Hello and welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today
we are going to talk about something that is,
well, it's a near universal human experience.
It really is. It's something that I think almost
every single person listening to this has gone
through. Usually with a fair amount of sweaty
palms, a racing heart, and that, you know, that
desperate hope that you don't say something incredibly
stupid. We are talking, of course, about the
job interview. The job interview. It's the great
equalizer, isn't it? I mean, whether you're applying
to be a barista, a high level software engineer
or a CEO, you generally have to sit across from
someone and stare into a webcam these days. Right.
Or stare into a webcam and prove in 30 to 60
minutes that you are worthy of their time and
their money. Exactly. It's this incredibly high
stakes conversation. Your entire future, your
income, your career path, your ability to pay
your rent. Everything. It all hangs in the balance
of this one short chat. And because we've all
done it, and I think a lot of us have been on
both sides of the table eventually, we all kind
of assume we know how it works. We do. We assume
it's a good way, maybe even the best way, to
find the right person for the job. And you're
saying that assumption is what? Wrong. That is
exactly where the paradox lies. That assumption
is the shaky foundation we're standing on today.
A paradox. OK, explain that. Yes. The research
we have in front of us today paints a really
complex and, to be honest, a somewhat disturbing
picture. On one hand, the job interview is the
single most common selection method used worldwide.
It's considered indispensable. Right. You'd never
hire someone without meeting them. It feels like
common sense. Of course not. But on the other
hand, the data suggests that the way most people
conduct interviews is notoriously unreliable.
Unreliable. So we're stressing out, buying uncomfortable
suits, rehearsing our greatest weakness answers
in the mirror. Yes. And the whole process might
not even work. Often it fails to identify the
optimal person for the job. It actually gets
worse than that, as we'll see later in this deep
dive. Sometimes the very traits that make you
win the interview are actually massive red flags
for how you'll perform on the job. We might be
selecting for the wrong things entirely. OK,
let's unpack this, because if the system is broken.
or at least significantly flawed, we need to
understand why. So our mission today is to deconstruct
this black box. Exactly. We're going to look
at the science of structure versus intuition.
We're going to break down the psychology of first
impressions. And this is where it gets really
interesting. We're going to talk about the dark
triad. The dark triad is a fascinating area of
research. It explains why certain dangerous personalities,
narcissists, psychopaths and Machiavellians,
often excel in these settings. While honest people
might struggle. That sounds absolutely terrifying
and I cannot wait to get there. We'll also touch
on the legal minefields, the bias that's just
baked into the system and how technology is changing
the game. We have a huge stack of source material
here. Studies on validity, psychology, legal
frameworks, a bunch of meta -analyses. So let's
dive in. Where do we even start with something
this big? We have to start with the fundamental
debate that divides the entire field. It's structure
versus intuition. Or, to put it another way...
The science versus the chat. Okay, the science
versus the chat. I think I know which side most
people fall on naturally. When I've interviewed
people in the past or when I've been interviewed,
I usually want it to feel natural, you know.
A conversation. Yeah, just a conversation. Get
a feel for the person. See if we click. Hey,
I see you like hiking. I like hiking, too. That
kind of thing. And that is a perfect description
of what the research calls an unstructured interview.
It's informal. It's free -flowing. You might
ask one candidate. about their hobbies because
you see a golf trophy on their resume. Right.
And another candidate about their college major
because you went to the same school. The questions
aren't set in stone. Right. It feels organic.
It gives me confidence that I'm really getting
to know the human being behind the resume. I
feel like I can trust my gut. And that feeling
of confidence is the trap. The trap. The research
shows that interviewers overwhelmingly prefer
unstructured interviews precisely because it
validates their own judgment. They trust their
gut. They believe they have a special, almost
magical ability to spot a fake or identify talent
just by chatting. It feels good to trust your
intuition. It feels great. But the data violently
disagrees with your gut. Violently. Okay. The
reality check here is that unstructured interviews
are highly, highly unreliable. There's a classic
finding in the literature where you have two
different interviewers talk to the exact same
candidate on the same day. Now, if the interview
was a valid measurement tool, like a ruler or
a scale, they should get the same result, right?
Ideally, yeah. If I weigh myself on two different
scales, I expect the number to be pretty much
the same. Exactly. But in unstructured interviews,
because they're having different conversations
based on their own whims and what they feel like
talking about, they will come away with completely
different impressions. So one person loves the
candidate, the other one doesn't. One might think
the candidate is a superstar because they laughed
at their joke. The other might think they're
unqualified because they didn't talk enough about
a specific project. It's totally subjective.
