Hiring All Wrong: Exposing the Flaws of Standard Job Interviews

Kudos to Lorna Bullett at John Lewis Partnership for changing how they go about their recruitment. According to an article in HR Grapevine, they now publish their interview questions ahead of time for jobs at John Lewis and Waitrose. This will apply to all job roles and at all levels.

The motivation behind it is to make interviews fairer, particularly for job seekers who are neurodiverse or get too nervous during interviews.

Here's what I like about this initiative?

Most candidates do not do themselves justice in their interviews. This is not only true for many people who are neurodiverse but this also applies to certain personality types. In fact I would go as far as to say the traditional interview format suits less than 20% of people.

A 2021 survey by Resume Go of over 1,000 job seekers found the top complaints about interviews were:

1. The interviewer seemed uninterested/distracted (49%)
2. There were an excessive number of interviews for one role (33%)
3. Technical difficulties with video interviews (31%)
4. Interviewer didn't allow time for questions (26%)
5. Interview questions were too bizarre/unrelated to job (23%)

By the time you have interviewed three people you start to lose interest and busy line managers have a hundred things waiting on them as soon as they get out of the interview room, so it’s no wonder 49% of candidates found their interviewer to be uninterested and distracted.

Why all the interviews? 33% say there were an excessive number of interviews. What are we not learning about the candidate in the first interview?

Are bizarre questions telling us anything about the candidate’s ability to do the job or are they just a way of relieving the interviewer’s boredom? 23% of candidates felt that the interview questions were bizarre and unrelated to the job

Here are some well documented interview questions.

"How would you move Mount Fuji?" (Asked by Reebok)

I think candidates would be running out the door as fast as their Reebok trainers could carry them.

"If you were a pizza delivery man, how would you benefit from scissors?" (Asked by Traders. com)

You could use them to cut off the buttons from the interviewers shirt, as a reminder not to ask such daft questions.

"Sell me this pen." (Asked by management consultancies and banks)

This is a classic and perhaps could be relevant for a sales role. Amazed anyone still uses this.

"If you were a brick in a wall, which brick would you be and why?" (Asked by Bain & Company)

I know a bunch of psychologist will pile in with a justification for this question but be honest, if you were a candidate with other options would you not want to fling the brick at the interviewer?

"How many people flew out of Chicago last year?" (Asked by Ubi Opere)

I visited the Magritte art exhibition in Belgium last year and this question reminded me of how surreal the world can be. I like surrealist art but not convinced about surrealist interviews.

"How many gas stations are there in the United States?" (Asked by Nvidia)

Doesn’t everyone drive electric these days?

"What is the philosophy of the Hare Krishnas?" (Asked by Plantronics)

Really??

"If you were a tree, what kind would you be?" (Asked by Omnicorp)

If an interviewer falls over in the forest, does anyone care?

"How would you get an elephant into a refrigerator?" (Asked by Cisco)

Ah, I know this one. You take the matches out.

"How many haircuts do you think happen in the U.S. per year?" (Asked by People Tech Group)

I suspect the interviewer was left looking at an empty chair as the candidates got up and left the room to start working for their competitor.

A 2019 study published in the International Journal of Selection and Assessment analysed over 6,000 candidate surveys after interviews. The most frequent complaints were:

1. Not enough information provided about the job/company (41%)
2. Interviewer seemed unprepared/lacked interview training (34%)
3. Interview ran significantly over the scheduled time (27%)
4. Organisation of the interview process was poor (22%)
5. Interview questions were too hypothetical (19%)

Most interviewers have not yet come to terms with the power balance shift that has occurred and they are still behaving as though it was 2019. Where interviews used to be a buyers market, where all the power resided with the employer, they are now more often a sellers market, where the power resides with the candidate. Today it has to be more about selling your job to the candidate, something that most interviewers are not good at, hence the 41% figure above.

Most line managers are untrained and unprepared when it comes to interviews. Let’s face it, they only interview candidates from time to time, making them part-time amateurs at best.

Research by The Glassdoor Hiring Surveys in 2015 found job seekers' top 5 complaints were:

1. Interviewers didn't have good knowledge of the role (50%)
2. There was a lack of consistency and coordination between interviewers (47%)
3. Not receiving follow-up feedback after the interviews (39%)
4. Being asked illegal/inappropriate questions (20%)
5. Employers not being transparent about company culture (17%)

I can only image these interviews were not being conducted by the line manager but by someone from HR or the recruitment agency, as this would explain why 50% of candidates felt the interviewer did not have good knowledge of the role. However, it’s still not acceptable.

The most common complaint I have heard is from candidates not receiving follow-up feedback, hence the 39%. In many cases candidates do not even get a reply to their application, which is a pretty poor show.

Again we see the inappropriate questions coming up with 20% of candidates. This has it roots in inadequate training and guidance for interviewers.

The company culture issue is an interesting one. As we will see later in this article over 60% of managers say they interview candidates to see how they are when it comes to cultural fit. And yet 17% of candidates say that employers are not transparent about the company culture. I would also question if managers are able to articulate their company culture. I am pretty sure if I asked a dozen managers from the same organisation to describe their company culture, I would get a dozen different answers.?

When it comes to neurodivergent job candidates, interviews become an even bigger problem.

