Why most job interviews are pointless
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ต.ค. 2024
- Tesco is the largest UK employer. They conduct almost 1 million interviews a year, yet I think they might be pointless. Today, I will share psychological studies showing common interview flaws. I explain why so many of us are bad at predicting what others think and suggest a better way to conduct interviews.
Thinking Fast and Slow: tinyurl.com/ms...
Talking to Strangers: tinyurl.com/ye...
Subscribe to the (free) Nudge Newsletter: nudge.ck.page/...
Interviews are pointless because there is no way to judge a person's entire character and pick apart specific pieces of their personality in a 5 minute interview.
I think shows like The Traitors show people are poor judges of character and CANNOT spot bullshitters and liars...and that's over an extended period of time so God knows how poor it is over 30 minutes or so of an interview
I'd agree for 99% but I have had the odd interview where the candidate has said a single thing that made me hire them and turned out to be some of the best hires ever, based on one turn of phrase.
@@sebastianforbes1 No likes doing the work they're paid to do. That's why we're paid to do it 🙄
@@Oflaherty86 placebo effect
@@Oflaherty86Similarly, I’ve had interviews where someone said one thing that clearly eliminated them as a sound hire, e.g., “If they’re willing to say that when their guard is up during a 30-minute job interview, what will they say in front of my customers after they’ve started to let their guard down?”
Why do you want to work for Tesco.
I want to make money.
This should conclude the interview.
Would you trust someone who said "I just always dreamed of stacking shelves. Mopping floors makes me happy"?
I'd trust someone who says "i need money" since i know they have a serious reason for working for me. And as long as they need money, they will want to come back for that weekly paycheck.
@@marcus.H I think money is the nr1 reason to work. I think reason nr 2 falls miles behind nr 2.
Thats why I think it is a stupid question.
@@thijsjong exactly. If someone works because it's a hobby, that will often result in them growing tired of that hobby and quitting. The best motivator in most cases is "I want to pay my mortgage each month and drive a nice car"
If you apply for bottom rung positions like stacking shelves you won't even get asked that kind of question. Big corporations are not completely stupid. But what if you want to become a store manager? Or, god beware, a marketer? You should be able to pretend enthusiasm for the brand whose image you are going to take responsibility for.
HR we can't find engineers..
Ok how do you recruit?
Well first we collected tens of thousands of applications and resumes..
Then we judged the engineers on their writing abilities.
Then we interviewed them and judged ENGINEERS
On how they dress, and how outgoing they were personally ..
We had HR people who have no experience in or knowledge of engineering interview them.
I think, if you observe people and society enough, the obvious conclusion is that we are terrible at judging character. We keep electing egomaniacs, keep promoting snake oil salesmen etc. We never seem to learn from these mistakes and at worst, never even realise what happened
I wonder if we could come up with a similar method for interviewees to determine if they should accept an offer. After all, job interviews are two-way conversations.
I am a recruitment specialist myself. Much of the information from the video is already known to HR/Recruitment specialists with a master’s degree from a university. At university, you learn everything about recruitment and the studies that highlight the value or uselessness of certain testing methods. Unfortunately, too many recruiters are still insufficiently trained. In the Netherlands, a recruiter often only has a diploma at the higher vocational level, not at the university level. Many HR specialists at large companies are also inadequately trained. This partly explains why these pointless job interviews continue to exist. "You can't fight stupid."😅
In most companies hiring decisions aren't made by HR, but by managers who, over the years, aquire a decent level of experience in how interview performance correlates with work performance and, most importantly, with people fitting into the teams they are hired for. This is IMO the biggest problem with HR professionals: it takes a long time before they ever get to aquire that specific experience.
But the main reason for the persistent existence of job interviews is this: they do not break much. You rarely need the perfect hire. You mostly want average, and where that isn't enough, you pre-screen by degree and grades, which is a pretty representative intelligence test. People might claim differently, but the underlying reality looks different. In the end what is most important is spotting dealbreakers, not screening for perfection.
@@Volkbrecht That's not entirely true. Hiring managers are usually co-partners in the overall recruitment process. However, you're right that their involvement often creates noise and doesn’t always lead to the best outcomes.
The recruitment specialist or talent acquisition partner is the expert and should be able to present a solid plan to the team, based on proven insights, to attract the best candidate. Unfortunately, many recruiters aren't properly trained, and their managers often either lack the necessary knowledge or expertise.