So my gut feeling is basically just random noise.
It's worse than noise. It's bias wrapped in confidence.
When you rely on intuition, you aren't measuring
job capability. You're often just measuring how
much you like the person or, you know, how similar
they are to you. Wow. The research is so clear
on this. Unstructured interviews often fail to
identify high -quality candidates. They have
very low predictive validity. Honestly, you might
as well be flipping a coin in some cases. OK,
that's humbling and a little terrifying for anyone
who's ever hired someone that way. So if the
chat is out, what's the alternative? A robot
interrogation. The structured interview. Yeah.
And while you might jokingly call it robotic,
the science calls it superior. OK. Structure
is all about one thing. Standardization. It's
about treating the interview like a scientific
experiment where you control as many variables
as you can. Standardization. So treating every
single candidate exactly the same. Precisely.
And it comes down to two main pillars, content
structure and evaluation structure. Okay, let's
break those down. Content structure first. What
does that actually look like in the room? Content
structure means you ask the exact same questions
in the exact same order to every single candidate
who walks through that door. Every single one.
No exceptions. No exceptions. And crucially,
those questions are based on a job analysis.
Meaning they are actually relevant to the work
that needs to be done, not just things you're
curious about. So no. If you were a flavor of
ice cream, what would you be and why? Unless
you are hiring an ice cream taster, no. But here
is the part that is really, really hard for most
people. You also have to limit prompting and
follow -up questions. Limiting prompting. You
mean I can't help them along if they're stuck?
That's right. So if a candidate is stumbling,
I can't just jump in and say, oh, did you mean
maybe when you worked at that other company?
Exactly. If you help candidate A because you
like their smile, but you don't help candidate
B because they seem nervous, you've broken the
standardization. You've corrupted the data. I
see. You are no longer comparing their ability.
You are comparing your willingness to help them.
You've introduced a massive variable. I feel
so cold. But I guess I see the logic. If it's
a test, you can't give hints to only some of
the students. It is a test. That's exactly what
it is. Okay, so that's content structure. What
about evaluation structure? This is all about
how you score them. In an unstructured interview,
you might just give a thumbs up or thumbs down
at the end. You walk out of the room and say
to your colleague, I liked him. Right. He's got
a good vibe. Exactly. In a structured setting,
you rate each individual answer as it happens.
Yeah. You often use what are called BARIs. BARIs.
That sounds like an intense workout regimen.
It stands for Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales.
Okay. It's a way to remove subjectivity. So instead
of just thinking that was a good answer, you
have a sheet in front of you that literally defines
what a one answer looks like, what a three looks
like, and what a five looks like for that specific
question. Can you give me an example? Like if
we were interviewing for a customer service job.
Sure. Let's say the question is, tell me about
a time you dealt with an angry customer. A one
on the rating scale might be predefined as candidate
blamed the customer or asked a manager to deal
with it immediately. Okay, a bad answer. A three
might be candidate listened to the customer and
offered a standard refund. You know, competent.
but not amazing. And a five? A five might be.
Candidate de -escalated the emotion, solved the
root problem so it wouldn't happen again, and
followed up later to ensure satisfaction. Ah,
I see. So you aren't just judging their vibe
or how they tell the story. You are literally
matching what they said to a pre -written rubric.
Exactly. You are categorizing evidence. And this
is key. You take detailed notes and you absolutely
do not discuss the candidate with other interviewers
until... Everyone has submitted their independent
ratings. Oh, I've definitely been guilty of that
one. The huddle right after the candidate leaves
where everyone says, so what did you think? That
huddle is where groupthink happens. It's poison
to good decision making. If the most senior person
in the room says, I didn't like her, everyone
else subconsciously adjusts their opinion to
match. You don't want to be the one to disagree
with the boss. Of course not. So the data is
crystal clear. Independent, structured interviews
are far, far more accurate predictors of future
job performance. The validity coefficients, which
is just a fancy statistic for how well the interview
predicts success, they range from about 0 .20
for a totally unstructured chat to as high as
0 .57 for a highly structured one. And 0 .57
is good. In the world of social science and hiring,
0 .57 is excellent. It's huge. It's a much better
predictor than reference checks, better than
years of experience listed on a resume, better
than GPA. And the research shows that as you
increase the amount of structure, that number
just keeps going up. So the more disciplined
and, I guess, scientific we make it, the better
we are at actually hiring the right person. Yes.
