Many employers take a “first date” approach to interviewing potential employees. They base their analysis of an individual largely on first impressions and emotional connections, and oftentimes they don’t even know they’re doing it. Basically, we like people who are similar to us, people we can relate to, and those are the kind of people that we hire.

It’s an “irrational impulse”, according to a new book called “Sway,” and the authors, Ori and Rom Brafman, go on to explain that this is a poor indicator of future job performance. In fact, they explain that there’re 20 years of research that shows that interviews in general are poor predictors, according to a New York Times article published earlier this week. They say that talking about strengths and weaknesses does absolutely nothing, or at least it doesn’t give you the information necessary to make a good decision.

Rather, Ori and Rom believe that “hiring decisions can purely be done based on well thought out written questions, a review of work samples and testing.” Even if it turns out that you can’t stand the most qualified person, they say you should still hire him or her.

I’m all for doing away with the old “Tell us about a time when you overcame adversity” questions. I think they’re stupid, but I don’t think that doing away with interviews altogether is the way to go either. Finding a person who jibes with the rest of the “team” is still important. If the new guy drives everyone else nuts, then it will negatively affect work in one way or another. I suggest meeting somewhere in the middle. Focus strongly on experience and qualifications in the beginning of the process, but before you make a final decision, take the time to get to know the person you’re going to be spending everyday with.

      del.icio.us   SphereIt   Reddit   Furl