 illegal to ask about but still result in discrimination, 00:36:17.059 --> 00:36:19.059 like a person's weight? Weight discrimination 00:36:19.059 --> 00:36:22.300 is rampant and well -documented. There is strong, 00:36:22.340 --> 00:36:24.860 consistent evidence that overweight and obese 00:36:24.860 --> 00:36:27.960 applicants are perceived as lazy, unmotivated, 00:36:27.980 --> 00:36:30.880 or lacking self -discipline purely based on their 00:36:30.880 --> 00:36:32.960 physical appearance. It's a powerful, unfair 00:36:32.960 --> 00:36:35.699 stereotype that creates a massive barrier to 00:36:35.699 --> 00:36:39.960 entry. And pregnancy. A very similar bias. Employers 00:36:39.960 --> 00:36:42.800 illegally fear the candidate will quit or miss 00:36:42.800 --> 00:36:45.880 too much work. It's illegal to discriminate based 00:36:45.880 --> 00:36:48.840 on it, but the negative bias in interview ratings 00:36:48.840 --> 00:36:51.829 is well documented in the research. And we can't 00:36:51.829 --> 00:36:54.010 talk about bias without talking about names on 00:36:54.010 --> 00:36:57.250 a resume. No. The famous resume study by Bertrand 00:36:57.250 --> 00:36:59.889 and Melanathan showed this with brutal clarity. 00:37:00.110 --> 00:37:02.429 They sent out thousands of identical resumes. 00:37:02.969 --> 00:37:05.530 The only difference was that some had traditionally 00:37:05.530 --> 00:37:09.449 white -sounding names, like Emily or Greg. And 00:37:09.449 --> 00:37:10.829 the others? And the others had traditionally 00:37:10.829 --> 00:37:13.510 African -American -sounding names, like Lakeisha 00:37:13.510 --> 00:37:16.530 or Jamal. And the result was staggering. The 00:37:16.530 --> 00:37:18.670 white -sounding names got significantly more 00:37:18.670 --> 00:37:22.050 callbacks for interviews. Up to 50 % more for 00:37:22.050 --> 00:37:24.849 the exact same resume. The interview gatekeeping 00:37:24.849 --> 00:37:26.849 starts before the interview even happens. That 00:37:26.849 --> 00:37:29.949 is just, it really shows how much work is left 00:37:29.949 --> 00:37:32.250 to be done. And now that the world is so global, 00:37:32.329 --> 00:37:34.250 we have to consider cross -cultural issues, too. 00:37:34.429 --> 00:37:36.690 This is a fascinating area. We run into something 00:37:36.690 --> 00:37:39.110 called construct bias. This means a trait or 00:37:39.110 --> 00:37:41.349 a concept like leisure means different things 00:37:41.349 --> 00:37:43.190 in different cultures. Can you give me an example? 00:37:43.329 --> 00:37:46.369 Sure. In many Western cultures, having hobbies 00:37:46.369 --> 00:37:49.110 shows you are well -rounded. Oh, I run marathons. 00:37:49.110 --> 00:37:51.849 I paint. I volunteer. It's a positive signal. 00:37:52.030 --> 00:37:54.670 Right. But in some cultures with a very strong 00:37:54.670 --> 00:37:58.289 Confucian work ethic, asking about leisure activities 00:37:58.289 --> 00:38:01.199 might be seen as irrelevant. or even negative. 00:38:01.559 --> 00:38:04.239 The subtext is, why aren't you working? Are you 00:38:04.239 --> 00:38:07.039 lazy? The construct itself is valued differently. 00:38:07.260 --> 00:38:09.340 And communication styles must be a huge one. 00:38:09.420 --> 00:38:12.000 Huge. Western applicants, particularly from the 00:38:12.000 --> 00:38:14.659 US, tend to focus on individual achievement. 00:38:15.039 --> 00:38:18.920 I did this. I led that team. We value the I. 00:38:19.400 --> 00:38:21.900 OK. In many collectivist cultures, like in much 00:38:21.900 --> 00:38:24.960 of East Asia, the focus is on group harmony and 00:38:24.960 --> 00:38:27.179 collective success. We did this. The team achieved 00:38:27.179 --> 00:38:29.880 that. Taking individual credit can be seen as 00:38:29.880 --> 00:38:32.199 arrogant. So a U .S. interviewer might hear a 00:38:32.199 --> 00:38:34.199 candidate from a collectivist culture and think, 00:38:34.239 --> 00:38:36.320 this person isn't a leader. They're just a follower. 