It's about fairness and it's about accuracy.
It reduces the chance that you hire someone just
because they happen to support the same football
team as you. OK, so we know we need structure,
but structure is just the framework, right? We
still have to fill it with good questions. That's
right. And I feel like there are two main camps
of questions I always hear. There's the what
would you do if and the tell me about a time
when. You've hit on the two major types found
in the literature. Situational questions and
behavioral questions. Let's start with situational.
That's the what would you do if, right? Yeah.
The hypothetical. Correct. These are future -oriented.
You present a hypothetical dilemma. Imagine you're
dealing with an angry client who demands a refund
we can't give according to our policy. What do
you do? I can see the benefit there. Even if
I've never had that specific job before, I can
walk you through my thought process. It tests
my judgment. Exactly. It levels the playing field
for candidates who might not have direct experience
but have the right instincts or problem -solving
skills. Everyone faces the exact same hypothetical
dilemma, so you can compare their logic directly,
apple to apples. But isn't there a risk that
I just tell you what I think you want to hear?
That's the main criticism. Like I'll just say,
oh, I would be perfect and polite and I'd follow
all the rules and make the customer happy, even
if in reality I would probably lose my temper.
Yes, that is downside. Situational questions
measure intention or, more accurately, knowledge
of the socially desirable answer, not necessarily
what you would actually do under pressure. Okay,
so that's why we also have the other type. That's
why we have behavioral questions. Tell me about
a time when... Past -oriented. The premise here
is simple and powerful. Past behavior is the
best predictor of future performance. Makes sense.
So you asked, tell me about a time you had to
persuade a colleague to change their mind. Or
give me a specific example of a goal you set
and how you achieved it. I find these much harder
as a candidate, to be honest. I have to dig through
my memory bank while I'm nervous. Did I ever
persuade anyone as getting my cat to come inside
count? They are cognitively demanding, and that's
by design. but they are very effective because
they force you to provide evidence. You can't
just hypothesize about being a great leader.
You have to prove you've done it. You have to
tell a story with a beginning, a middle, and
an end. The famous star method. Exactly. Situation,
task, action, result. And because it requires
specific granular details, it's much harder to
fake, though not impossible, as we'll discuss
later. So which is better, situational or behavioral?
The verdict in the research is that a mix of
both is best practice. Use situational questions
for scenarios the candidate might not have faced
yet, and use behavioral questions for core competencies
that you expect them to have already demonstrated.
Okay. Now we have to talk about the weird questions,
the ones that become like urban legends in the
tech industry. Ah, yes. I remember hearing about
Microsoft in the 90s asking things like, Why
are manhole covers round? Or how would you weigh
an airplane without a scale? The infamous puzzle
interview. These were huge for a while, popularized
by tech giants like Microsoft and Google. What
on earth is the point of asking about manhole
covers? I mean, unless you're hiring a city planner.
The idea, the theory anyway, was to measure g
-factor, which is another term for general intelligence,
along with creativity and on -the -spot problem
solving. So the logic was, if you can reason
through an abstract puzzle, you can solve complex
coding problems. That was the theory. How do
they work in practice? The jury is largely out,
but the consensus is leaning heavily towards
no, especially when you compare them to structured
behavioral interviews. So they don't really predict
anything. Not reliably. But more importantly,
the applicant reaction is usually terrible. I
can imagine. It feels like hazing. Like, dance
for me, monkey. It does. Candidates often view
them as unfair, gimmicky, or completely unrelated
to the job. And think about it. If a high -quality
candidate thinks your interview process is silly,
they might assume your company is silly. And
go work for a competitor who takes them seriously.
Exactly. Unless you are hiring a structural engineer
asking why a manhole cover is round. And by the
way, it's round so it can't fall through the
hole diagonally. Right, a square one could. It
might just alienate your best talent. It sends
the wrong signal. That makes a lot of sense.
It feels like a trick, not a genuine question.
So where do the good questions come from? You
mentioned job analysis earlier. Yes, and specifically
a method called the critical incident technique.
This actually has a fascinating origin story
dating back to research with the U .S. Army on
combat leadership during World War II. Combat
leadership? That's intense. How did that relate
to interview questions? Well, back then, they
wanted to figure out what actually made... an
effective officer. So instead of just sitting
in a boardroom and guessing, you know, oh, bravery
is important and being tall. Right. They went
to the veterans. They went to the people who
had been there and they asked them to describe
specific factual incidents of both effective
and ineffective behavior they had witnessed from
officers during combat. So not was he a good
leader, but. But tell me exactly what he did
when the tank broke down under fire. Tell me
exactly what he said when the platoon was lost
and morale was low. So they collected actual
stories from the field. Yeah. Hard evidence.
