Latest / The Science of Leading / Why Résumés and Gut Feel Mislead Hiring

Transcript

Why Résumés and Gut Feel Mislead Hiring · The Science of Leading

• 0:00
  Welcome to the show.
• 0:00
  I'm Claire Monroe, here with Edwin Carrington.
• 0:03
  Edwin, picture this: a hiring manager has two CVs-one says "12 years
• 0:08
  of experience," the other says "top school,
• 0:11
  great references," and after a 30-minute conversation they go,
• 0:14
  "I've got a good feeling about this one." And the uncomfortable part
• 0:18
  is... those three signals-experience,
• 0:21
  pedigree, and instinct-often predict job performance a lot worse than
• 0:26
  people think.
• 0:26
  Yes, and that gap between confidence and accuracy is where
• 0:31
  most hiring mistakes begin.
• 0:33
  For decades, industrial-organizational psychologists have studied what
• 0:38
  actually predicts performance.
• 0:39
  The classic Schmidt and Hunter research gave people a simplified
• 0:39
  hierarchy-cognitive
• 0:45
  ability high, work samples strong,
• 0:47
  structured interviews useful, and then a long list of weaker methods.
• 0:51
  The issue is, many managers remembered the ranking... but not the nuance.
• 0:51
  So
• 0:57
  the takeaway became something like,
• 0:58
  "just hire the smartest person in the room and you're done."Precisely.
• 1:02
  And that's where the newer research corrected things.
• 1:05
  Sackett and his colleagues in 2022 revisited those earlier findings and
• 1:10
  showed that some of the original validity estimates were overstated due
• 1:14
  to statistical adjustments.
• 1:16
  The conclusion wasn't "throw everything out." It was "be more precise."
• 1:22
  Cognitive ability still matters.
• 1:24
  Work samples still matter.
• 1:26
  Structured interviews still matter.
• 1:28
  But there is no single method that reliably solves hiring on its own.
• 1:28
  Which
• 1:34
  is kind of funny, because the update didn't validate gut instinct.
• 1:37
  It just told people to stop acting like one tool is magic.
• 1:37
  Exactly.
• 1:41
  It lowered the volume on certainty,
• 1:44
  not the direction of the evidence.
• 1:46
  The practical hierarchy still favors structured,
• 1:49
  job-relevant methods over informal ones.
• 1:51
  A candidate demonstrating the work is more informative than a compelling
• 1:55
  conversation about the work.
• 1:55
  Then why do the weaker signals feel so convincing?
• 2:00
  Because "12 years of experience" sounds solid.
• 2:03
  A degree sounds earned.
• 2:05
  And an unstructured interview feels like you're getting the full picture.
• 2:05
  Because
• 2:09
  those signals are easy to turn into stories.
• 2:11
  "Ten years of experience" sounds like expertise,
• 2:15
  even though it may just be repetition.
• 2:17
  Research has shown for a long time that years of experience alone are
• 2:21
  only weakly related to performance.
• 2:23
  Education helps at the entry level,
• 2:25
  certainly, but becomes a modest predictor once candidates are already
• 2:30
  in the pool.
• 2:30
  And unstructured interviews are particularly misleading because they
• 2:34
  generate confidence.
• 2:35
  The interviewer leaves thinking they understand the candidate.
• 2:39
  What they often understand is whether the interaction felt smooth.
• 2:39
  So
• 2:44
  the signal is comfort, not capability.
• 2:44
  Yes,
• 2:47
  and comfort is biased.
• 2:48
  We prefer people who feel familiar,
• 2:51
  who think in similar ways, who communicate in ways we recognize.
• 2:55
  None of that reliably answers the question,
• 2:58
  "can they do the work."And personality tests sit somewhere in the middle,
• 3:03
  right?
• 3:03
  Because people either treat them like the answer to everything or completely
• 3:07
  dismiss them.
• 3:07
  That's right.
• 3:09
  Broad personality traits-especially conscientiousness-can add incremental
• 3:14
  value.
• 3:15
  But they are not substitutes for skill evidence.
• 3:18
  They work best as supplements.
• 3:20
  That's the consistent pattern in the research: weaker signals feel richer
• 3:25
