I have to take my friend's word--I know very little about music auditions. But I do know a bit about interviews, and to me they've always felt like amateur psychology hour, no matter what side I've sat on. Today I read a blurb in a blog that suggested that, at one company, they ought only allow "successful" interviewers (ones whose past choices reflect solid candidates) to interview. And my colleague sent me a pointer to a Tom Peters interview with Nick Corcodilos, which touches on a similar theme of interviewing:
Here's a great question that fits many situations, including this one: If this isn't working, why do we keep doing it?Hypothetical situations and tests are nonsense. Psychologists have been telling us for decades about test-taking skills. People can pass tests and interviews with flying colors and not know a damn thing. Annette Flippen, an organizational psychologist, read my book and said, "We already know the traditional interview has little or no statistical utility as a selection technique." Most people don't know it.
3 comments:
Hey Jamie,
You asked, "If it isn't working (current interview practices), why do we keep doing it?" I'd like to toss out some possibilities:
1. It's safe. We've always done it this way, and though it isn't great, it's at least familiar.
2. Our culture likes things to be scientific: "If I do A, I'll get B...every time." We like formulas. But we forget that people are too complex to conform to formulas, or maybe we don't want to admit that because we don't like the mess. We don't like ambiguity, so we pretend (and teach) that "the correct way to do X is...." Better hiring practices require revising the approach/content every time you do it.
3. HR professionals are insecure about their role in companies because the nature of their work is "soft", and deal with this insecurity by trying to make their jobs seem more like hard science. (See #3) It's as if they are saying "If we can make the hiring process predictable, we'll be perceived as more credible and professional."
4. Lack of time to come up with something better - and review it to see if it really is an improvement - keep us all doing it the same way. You have deadlines that just won't quit, profit goals to meet, and so on. And so, people often forfeit long-term gains for short-term efficiency or stability.
5. Lack of imagination might also be at work, coupled with no motivation to do it differently. You get paid the same whether or not you make the change, so why bother. Imaginative people are motivated to make it better even if it doesn't affect their salary. But to be fair, even some imaginative people aren't inspired to do it differently because they have other priorities, the problem isn't bad enough, there isn't enough time, and so on. Either way, you still end up with a deficit of exercised imagination.
I'm sure there are other possible reasons. Basically, it comes down to understanding human nature, culture, and group dynamics - three of our favorite subjects!
Actually, a lot of orchestra auditions are mere formalities, and they already know who they are going to hire. They will choose pieces for which there are no recordings to study but which the shoe-in candidate is already known to have performed, for example.
Many reasons for doing what doesn't work. The one I like is the first one Bryn lists, "We've always done it this way."
As a global culture, I think this reason will be a significant pain point in the next 10-25 years.
Post a Comment