Thousands of them. And by analyzing these specific
stories, these critical incidents, they built
a picture of what good actually looks like in
practice. It wasn't abstract. It was behavioral.
In this specific crisis, the good leader did
X and the bad leader did Y. And that translates
directly to the corporate world. Perfectly. Instead
of guessing what makes a good sales manager,
you go ask the current sales team. Tell me about
a time a manager saved a deal that was falling
apart. Or tell me about a time a manager's actions
lost a major client. So you gather those critical
incidents. And you build your interview questions
directly from those real -world scenarios. You
aren't asking, are you a good leader? You're
asking, here is a situation that actually happens
on our sales floor. A client is threatening to
leave. What do you do? That's how you get high
validity. Exactly. You are testing for things
that actually happen on the job. Okay. So we've
got our structure. We've got our scientifically
derived questions. We are armed with the best
practices. But an interview isn't just a written
test. Not at all. It's a live performance. It's
theater. And this brings us to the psychology
of the room. Or the psychology of the candidate.
Right. Because it turns out how you say something
matters just as much, if not sometimes more,
than what you say. I knew it. It's not just about
my skills. It's about my vibe. It's about whether
I can sell it. It's about nonverbal behaviors.
The research breaks this down into two main categories,
visual cues and vocal cues. Visual cues like
smiling. Making eye contact. Exactly. Smiling,
eye contact, body orientation. For example, leaning
forward slightly shows interest and engagement.
Nodding shows that you're an active listener.
Small things. Tiny things. But their impact is
massive. The research is very clear that candidates
who do these things are perceived as more likable,
more trustworthy, more competent, and ultimately
more successful. Even if their answers are just
mediocre. To an extent, yes. Yeah. If you give
a solid B answer but you deliver... with A plus
eye contact and a warm, engaging smile, you might
very well get the job over the person with the
A -ing answer who looked at the floor the whole
time. So you're not just being judged on the
content, but the packaging. Packaging matters
immensely. And then you have the vocal cues.
The sound of your voice. Pitch, fluency, speed,
pauses. There is a concept called vocal attractiveness.
It sounds shallow, I know, but it's a real psychological
measurable. What makes a voice attractive in
this context? It's an appealing mix of speech
rate, not talking too fast, not talking too slow,
and having some pitch variability that's positively
related to higher interview ratings. Pitch variability,
so not speaking in a monotone robot voice. Exactly.
If you speak in a monotone, even if you are explaining
the theory of relativity perfectly, listeners
will tune out. They will perceive you as having
low energy or low social intelligence. It's just
how our brains are wired. Okay, but the most
potent bias in this whole area has to be physical
attractiveness. We always hear about pretty privilege.
Is it real in the interview room? Oh, it is very
real. It's called the halo effect, and it is
one of the most robust and replicated findings
in all of psychology. Interviewers consistently
judge attractive individuals more favorably on
job -related factors, even when attractiveness
is completely and utterly irrelevant to the role.
So we just unconsciously assume attractive people
are smarter. We assume they're smarter, more
socially competent, happier, and have better
mental health. It's an unconscious cognitive
bias. We see one positive trait, physical beauty,
and we let that halo extend to all these other
unrelated traits like intelligence and leadership
potential. That is deeply depressing for those
of us who, you know, aren't supermodels. It is.
However, there is a nuance in the research that
offers a little bit of hope. Okay, I'll take
it. What does that mean? If it's a tie between
you and someone else? Tiebreaker. So if I'm average,
I better look good. But if I'm great, I can just
be myself. In a perfect world, yes. But it certainly
never hurts. Okay, let's talk about faking it.
Because we all try to present the best version
of ourselves in an interview. Where does the
research draw the line between polishing and
just lying? The literature distinguishes between
honest impression management and deceptive impression
management. Okay. Honest impression management
is what? Self -promotion? Right. Highlighting
your real achievements. Taking credit where it's
due. Using positive language to describe your
actual work. That's not just okay, it's necessary.
If you don't self -promote, you might be seen
as disinterested or lacking confidence. And deceptive
is just straight up lying, making things up.