Finding the best candidate and placing them in the right role is a job for other specialists. Think of a headhunter, a sourcer, or a recruitment marketer. Each plays a crucial role in making sure the process runs smoothly.
Don't call me stupid. 😂
The fact that we all are actually training for an interview is proof of how pointless job interviews are. I once had a company tell me "your qualifications are great and we have no doubt that you could do this job, but your self-presentation was not that good, so we can't offer you the job". Me response was like "that's fine; I don't want to work for someone with such an extreme kind of bad judgement anyway"
At least they are giving interviews. In some fields you are required to solve some idiotic puzzle before they even bother to interview you. Doesn't matter how many years of experience or all the things you may have designed and built, it all boils down to some idiotic puzzle games.
a lot of jobs are reserved for friends and families already
This!
I think there's a single flaw with this video. Interviews aren't designed to get the best candidate. They're designed to weed out the worst candidates. To be specific, the worst communicators. Most areas of work require communication skills, so the sole purpose of an interview is to invite someone to talk in person so that you can see how good their communication skills are. Anyone can take the time to write a well worded email but not everyone can speak without mumbling, make eye contact, listen well, etc. Plus, anyone can write on a CV that they have certain skills, and can look up relevant information before writing an email. On the spot in an interview, relevant questions about knowledge they claim to have could catch out a liar.
Life is unfair for those of us with stutters and neuro divergencies. Getting ready for an interview will take a lot of mental tax and planning for at least a week. Speaking doesn't come easy to us.
@@laylah150 exactly I'm brilliant in my field but am not the most articulate and find interviews intimidating and v challenging. My communication is not the best probably because I'm probably v slightly autistic, but my work ethic is v desirable.
I did technical engineering interviews for years. What people claimed they could do on their resumes was quite different from what they could demonstrate. For management applicants, internships might be a better way of demonstrating skills. Henry Ford liked to hire everyone in through the factory. He figured Harvard MBAs would quickly show their management skills over high school dropouts. Plus, when they got into management, they would have some idea of the employees they were ordering around.
Can confirm. However I will also say that the way many technical interviews are conducted,at least in software, are really pointless. They focus far to much on the person being able to recall specific tidbits of information from a massive amount possible rather than on actual ability to apply knowledge.
@@deadlypandaghost If you can come up with questions that demonstrate the ability to apply knowledge, then you have a career in interviewing. Just throwing the "really hard" Leetcode questions at people may just demonstrate the ability to cram for a test. I always gave very basic questions, so I think that is fair if you claim to have years of experience at something. I remember suffering through the tricky-clever interview questions. Why are manhole covers round? If you know, you know, (or have heard the question before) if you don't you don't. Manhole covers aren't EXACTLY cylindrical. Nor are the "holes" they go into. The trick is in the details.
Henry Ford also fired his accountant every six months and conspired to overthrow the USA government so let's not pretend he was great at all decision making. I am also certain he didn't make all staff start on the factory floor.
It is also an approach that may well not be practical in the modern context.
I used to do a lot of interviews for the catering industry.
They were just formalities to identify things that could only reveal themselves in person such as personal hygiene, personality conflicts, avoidant/oppositional attitude, etc...
I was keenly aware that I was solely led by my guts and I accepted it.
It was also an important opportunity for the interviewees themselves to get a feel of the place and start a dialogue.
The real "interview" was the training period which was between 1 and 3 weeks, depending on the job, and during which either one of us could call it quits (with full pay and without notice).
It was very successful and the employees themselves appreciated being given the opportunity to adapt to the team and not stress about "make or break moments".
And that's the difference between you and people making uninformed videos about the topic: you actually have experience in the field :) In the end, the industry is not that stupid. The people who actually make the decisions tend to have a pretty good idea about what interviews can and cannot tell them about people.
Ultimately people are terrible at evaluating other people because the personality of the interviewer is variable. This is the same for doing performance reviews at jobs as well.
For me, my interview criteria was simple: I left the fluffier questions to my colleagues, and I asked a developer to show me the git repo of a codebase they worked on, to explain its structure to me, and then I proposed a feature and asked them to show me where in the codebase they'd make the adjustments, and why. It took all the "niceities" out of the interview process, but it was effective for me in my particular field.
This works for jobs where people can actually show you a repo. What if the job is in accounting or law and it's my first job. I can't show you legal papers or financial documents, because it's illegal or because I don't have work experience beforehand. And no, you can't create a repo with a simulation that proves I am a good junior accountant.