1. A 2018 study published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders surveyed 109 adults with ASD about their experiences with job interviews. The study found:

• 65% reported significant challenges with interviews
• Top difficulties included responding to open-ended questions, maintaining appropriate eye contact, and masking autistic traits. (Source: Bottema-Beutel et al., 2018)

1. Research by the Autism Alliance examined employment barriers for adults with ASD. It found:

• 92% of adults with ASD rated job interviews as challenging
• Main issues included understanding ambiguous language, sensory overstimulation, and building rapport. (Source: Autism Alliance Employment Reports, 2020)

1. A 2021 report by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) explored neurodiversity at work. It stated:

• Traditional interviews create "considerable anxiety" for neurodivergent candidates
• Biased perceptions of unusual body language/speech patterns is a key issue (Source: CIPD Neurodiversity at Work Report, 2021)

1. A study published in Autism in Adulthood in 2019 had adults with ASD participate in mock interviews:

• Performance scores were lower overall compared to neurotypical controls
• Specific difficulties included generating responses and reciprocal conversation (Source: Bury et al., 2019)

1. Research by the Harvard Business Review in 2017 noted:

• Structured, predictable interview formats are better for neurodivergent candidates
• Interviewers lack training on accommodating sensory needs, stimming behaviors etc. (Source: Austin & Pe?a, 2017)

The consistent findings across multiple studies highlight that traditional open-ended, unstructured interviews systematically disadvantage many neurodivergent applicants without proper accommodations or adjustments. This is why the step the John Lewis Partnership has taken is so significant. Is it enough? Probably not but at least it is something.

By providing their interview questions in advance, candidates can stop guessing and actually prepare their thoughts in advance. I don’t know about you but recalling specific relevant situations from my previous work years ago, is not something I am good at. I expect most people kick themselves hours after their interview when they remember something they should have said that would have helped them and the interviewer.?

What are interviews for??

The big question we need to ask ourselves is “What are interviews for?” What are we trying to establish in an interview??

A 2018 study by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) surveyed over 600 HR professionals and found the following top reasons for conducting interviews:

1. Assess technical skills/job knowledge (68%)
2. Evaluate communication skills (67%)
3. Gauge organizational fit/culture fit (62%)
4. Identify interpersonal skills (39%)
5. Allow candidate to ask questions (26%)

I challenge the first one right away. Very few interviews actually include a skills analysis. Most interviews will inform anecdotally at best, when it comes to skills. The CV and application form tells you about their skills and if they were insufficient you wouldn’t be interviewing them.?

An interview is a very poor way to assess an individual’s communication skills. Communication is a two way process, so this is as much an assessment of the interviewers communication skills and they may be sub par.

Am I the only one that gets very uncomfortable when 62% of interviewers say they are assessing the candidate for culture fit? What do they mean by “culture fit”? Could they even describe their culture or describe what a good fit looks like? I worry that this could be a way of covering up conscious bias.

Are we assessing the candidates interpersonal skills or the interviewers? Most people are a very poor judge of someone’s interpersonal skills. It’s very subjective and an interview is possibly the worst place to try and assess this.

Another study by researchers at Ohio University in 2016 analysed survey data from over 800 managers about their interview practices. They found the most important reasons were:

1. Assess job capabilities (96%)
2. Evaluate communication skills (89%)
3. Gauge personality fit with culture (85%)
4. Verify information from resume/application (60%)
5. Comply with legal requirements (35%)

Similar results from this study, however the 85% figure for cultural fit is very worrying.

A 2019 survey of over 1,200 hiring managers by the job site Monster. com revealed their top 5 priorities when interviewing were:

1. Assessing skills/experience (67%)
2. Evaluating culture fit (62%)
3. Gauging enthusiasm/motivation for role (59%)
4. Checking soft skills like teamwork (55%)
5. Verifying resume claims (41%)

Some familiar results, however, the gauging enthusiasm/motivation at 59% is interesting. How exactly do you evaluate a candidates enthusiasm? How is it different from a candidates desperate need for the job?

And is an interview a good place to evaluate an individual’s teamwork ability?

I think the "verify resume claims" is not unreasonable. According to a 2017 study by HireRight, around 85% of employers caught applicants falsifying some part of their resume or application. A 2019 survey by Resumego found that 36% of respondents admitted to lying on their resume. A 2017 study by StatisticBrain found that 33% of resumes contained lies about experience, 26% contained lies about education credentials, and 18% lied about skills. According to a 2006 study by Reference Software, around 53% of job applications contained inaccurate information. Fair to say that CVs contain a lot of buljik (Scots word meaning nonsense).

So in answer to the question, “what are interviews for?” I would say that interviews are a there to help two strangers get to know each other as well as possible in a short space of time. This is a lot to achieve in itself.

The problem with interviews and some solutions

The problem with interviews is that they are confrontational in nature and many interviewers still approach it with a “catch you out” mentality. They are also crowded with conscious and unconscious bias. This is particularly evident when the interview involves people who are neurodivergent.

Organisations and interviewers have not made the adjustment to take into account the powershift we spoke of earlier and until they do, they will continue to alienate good candidates.?

When it comes down to it, a job interview will only reveal how good a candidate is at job interviews, not at how good they will be at the job.

By publishing their interview questions in advance, John Lewis Partnership has made a start to change things away from the traditional approach.?

Other steps I would recommend would be to move towards personality-centric interviews. Given that an interview is to help people to get to know each other, a personality report can provide additional data about the candidate. I also recommend that the interviewer also shares some of their personality report with the candidate, to help build the bridge and help the candidate get to know the interviewer.

PeopleMaps can even tell you how a candidate will feel about a traditional job interview and if they would better assessed in a different environment. Anything you can do to help a candidate relax and be themselves will help you get to know them.?

Personality reports can provide data that is free from the interviewers conscious or unconscious bias. For example they can tell you how patient the candidate is or how naturally good they are at listening. They can tell you how detailed the individual is. PeopleMaps currently measures over 150 behaviours like these.

Each PeopleMaps report is designed as an interview guide and provides the interviewer with personality-centric interview questions. It also explains why you are asking these questions. The questions are designed to open up a conversation and help the candidate talk about things that matter. They are not designed to trick a candidate or catch them out. Remember, everything in the interview should be about helping two strangers get to know each other.