  because they're easier to talk about,
• 3:27
  while stronger predictors force you to confront the actual job.
• 3:31
  What does the work require?
• 3:33
  What decisions matter?
• 3:34
  What does good performance look like in practice?
• 3:34
  So if CVs and instinct
• 3:39
  are shaky, what actually improves prediction in a real hiring process?
• 3:43
  Not in theory-on a Monday morning with a team that's busy.
• 3:43
  Three things
• 3:47
  consistently emerge.
• 3:49
  First, structured interviews-same questions,
• 3:52
  same criteria, same scoring logic.
• 3:54
  Second, work samples or simulations-something that resembles the
• 3:54
  job
• 3:59
  itself.
• 3:59
  If the role involves analysis,
• 4:01
  give them a case.
• 4:02
  If it involves writing, have them write.
• 4:05
  Third, job-relevant assessments-cognitive or technical,
• 4:09
  where appropriate.
• 4:10
  And importantly, you combine these methods.
• 4:13
  Hiring improves when it becomes a system,
• 4:15
  not a single bet.
• 4:15
  That word "system" matters.
• 4:19
  Because a lot of teams are still looking for the one perfect filter-the
• 4:23
  one interview, the one test, the one person who just "knows."Yes,
• 4:28
  the idea of the all-knowing interviewer.
• 4:30
  But prediction improves when different methods cover different aspects
• 4:34
  of performance.
• 4:35
  A structured interview captures reasoning and past behavior.
• 4:38
  A work sample captures demonstrated skill.
• 4:42
  An assessment may capture learning ability or technical depth.
• 4:45
  Together, they provide a more complete picture.
• 4:45
  So the update from the
• 4:50
  newer research isn't "everything changed." It's more like: the old numbers
• 4:54
  were too confident, but the direction was right.
• 4:54
  Exactly.
• 4:57
  Sackett and his colleagues refined the estimates and emphasized context-things
• 5:02
  like range restriction and variability across roles.
• 5:05
  But they did not turn informal methods into reliable predictors.
• 5:09
  The center of gravity remains the same: structure,
• 5:13
  relevance, and combination.
• 5:13
  Let me try to compress that.
• 5:18
  It's not "find the smartest person and hope." It's "build a set of signals
• 5:22
  that actually reflect the job, then use them consistently."That's close.
• 5:26
  I would add one word: observable.
• 5:29
  You want evidence the candidate can produce something,
• 5:32
  solve something, or decide something.
• 5:35
  Observable skill is more reliable than inferred potential.
• 5:35
  Observable
• 5:40
  skill... yeah, that changes how you look at hiring immediately.
• 5:43
  And that's where something like OAD fits in,
• 5:46
  because it shifts the focus away from who looks impressive on paper to
• 5:49
  who can actually demonstrate the capabilities the role needs.
• 5:49
  Exactly.
• 5:53
  The practical takeaway is simple,
• 5:56
  even if the execution takes discipline.
• 5:58
  Test the work, or something close to it.
• 6:00
  Don't confuse polish with capacity.
• 6:03
  Don't confuse tenure with mastery.
• 6:05
  And don't let a strong interview performance substitute for missing
• 6:05
  evidence.
• 6:05
  And
• 6:10
  the side effect is it usually becomes a fairer process too.
• 6:13
  More consistency, less improvisation,
• 6:16
  fewer decisions based on "this person reminds me of me."Yes.
• 6:21
  Better measurement tends to produce better fairness.
• 6:24
  You're evaluating candidates against the role,
• 6:27
  not against personal preference.
• 6:27
  So if you're hiring right now,
• 6:31
  the move is pretty clear: test for the skills that actually matter,
• 6:35
  not the ones that just sound impressive.
• 6:37
  And if you want a practical way to start,
• 6:39
  you can test OAD's tools-like behavioral assessments-for free at o-a-d-dot-a-i.
• 6:39
  The
• 6:45
  real question is not whether someone can perform well in an interview.
• 6:48
  It's whether they can perform well in the role.
• 6:48
  That's where the decision
• 6:53
  should live.
• 6:53
  Thanks for listening to The Science of Leading.