Combine this information with the fact that I'm autistic, meaning high probability and frequency of big stress, no eye-contact, can't multitask to save my own life, and I'm not very social (ex: I learnt to smile back and to do the stupid handshake thing late in my 20s), it was impossible for me to get a job in accounting (I will never understand why I must be sociable to get a job).
I searched accountings jobs for 2 years. Then I changed to web programming and it worked. I'm weird but that's a good thing here. Yes my boss looked on my repos, asked me some questions, gave me a test, which I passed, then got the job. At my first job he told me - Oana, in this company you don't need to be insane, but it will help a lot. (worked here for 6 years ^_^)
@@OanaTheMeerkat "What if the job is in accounting or law and it's my first job."
Good on you for getting a web dev job.
Your question is a good one, and it depends on how good an accountant the hiring manager is. They need to ask questions about how to perform common tasks in that profession and measure the plausibility of the answers against the manager's own experience. That being said, I've never hired an accountant so there might be a bit extra that is needed.
@@OanaTheMeerkat You have to be sociable in pretty much every job that is not remote work. I always smile when kids tell me they want to do "something with people". Most jobs out there are "something with people", even if the job is CNC machining in a workshop. It's rare that you don't have to somehow fit into a team, and managers don't like to consciously hire weirdos, because that can create undesireable dynamics. Individual performance is less important than a smoothly running team.
On the other hand, don't let anybody tell you they can multitask. The human brain can't do it, autistic or not. It's one thing at a time, and switching fast between things to create the illusion of multitasking generally tends to take its toll on the quality of execution.
My team is currently interviewing for a new senior software dev. There are 3 of us on the panel, including me. The questions I ask are designed to determine knowledge and if they lied on their resume. We've ruled out a couple of candidates for lying and another for not having the knowledge their experience would suggest. And that's the problem with using an algorithm, it can't judge if an answer is honest or not. Beyond the liars, I think our conclusions mostly match what's on the resumes.
But notice how you turned the premise of the video around. You are not looking for certain personal attributes, you are looking to exclude specific problems that you know how to identify. Which is how members or leaders of teams generally approach that task. HR professionals may think they can build an accurate image of an applicant, but then again, in a lot of small to midsize companies nobody really listens to them. I have never seen it happening at any of the employers I worked for.
Anecdote about Chamberlain and Hitler is an important reminder of history. Highly charismatic people can fool experienced interviewers. Neville failed to consider that Adolf’s narcissistic behavior could be a cover for actual genocidal intentions.
Then explain why the jews are now 100% hypocrites.
I think history has proven that going to war with Germany cemented the UK's demise.
Hitler viewed the UK as a natural ally (he underestimated how corrupt it was).
An interview definitely tests the candidates commitment to showing up😜
6:27 I think you meant to say 'if he reneged on his promises' (not renegaded)
I remember one remote video interview the guy who was interviewing me was sitting in his car and refused to make eye contact. He kept looking all around him at things in the parking lot and seemed incredibly disinterested. I had already made it through three other rounds of interviews but I knew with him it was over. I think the minute he saw me he knew he wasn’t going to go any further so he just rushed through the questions to get it over with. I was so confident I had that role until that point.
It worked out though. I now make $40,000 a year more than I would have in that role and I love my job.
The challenge is narrow predictive AI cannot predict for changes in new context. We built an AI that performed 6x better than recruiters and it made our clients a lot of money. Then the pandemic hit and the skills and personality needed to thrive in the new normal meant our old algorithm based on historic data didn't work so well.
Oh and if you think AI is not already used for hiring decisions you're in for a big surprise.
interviews are terrible... but it's not a problem, there is no humane point into recruiters having so much power over applicants, bosses should learn to live with it.
I got three out of my five career jobs WITHOUT an interview! Loved it!! I LOATHE INTERVIEWS!
"Renegaded on his promises..." at 6:25. Do we mean "Reneged" ? Small point, I know, just this usage caught me out.
A limitation I see to adapting this is the difficulty of drafting these tests. Kahneman's traits include 'Sociability' and 'Energy Level'. If you're hiring an accountant or cleaner it's far from clear these are 2 of your 6 most important traits. I would struggle to identify what the best traits are, what the optimal levels are - you don't want someone so social they spend all their time talking, nor so antisocial they refuse to talk at all for example - and finally how would you verify these reliably? It's a very interesting idea but I'm unsure how it could be used in practice
Keen insight, but Meehl discusses this issue in depth.