00:38:36.460 --> 00:38:40.170 They never say I. Exactly. They mistake cultural 00:38:40.170 --> 00:38:43.110 modesty for a lack of competence or leadership 00:38:43.110 --> 00:38:46.170 potential. We are measuring people against our 00:38:46.170 --> 00:38:48.889 own cultural yardstick without even realizing 00:38:48.889 --> 00:38:52.510 it. What is a good answer in the US might be 00:38:52.510 --> 00:38:55.809 seen as arrogant in Japan. And what is a good 00:38:55.809 --> 00:38:58.889 answer in Japan might be seen as weak and evasive 00:38:58.889 --> 00:39:02.159 in the US. Wow. There are just so many layers 00:39:02.159 --> 00:39:04.980 to this. We started with sweaty palms and we've 00:39:04.980 --> 00:39:08.420 ended up in this complex web of psychology, law, 00:39:08.639 --> 00:39:11.559 sociology, and technology. It really is a social 00:39:11.559 --> 00:39:14.059 ritual as much as it is a business process. It 00:39:14.059 --> 00:39:16.340 captures all our biases, our hopes, and our flaws 00:39:16.340 --> 00:39:18.739 as human beings in one 60 -minute interaction. 00:39:19.099 --> 00:39:20.659 So let's try to bring it all home. After all 00:39:20.659 --> 00:39:22.400 this, what does it mean for us? If you are an 00:39:22.400 --> 00:39:24.159 interviewer or you run a company, what is the 00:39:24.159 --> 00:39:26.039 single most important takeaway from all this 00:39:26.039 --> 00:39:27.980 research? The key takeaway is simple, and it 00:39:27.980 --> 00:39:30.639 is undeniable. Move towards structure. Embrace 00:39:30.639 --> 00:39:32.659 the robot. Embrace the discipline. Ask the same 00:39:32.659 --> 00:39:35.239 questions to everyone. Use a behaviorally anchored 00:39:35.239 --> 00:39:37.579 rating scale. Take detailed independent notes. 00:39:37.639 --> 00:39:39.820 And for goodness sake, do not rely on your gut. 00:39:39.940 --> 00:39:42.860 Because my gut is biased. Your gut is biased. 00:39:43.400 --> 00:39:46.059 Structure is fair. Structure is accurate. It 00:39:46.059 --> 00:39:48.139 is the only way to actually predict performance 00:39:48.139 --> 00:39:50.659 on the job and give every single candidate a 00:39:50.659 --> 00:39:52.820 fair shot. And if you're a candidate listening 00:39:52.820 --> 00:39:55.659 to this. Understand the game you are playing. 00:39:56.119 --> 00:39:59.119 Know that those nonverbal cues matter. Practice 00:39:59.119 --> 00:40:01.739 your eye contact and your smile in a mirror. 00:40:02.159 --> 00:40:04.780 Prepare your behavioral stories using that STAR 00:40:04.780 --> 00:40:07.000 method. And if you encounter a highly structured 00:40:07.000 --> 00:40:09.420 interview, don't be put off by the stiffness 00:40:09.420 --> 00:40:12.199 or how formal it feels. You're saying even though 00:40:12.199 --> 00:40:14.800 it feels cold, it's actually good for you. It's 00:40:14.800 --> 00:40:16.980 protecting you. It's protecting you from the 00:40:16.980 --> 00:40:19.239 interviewer's bad mood, their hidden biases, 00:40:19.400 --> 00:40:21.480 or the fact that they just don't like the shoes 00:40:21.480 --> 00:40:24.280 you're wearing. it gives you a chance to be judged 00:40:24.280 --> 00:40:27.320 on the evidence of what you can do, not on the 00:40:27.320 --> 00:40:29.599 whim of who you are. Before we go, I want to 00:40:29.599 --> 00:40:31.460 leave everyone with a final thought to chew on. 00:40:31.800 --> 00:40:35.199 You mentioned the dark triad earlier, that narcissists 00:40:35.199 --> 00:40:37.659 and psychopaths are naturally better at unstructured 00:40:37.659 --> 00:40:39.960 interviews than the rest of us. Yes, the research 00:40:39.960 --> 00:40:42.239 is clear on that. So if the interview, especially 00:40:42.239 --> 00:40:44.820 the unstructured chat, is our main gatekeeper 00:40:44.820 --> 00:40:48.280 for power, for jobs, for leadership positions, 00:40:48.679 --> 00:40:51.840 and if that gate is naturally biased to favor 00:40:51.840 --> 00:40:54.139 these dangerous, manipulative personalities, 00:40:54.699 --> 00:40:57.219 what does that say about the leadership structures 00:40:57.219 --> 00:41:00.039 of our organizations and our entire world? It 00:41:00.039 --> 00:41:02.809 raises the deeply uncomfortable question. Are 00:41:02.809 --> 00:41:05.510 we selecting for competence or are we just selecting 00:41:05.510 --> 00:41:07.650 for confidence? Something to think about the 00:41:07.650 --> 00:41:09.650 next time you're sitting across that table trying 00:41:09.650 --> 00:41:12.070 to decide if you're looking at a future CEO or 00:41:12.070 --> 00:41:15.010 just a really, really charming narcissist. Thanks 00:41:15.010 --> 00:41:16.670 for diving deep with us. Thank you. See you next 00:41:16.670 --> 00:41:16.849 time.