Exaggerating your role, inventing experiences,
hiding negative information. One study found
that over 80 % of participants admitted to lying
about their job -related skills. 80 %? Yes. The
interesting middle ground, and the research shows
this is the most prevalent tactic of all, is
something called ingratiation. Ingratiation.
That's a fancy word for sucking up. Essentially,
yes, kissing up. It's complimenting the interviewer,
complimenting the organization. Oh, I've always
admired this company's vision. I read that article
you wrote on LinkedIn, and I just loved it. That's
a great tie. Yes, all of that. Does it work,
or do interviewers see right through it? The
research shows it works frighteningly well. Really?
Yes. Candidates who use ingratiation tactics
receive significantly higher scores in person
organization fit. The interviewer walks away
from the conversation thinking, wow, this person
really gets us. They'd be a great cultural fit.
When really they just know how to stroke your
ego. Exactly. It leads to higher hiring recommendations.
Yeah. Which raises a really uncomfortable question.
Which is? Are we hiring the best person for the
job? Or are we just hiring the person who makes
us feel the best about ourselves? That is a terrifying
thought, that we're so easily manipulated by
basic flattery. It's a powerful tool. And speaking
of manipulation, let's transition to the part
of the research that really stopped me in my
tracks, the dark triad. This is a critical area
of study, and it's where the flaws of the unstructured
interview, the chat, really become dangerous.
The dark triad refers to three specific and malevolent
personality traits, narcissism, psychopathy.
and Machiavellianism. These sound like movie
villains, but you're telling me that people with
these traits actually do better in job interviews.
That is the scary anomaly. These dark traits
actually help candidates perform better in the
short term, specifically in the interview context,
despite being strongly linked to poor job performance,
unethical behavior, and toxicity later on. Let's
break them down one by one. Narcissism. I think
we all have a pretty good idea of what that looks
like. Narcissists excel at interviews. I mean,
think about what an interview is. It's a stage
where you are asked to talk about how great you
are for an hour. It's a narcissist's dream scenario.
It is. They are charming. They're incredibly
confident. They often dress impeccably. And they
are highly, highly skilled at self -promotion
and ingratiation. So the interviewer sits there
thinking, wow, this person is so confident. They're
a natural leader. They've got that star quality.
Precisely. They mistake the narcissism for competence.
Interviewers consistently rate them as highly
agreeable and capable. But the reality is, narcissism
is not related to actual job performance. In
fact, it's often negatively correlated. That
positive first impression is incredibly short
-lived. Once they're hired, the charm wears off.
The charm wears off, the entitlement kicks in,
they refuse to take responsibility for failure,
they steal credit from others, and they become
toxic to the team. Okay, next up, psychopathy.
specifically corporate psychopaths. Now, to be
clear, we aren't talking about serial killers
here, right? No, absolutely not. We are talking
about high -functioning, nonviolent corporate
psychopaths. This is a subclinical trait. These
are individuals who make distinctively positive
first impressions. They appear alert, friendly,
and surprisingly, emotionally well -adjusted.
How is that possible? Isn't the very definition
of a psychopath that they lack empathy? Wouldn't
they seem cold and calculating? You would think
so, but they are masters of mimicry. They have
spent their lives observing others and learning
how to fake the emotions they're supposed to
feel. And their core traits can be dangerously
misinterpreted by a naive interviewer. How so?
Their thrill -seeking nature and impulsivity
is seen as high energy and passion. Their irresponsibility
is spun as being an entrepreneurial risk taker.
Their superficial charm is read as charisma.
So we mistake all these danger signals for leadership
potential. Consistently. And unlike the narcissist
who might just be full of themselves, the psychopath
is completely comfortable with outright deception.
They will fabricate credentials, stories, and
results without blinking an eye. They don't have
the normal physiological stress response, the
guilt or the anxiety that gives a normal person
away when they lie. So they're calm under pressure
because they literally do not care. That's it.
And finally, Machiavellianism. The master manipulators,
named after Machiavelli, of course. These are
people who view others as pawns in their own
game. They are strategic, cynical, and highly
skilled at faking a manipulation to achieve their
goals. And how do they present in an interview?
Interestingly, the research points to some gender
differences here. Men who are high in this trait
tend to try to control the interview content.
They dominate the conversation to steer it where
they are strongest. And women? Women high in
Machiavellianism might allow the interviewer
more freedom on the surface, but they are just
as willing to be deceptive to get what they want.
They adapt their manipulative strategy to the
target. So if we rely on unstructured interviews.