The takeaway from his work in the 1950s is that even if we use clinicians' own subjective beta weights (the things they value most...even if those values are misguided), using actuarial judgment (i.e., consistently rating all applicants on those traits of interest, summing them up, and then comparing across candidates STILL outperforms subjective clinical judgment (i.e., getting a _vibe_ from a candidate, summing up the gist in our heads, and then comparing what was in our head after one interview to what was in our head at the end of the others).
Worked for both DHL, Tesco and Sainbury's... I wouldn't call it an interview.
they don't interview the labour workers and that is like 95% of the workers.
you just show up to prove your identity, proof of address and right to work.
they ask when can you starts.
a friend just got promoted to manager after picking for 10years at sainbury's.. no interview.
all they said was, you know this place, there a position open.. you should apply.
I think you miss a point with the AI/statistical approaches. They are more effective in a world where traditional interviews are the norm, but if those would be the norm, it is much easier to people to prepare and "fool" those approaches once they know what is being tested.
I have to interview people all the time for my restaurant. I have no idea how good the employee will be until they are actually working the job.
Wish I had a better way to assess the employees besides just hiring and firing.
Very interesting video. Think Nudge Podcast has a new fan.
Great pod. All for this kinda content *nudge nudge* algorithm
As a 52 year old who's been a company director for over 25 years, listen... it's the age of the side-gig and the silly-skill. The stuff you used to park till you were retired while you pursued your career is today's pay-dirt. Online, in person.. people may not be buying art, your songs or your writing, but they are paying through the nose to be taught, tutored and mentored. People make their livings filming themselves camping - times have changed, everyone can do your job, but your unique dumb thing sells!
Tesco, not Tesco's - I think they slam that into their staff during induction.
So, Kahneman did a better job of finding psychopaths who like to parade around in other people's underwear?
.... aaand I'm not sure if this was mentioned but good coaching / prep and a bit of practice seem to be the way to go with interviews. i.e. Work out what the employer is looking for and play that character to perfection.
10 people interviewed for 1 job in Tesco? I don't think so. It's more like 11 interviewed for 10 jobs.
There is no massive pool of unemployed, high skilled professionals. That's just a lie that companies tell you between the lines, so that you feel pressured to accept anything out of fear that the job might go to someone else. Yes, they might have ten applications for one job, but every single one of these ten people has nine other companies that he applied to.
Litter free roads? Its Woolwich, its practically made of litter
Of course you can test how a person can do their job. And an interview is exactly that kind of a test, for jobs that involve interacting with people (which is most if not all jobs). Of course, that alone will still be a pretty poor predictor for future performance, as it's just a small test, and it tests for very few things. For the rest of things, you have your statistical methods, which are great when you have quality data (which in my opinion you usually don't xD
When I look at the Wikipedia article about the book "Talking to strangers" it looks as if it is not a very good book.
An interview and an application process should simply weed out the people you DON't want to hire. Similar to the mentioned internships or Henry Ford's way, I noticed companies will simply overhire for the number of openings they have.
After a month or so, the cream will rise to the top, and what turned out to be the chaff, whatever the reason, will just blow away.
This works in USA. In my country if you hired somebody, the only way you can fire him is if he's incompetent, he doesn't do the hours (in my country you must work 40h like a factory worker, no matter if you are a wage slave or the CEO), or if the company goes bankrupt. The downside is that you get hired slower, but once you do it's going to be ok for you. Overhiring is an american thing.
Over hiring is massively expensive and only really an option for very large organisations.
Tesco* - I don't know why, but "Tescos" really bothers me.
You're right it is Tesco. But British people really like to add that extra " 's" to places for some reason. I'm going to the doctor's. I'm in front of Marks and Spencer's. It really isn't correct but today's grammar mistakes are tomorrow's standard grammar. It's stupid but that's languages for you.
I would say that most people would say they were going to the "doctors" with no apostrophe. This is because they are going to a surgery with multiple doctors and there tends to be some uncertainty as to which one you will see.
@@trickygoose2this doesn't apply in the UK, each person has a doctor assigned to him. and they use it as was said, for going to places.
People insist on interviewing because we all trust our own biases.
Thanks for this - as always, very engaging.
