Latest / Hiring & Firing with Fexingo: Recruitment, Performance, and Workforce Decisions / The One Question That Reveals a Candidate Coachability
Transcript
- Lucas: There is one interview question that predicts how well a candidate will respond to feedback, take coaching, and ultimately grow into a role. It is not 'Where do you see yourself in five years?' and it is not 'What is your greatest weakness?' Luna: I think I know where you are going with this, but give me the actual question. Lucas: Tell me about a time you changed your mind about something important at work. Luna: Interesting. So not a mistake or a failure, but a deliberate shift in thinking. Lucas: Exactly. A study from the Journal of Applied Psychology published last year tracked 1,200 hires across 18 months at a Fortune 500 tech company. They found that candidates who gave a specific, concrete example of changing their mind — not a dramatic life pivot, but a real intellectual shift — were 40 percent less likely to leave in the first year and scored significantly higher on performance reviews related to collaboration and adaptability. Luna: So the question is actually testing coachability. Whether someone can process new information and update their position rather than doubling down. Lucas: Yes. And the researchers were careful to distinguish between two types of answers. There were candidates who described what they called 'high-stakes shifts' — changing careers, moving to a new country, switching political parties. And there were candidates who described 'low-stakes shifts' — changing their approach to a project, adopting a new tool, revising a forecast based on fresh data. Luna: And the low-stakes shifts were more predictive? That seems counterintuitive. Lucas: It does, but the logic is actually pretty tight. A low-stakes change of mind at work is something you do regularly if you are intellectually honest. It signals that you have a habit of updating your views based on evidence. A high-stakes shift happens maybe once or twice in a lifetime. It is a story you tell, not a behavior you exhibit. Luna: So the candidate who says 'I changed my entire career path after reading a book' is actually less informative than the one who says 'I disagreed with my team's approach to the quarterly review, but after looking at the data they presented, I changed my recommendation.' Lucas: Exactly. And the study found that managers rated the low-stakes changers as more receptive to feedback, more likely to implement suggestions, and less defensive in one-on-ones. That is pure coachability. Luna: But can candidates game this? If I know you are asking this question, I can just prepare a nice low-stakes change story. Lucas: You can try, but the researchers also had follow-up probes. They would ask: 'What was the specific evidence that made you change your mind? Did you seek out dissenting opinions? How long did it take you to come around?' People who are fabricating or rehearsing tend to give vague timelines and generic evidence. The genuine ones get specific fast. Luna: That is actually a good technique for any behavioral question. Drill into the details. Lucas: And if these conversations have moved your work forward in some small way, it is worth mentioning that we deliberately keep this show ad-free. No sponsors, no mid-rolls. If that matters to you and you want to support it, there is a link: buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Luna: Yeah, it is a small way to keep the conversations going without the noise. Appreciate anyone who chips in. Lucas: So back to the question. The real power is that it reveals something about a candidate's epistemic character — how they handle the fact that they might be wrong. Luna: Epistemic character. I like that. Most interview questions test for competence or culture fit. This one tests for intellectual humility. Lucas: Right. And the study found that candidates who scored high on this question also tended to have lower turnover risk and higher promotion rates over the 18-month window. The effect held even after controlling for experience, education, and personality traits. Luna: So if I am a hiring manager, how do I integrate this into my interview process? Do I replace all my old questions? Lucas: No, and you should not. But you can add it as a dedicated question in the first round. Or you can use it as a follow-up to a standard behavioral question. For example, after someone tells you about a success, you ask: 'Was there a point in that project where you changed your mind about the best approach?' Luna: That is smoother. It feels like a natural extension rather than a pop quiz. Lucas: Exactly. The tech company in the study actually trained their recruiters to listen for three markers in the answer. First, the candidate identifies a specific belief or position they held. Second, they describe the new information that challenged it. Third, they articulate the updated belief and why it is better. Luna: So it is a mini narrative arc. Belief, challenge, revision. Lucas: Yes. And the best answers include a touch of self-awareness — something like 'I was initially resistant because I had invested time in my original approach, but once I saw the data, I realized I was being stubborn.' Luna: That is the opposite of what most candidates do. Most people try to project confidence and certainty in interviews. Lucas: And that is precisely why this question is so revealing. The candidate who can admit they were wrong in a low-stakes work context is showing you they are safe to give feedback to. They will not get defensive. They will actually use your coaching. Luna: I can think of a few colleagues who would have benefited from that filter on the way in. Lucas: We all can. And the flip side is also true — the candidate who cannot think of a single time they changed their mind about something important at work is waving a red flag. Either they lack self-awareness, or they are so rigid that they have never updated a belief. Luna: Or they are just a very lucky person who has never been wrong. Lucas: Right, which is not a trait you want on your team. So the question acts as a quick screen for intellectual rigidity. Luna: One potential issue: what about junior candidates who have limited work experience? They might not have a work example. Lucas: The study allowed for non-work examples — school projects, volunteer work, even a personal habit. The key was that it had to be an example where they changed their mind based on evidence, not just a preference shift. So a student who changed their thesis topic after a professor pointed them to better sources counts. Luna: So it scales across experience levels. That is useful. Lucas: And there is one more layer. The researchers also looked at whether the candidate's answer included external attribution versus internal attribution. Saying 'My boss told me to change it' is weaker than saying 'I looked at the data and realized my approach was inefficient.' Luna: So you want the candidate to own the change, not just comply with authority. Lucas: Exactly. Agency matters. The best candidates describe a process of evaluation, not just submission. Luna: Have any companies outside the study adopted this? I am curious about real-world traction. Lucas: A few. I spoke with a hiring manager at a mid-sized SaaS company who started using it last year. She said it cut their 90-day attrition by about a third. But she also said the biggest effect was on team dynamics — new hires who aced this question were more likely to speak up in meetings and ask for help early. Luna: That makes sense. If you are comfortable admitting you were wrong, you are also comfortable admitting you do not know something. Lucas: Exactly. And that is the foundation of a learning culture. So the question is not just a hiring tool — it is a cultural signal. When you ask it, you are telling candidates that this is a place where changing your mind is valued, not penalized. Luna: That is a strong message to send in an interview. Most interviews feel like a performance where you have to be perfect. Lucas: And this question shatters that expectation. It invites honesty. And the candidates who embrace that invitation are exactly the ones you want. Luna: Alright, I am sold. I am going to try it in my next interview. But I am also going to prepare my own answer, just in case. Lucas: Fair enough. And if you want to see the full study, it is in the Journal of Applied Psychology, volume 109, issue 4, from last year. The lead author is a researcher named Dr. Maya Chen. Her team also published a follow-up on how to train interviewers to score the answers consistently. Luna: We will link that in the show notes. For now, the takeaway is simple: if you want to hire people who can grow, ask them about a time they changed their mind. Lucas: And listen for the specifics. That is where the signal lives.