The friendly chat where we trust our gut. You
are basically rolling out the red carpet for
these personalities. The unstructured interview
is a playground for the dark triad. It is. They
thrive on charm manipulation and the ability
to spin a good story. An interviewer's gut feeling
is what they are experts at manipulating. So
how do we stop them? How do we screen these people
out? Structure. It all comes back to structure.
Structure is the only thing that neutralizes
their advantage. Because when you use a structured
interview with behavioral questions, you force
them to provide concrete evidence rather than
just charm. You force them to be specific. Narcissists
struggle to give credit to others in their stories.
Psychopaths have to invent complex, detailed
lies on the spot, which is much harder to do
against a specific anchored rating scale. Structure
is your defense. That really drives home the
point. It's not just about being organized. It's
about protecting the organization. It's about
protecting the organization from predators who
are very, very good at talking. Let's zoom out
a bit and look at the hiring process as a whole,
because the interview doesn't just start when
we shake hands or log on to the Zoom call. It
starts way before that. The pre -interview phase.
Impressions form incredibly early, based on resumes,
test scores, and increasingly, social media.
Ah, the dreaded Google search. Let me just see
what this candidate is like on Facebook. It's
a legal and ethical minefield. The research shows
that if an interviewer Googles a candidate, and
finds non -job -related information like a picture
of them holding a beer at a BBQ or a political
post they made. It affects their judgment. It
absolutely influences the evaluation. Even if
it has zero relevance to their ability to be
an accountant, the bias sets in before the candidate
has even said a word. And once that bias sets
in, it affects the actual interview, right? It's
not just a thought in the interviewer's head.
It changes the dynamic in the room. It creates
a self -fulfilling prophecy via something called
leakage. Leakage. That sounds unpleasant. It
refers to nonverbal behavioral cues leaking out.
So if I, as the interviewer, have already decided
I think you are unqualified because of your resume,
your Facebook profile, I subconsciously leak
that opinion through my body language. So you're
colder. I might act colder. I might make less
eye contact. I might not smile. I might wrap
things up quicker. I might sit further away or
angle my body towards the door. And as the candidate,
I sense that coldness immediately. You pick up
on it instantly. You become anxious. You think,
oh no, this is going badly. Your confidence tanks.
You stumble over your words. You perform poorly.
And then you confirm the interviewer's initial
negative bias. Exactly. I walk away thinking,
see, I knew they were bad, but I actually paused
it. I sabotaged the interview with my nonverbal
leakage. And the reverse is also true. Absolutely.
If I think you're a star. Maybe you went to my
alma mater or your resume is impressive. I act
warmer. I smile more. I nod encouragingly. And
the candidate relaxes. You relax. You feel confident.
You perform at your best. I am literally coaching
you to success with my body language because
I want my initial impression to be right. That
is wild. We are literally creating the reality
we expect to see in that room. It's a powerful
cycle. And it really complicates this whole concept
of fit. We hear that word all the time. We're
looking for a good cultural fit. We just want
someone who fits in with the team. But what does
that mean? We need to distinguish between person
job fit and person organization fit. Person job
fit is do you have the knowledge, skills, and
abilities, the KSAOs, to actually do the tasks
of the job? This is usually what we screen for
early on with resumes. And person organization
fit. That's about values. Do your values and
personality match the company culture? This is
usually assessed in the final stages. But the
danger is that fit is incredibly subjective.
Right. Often when an interviewer says they're
a good fit, what they really mean is they ingratiated
themselves to me or they share my hobbies or
they look like me. They'd be fun to have a beer
with. Exactly. Which is not a valid predictor
of performance. Yeah. And it often leads to a
lack of diversity and becomes a cover for discrimination
against anyone who is different from the existing
team. Now, we can't talk about interviewing today
without talking about technology. The days of
flying everyone in for a face -to -face meeting
are, for many jobs, fading. We have Zoom. We
have automated video interviews where you talk
to a computer. Yes. Is this good or bad for the
candidate? Well, let's look at it through the
lens of media richness theory. This theory ranks
communication methods by how much information
they convey. Face -to -face is the richest medium.
It has visual cues, audio cues, immediate feedback,
smell, touch, the whole thing. And video is leaner.