As an international teacher of Physics for 30 years, may I ask if you would look at assumptions made and behaviours around teaching?
I do feel its time for a paradigm shift!
Unfortunately, there are too few people who see the problems that we have and are forced to live with and think that this system is horrible. If the majority saw how corrupt, immoral and ineffective everything is, changes would happen sooner. but they either never happen, or too late, namely, with the next generation, and the next. Decades and centuries...
This isnt about jobs, its about humanity inability to properly calculate future outcomes. A lot of people will try to use calculations, but at base level, humans wouldnt know truth if it hit them in the face. That is why people can "remain ignorant". I wouldnt want my future in the hands of a human. That is why i trust in God by way of Jesus Christ our Lord.
The point is for the people with abnormal circumstances that had a bad resume because 2 other jobs had a bad situation or the reverse resume looks spotless and an interview shows they don't really know much about that type of work.
I'm only two minutes in, but I'm going to stop and say that if you suggest a better alternative is an automated algorithmic process, so help me.
My last two interviews were like "youve got half a clue, youre in, but we need to talk for 30 minutes" and "youve got 2 arms and legs, youre in, but lets have a chat anyway"
Sort for corruption and other personal biases.
Most job interviews are de facto beauty contests.
how would you know hypothetical performance of candidates that have not been selected for the job?
are you taking into account the candidates that have not taken up the offer?
sounds more like a sales pitch for AI selection.
But what are the inputs for the candidate to feed into statistical analysis for a part-time supermarket employee?
Thats why we fall back on the personal evaluation in the event we run into a potentialy good candidate for employment?
Nevile Chamberlain was talking to a madman and a liar.
For jobs like supermarket checkout arent we better at just measuring the candidates performance over 2 x 60 minute shifts with simulated customer experience not using real money?
Good luck with that consisting they are likely to normally interview 30+ people to fill a couple of roles. That is 60 hours of simulated experience that has to be resourced and scheduled.
@@SurmaSampo what data points would they use? Their high school report card???
I think you still need to have that human element in the interview. One thing that's often misunderstood by all sides in an interview is that it's supposed to be a conversation and it is really your chance to also understand the organisation, team, and work culture/priorities/etc. Selection should only be a part (though of course the most consequential part is the hiring). Secondly, I think a human element is still needed because there is context that cannot always be considered by a standardised test and it can also make candidates feel that they didn't get a good hearing which in turn discourages them from applying again or recommending the employer to friends.
Yeah, no. That might have been the case back when someone from the team interviewed, not now when it is mostly someone from HR or management.
The most important characteristic, for a majority of jobs, is the G factor of the candidate... aka an I.Q Test.
How did you make such a long video without mentioning that?
Yeah...we have known this for decades, if not longer.
Actually, nobody does interviews anymore. CVs are read by AI nowadays.
Yeah, I agree with you and AI makes more pointless and useless interview which ditched more talented candidates then before
So the solution is an AI recommendation + plus a human interview with authority to override the AI recommendation. The interviewer would have to justify why they overrode the AI recommendation to others including the AI.
Also the job has a probation period (6 months) to reverse the decision.
11 out of 10? Thats some quirked up math
I know this all along. Interviews are garbage.
is someone trying to replace recruiters ?
Maybe we should reform the hiring process for democracy in the same way. Enough of these debates and interviews, just run some statistical algorithms and be done with it.
That looks like the Slough Tesco
Meehl is pronounced "meal."
Very good
this is why the "top" TH-camr are (fill in the blank)
AI will be our boss soon.
min 13:35 traits to test
It is complete nonsense to speak about job interviews in general like if all jobs were the same.
For some jobs what counts more is some form of technical knowledge and skills that can easily be tested, for others it is still about tech knowledge and skills but they are difficult to test, for others personal qualities an attitudes might be the most important factor , for others it might be experience.....
So it is completely POINTLESS and stupid to try or to pretend to find a silver bullet procedure that will improve all interviews... some techniques might work great in a case but be a disaster in another scenario...
So it really depends on the job, and usually the interview process should be planned the people who work in the field, and conducted by actual teammates and coworkers of the eventual new hire.
__ter. My answer: “water”😂
They the are picking dancers . . . They just learning the dance as a group . . . Every day, they eleiminate the 1/2 that is doing the worst. At the end, they have the best 10 dancer and they know the dance, goal achieved.
first timr here, well impressed 🔥