Video is leaner. You lose some of those cues,
the phone is leaner still. And the research consistently
shows there's a tech penalty. A penalty? You
mean you actually do worse? Yes. Multiple studies
show that applicants receive lower ratings in
phone and video interviews compared to face -to
-face interviews, even when the content of their
answers is identical. They're seen as less likable
and even less intelligent. Why? Is it just the
awkwardness of the technology? It's the loss
of signal fidelity. Even tiny technical delays,
what we call latency, can completely ruin nonverbal
cues. Think about it. If I smile at your joke,
but there's a half -second delay on the video,
the rhythm is off. The moment is gone. You don't
get that instant feedback. You don't. And you
struggle to make real eye contact because you're
supposed to look at the little camera dots, not
at my eyes on the screen. It flattens the personality
and makes it harder to build rapport. That explains
so much about why Zoom interviews feel so draining.
You're working twice as hard to connect and you're
getting half the feedback. Exactly. Your brain
is trying to fill in the missing data and it's
exhausting. What about some of these other weird
formats like stress interviews? I've heard horror
stories of interviewers intentionally yelling
at or ignoring a candidate just to see what happens.
Yes, these are very controversial for good reason.
The stated goal is to intentionally intimidate
the candidate to see how they handle pressure.
Give me an example of a tactic they might use.
A classic one is the interviewer will refuse
to make eye contact. They'll just look down and
shuffle papers. Or they'll roll their eyes at
your answers. Or they might ask a totally bizarre
off the wall question like, what would you change
about the design of a hockey stick? Purely to
throw you off balance. Or demanding an immediate
presentation with zero prep time. That's another
one. Does this actually work? Does it tell you
anything useful? It tells you how that person
handles that specific type of bizarre artificial
stress. But it comes at a huge cost. It tends
to make high quality candidates run for the hills.
Because they have other options. Right. If you
are a top tier engineer and an interviewer treats
you like garbage, you don't think, wow, what
a rigorous and challenging process. You think
this company's culture is toxic and abusive and
you go accept the offer from their competitors.
So you end up filtering out the people who have
self -respect and options. You're left with the
desperate and the compliant. It's a terrible
strategy for attracting top talent. What about
panel interviews versus group interviews? What's
the difference? A panel interview is multiple
interviewers and one candidate. This can actually
be good. Why is that? Because it reduces individual
bias. You have multiple witnesses seeing and
hearing the exact same thing at the same time.
It's harder for one person's weird personal bias
to dominate the decision. You can compare notes
on the data. Okay, that makes sense. And group
interviews. That's the other way around. One
interviewer, multiple candidates at once. like
a reality show competition oh i hate those they
feel so awkward they are it's efficient for the
company they can screen six people in an hour
yeah but it's chaotic and it can be deeply unfair
if i ask a question and you answer first The
next candidate can just copy your answer and
maybe improve it slightly. It rewards who speaks
first and loudest. Exactly. It favors the bold
and loud, not necessarily the most thoughtful
or competent. Let's shift gears to the really
serious legal and ethical side of this. The interview
is a legal minefield, isn't it? Especially in
the U .S. context. Absolutely. We have the Civil
Rights Act, Title VII. We have the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the ADA, the Age Discrimination
and Employment Act. The law is very clear. You
cannot make hiring decisions based on a person's
protected characteristics. So there are literally
illegal questions. In the U .S., yes. You generally
cannot ask about a candidate's age, their arrest
records, their religion, their plans for marriage
or children, or their health and disability status.
But the bias still creeps in, right? Even if
they don't ask the illegal question directly.
It does. It absolutely does. Let's look at disability,
for example. The research here is really complex.
There's a big difference between how visible
disabilities, like using a wheelchair, and non
-visible disabilities, like chronic pain or mental
health condition, are perceived. And how does
that play out in the interview? Interestingly...
For non -visible disabilities, the research suggests
that applicants who choose to disclose their
disability early in the interview are often rated
more highly than those who wait until the end.
Really? Why? I would think hiding it for as long
as possible would be safer. It's about trust
and managing perceptions. If you disclose it
early and confidently, you are seen as honest
and forthright. You're controlling the narrative.
If you wait until the very end or after the offer,
it can be perceived by a biased interviewer.
as hiding something, and it creates a feeling
of surprise that they might react negatively
to. That's a tricky line to walk for the candidate.
What about criminal background? This is a huge
topic. Yeah. You have the Ban the Box campaigns,
which have tried to remove the criminal history
checkbox from initial applications just to give
people a chance to get in the door and be seen
as a person. Right. The research on this suggests
that, similar to disability, employers prefer
applicants who disclose a criminal history up
front. and take responsibility for it rather
than having the employer find it on a background
check later and feel like they were deceived
so again it's about owning the narrative yes
and then there are the biases that aren't necessarily
illegal to ask about but still result in discrimination,
like a person's weight? Weight discrimination
is rampant and well -documented. There is strong,
consistent evidence that overweight and obese
applicants are perceived as lazy, unmotivated,
or lacking self -discipline purely based on their
physical appearance. It's a powerful, unfair
stereotype that creates a massive barrier to
entry. And pregnancy. A very similar bias. Employers
illegally fear the candidate will quit or miss
too much work. It's illegal to discriminate based
on it, but the negative bias in interview ratings
is well documented in the research. And we can't
talk about bias without talking about names on
a resume. No. The famous resume study by Bertrand
and Melanathan showed this with brutal clarity.
They sent out thousands of identical resumes.
The only difference was that some had traditionally
white -sounding names, like Emily or Greg. And
the others? And the others had traditionally
African -American -sounding names, like Lakeisha
or Jamal. And the result was staggering. The
white -sounding names got significantly more
callbacks for interviews. Up to 50 % more for
the exact same resume. The interview gatekeeping
starts before the interview even happens. That
is just, it really shows how much work is left
to be done. And now that the world is so global,
we have to consider cross -cultural issues, too.
This is a fascinating area. We run into something
called construct bias. This means a trait or
a concept like leisure means different things
in different cultures. Can you give me an example?
Sure. In many Western cultures, having hobbies
shows you are well -rounded. Oh, I run marathons.
I paint. I volunteer. It's a positive signal.
Right. But in some cultures with a very strong
Confucian work ethic, asking about leisure activities
might be seen as irrelevant. or even negative.
The subtext is, why aren't you working? Are you
lazy? The construct itself is valued differently.
And communication styles must be a huge one.
Huge. Western applicants, particularly from the
US, tend to focus on individual achievement.
I did this. I led that team. We value the I.
OK. In many collectivist cultures, like in much
of East Asia, the focus is on group harmony and
collective success. We did this. The team achieved
that. Taking individual credit can be seen as
arrogant. So a U .S. interviewer might hear a
candidate from a collectivist culture and think,
this person isn't a leader. They're just a follower.
They never say I. Exactly. They mistake cultural
modesty for a lack of competence or leadership
potential. We are measuring people against our
own cultural yardstick without even realizing
it. What is a good answer in the US might be
seen as arrogant in Japan. And what is a good
answer in Japan might be seen as weak and evasive
in the US. Wow. There are just so many layers
to this. We started with sweaty palms and we've
ended up in this complex web of psychology, law,
sociology, and technology. It really is a social
ritual as much as it is a business process. It
captures all our biases, our hopes, and our flaws
as human beings in one 60 -minute interaction.
So let's try to bring it all home. After all
this, what does it mean for us? If you are an
interviewer or you run a company, what is the
single most important takeaway from all this
research? The key takeaway is simple, and it
is undeniable. Move towards structure. Embrace
the robot. Embrace the discipline. Ask the same
questions to everyone. Use a behaviorally anchored
rating scale. Take detailed independent notes.
And for goodness sake, do not rely on your gut.
Because my gut is biased. Your gut is biased.
Structure is fair. Structure is accurate. It
is the only way to actually predict performance
on the job and give every single candidate a
fair shot. And if you're a candidate listening
to this. Understand the game you are playing.
Know that those nonverbal cues matter. Practice
your eye contact and your smile in a mirror.
Prepare your behavioral stories using that STAR
method. And if you encounter a highly structured
interview, don't be put off by the stiffness
or how formal it feels. You're saying even though
it feels cold, it's actually good for you. It's
protecting you. It's protecting you from the
interviewer's bad mood, their hidden biases,
or the fact that they just don't like the shoes
you're wearing. it gives you a chance to be judged
on the evidence of what you can do, not on the
whim of who you are. Before we go, I want to
leave everyone with a final thought to chew on.
You mentioned the dark triad earlier, that narcissists
and psychopaths are naturally better at unstructured
interviews than the rest of us. Yes, the research
is clear on that. So if the interview, especially
the unstructured chat, is our main gatekeeper
for power, for jobs, for leadership positions,
and if that gate is naturally biased to favor
these dangerous, manipulative personalities,
what does that say about the leadership structures
of our organizations and our entire world? It
raises the deeply uncomfortable question. Are
we selecting for competence or are we just selecting
for confidence? Something to think about the
next time you're sitting across that table trying
to decide if you're looking at a future CEO or
just a really, really charming narcissist. Thanks
for diving deep with us. Thank you. See you next
time.