The Likeability Factor in Recruitment – Valid or Vain?

It was one of those rare moments in my career as a recruiter—coming out of an interview feeling uneasy, unsure. Not about the candidate’s qualifications or ability to do the job, but rather, about something less tangible: did I like them? It’s a strange place to be for someone who prides themselves on making decisions based on merit, ethics, and the potential for diversity and inclusivity. And yet, here I was, grappling with the nagging question ..

Does likeability really matter in recruitment? Or is it a vain, irrelevant consideration that risks clouding our judgment?

This week’s rant delves deep into the "likeability factor"—whether it has any place in the hiring process, or if it's merely a dangerous, subjective element that should be checked at the door.

The Roots of Likeability: A Human or a Cultural Phenomenon?

Likeability is deeply rooted in our social and evolutionary instincts. It’s a part of human nature to gravitate towards those who make us feel comfortable, who mirror our own values and behaviours. According to behavioural psychologist Robert Cialdini, author of Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, likeability is one of the key principles of influence. People tend to say "yes" to those they like, making it a powerful force in decision-making, whether we are aware of it or not.

However, this instinct, while perhaps advantageous in social settings, can be problematic in the workplace. Likeability can be influenced by a host of irrelevant factors—appearance, mannerisms, shared interests—that have little to do with a candidate's ability to perform a job. This is where the issue arises in recruitment. Is the likeability factor simply an unconscious bias, leading us to favour those who are similar to us, and inadvertently excluding those who are different?

The Bias Beneath: How Likeability Can Undermine Diversity

Diversity and inclusion have become cornerstones of modern recruitment. Research by McKinsey & Company shows that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity are 21% more likely to experience above-average profitability. Similarly, those in the top quartile for ethnic diversity are 33% more likely to outperform their peers on profitability. Yet, the likeability factor can stand in stark opposition to these goals.

When we prioritise likeability, we may unknowingly perpetuate a cycle of homogeneity. A study by the Harvard Business Review found that "people tend to hire people who are like them." This is known as affinity bias, a type of unconscious bias where we favour individuals who share our background, experiences, or interests. This can lead to a less diverse workforce, which, in turn, can stifle creativity, innovation, and ultimately, business performance.

Moreover, likeability is often intertwined with social and cultural norms that are not universal. What one person finds likeable might be perceived differently by someone from another cultural background. For instance, traits such as assertiveness may be seen as confidence in one culture, but as arrogance in another. By allowing likeability to influence our hiring decisions, we risk excluding candidates who don’t fit into the narrow mould of what is deemed "likeable" by the dominant culture within an organisation.

The Performance Paradox: Does Likeability Predict Success?

It’s tempting to assume that likeable people are better team players, more collaborative, and generally easier to work with. But is there any evidence to support this? Research suggests that the relationship between likeability and job performance is, at best, tenuous.

A study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology examined the impact of likeability on job performance and found that while likeable individuals might initially be perceived more favourably, this effect tends to diminish over time. Performance, it turns out, is not significantly correlated with likeability. In fact, other factors such as conscientiousness, emotional intelligence, and resilience are far better predictors of long-term job success.

What’s more, the focus on likeability can sometimes overshadow the importance of skills and experience. A 2014 study by the Centre for Talent Innovation found that while 77% of senior leaders believe that people who are "likeable" are more likely to be promoted, 85% of those same leaders also recognised that likeability could lead to hiring people who are not necessarily the best fit for the role. This creates a paradox where likeable candidates may be favoured, even if they are less qualified or less capable of performing the job effectively.

The Ethical Dilemma: Balancing Objectivity with Human Nature

As recruiters, we are often tasked with finding not just the most qualified candidate, but the "right fit" for the organisation. This is where the concept of cultural fit comes into play. Cultural fit refers to how well a candidate’s values, beliefs, and behaviours align with those of the organisation. It’s a crucial aspect of hiring, but one that can be easily conflated with likeability.

The ethical dilemma arises when cultural fit becomes a proxy for likeability. A 2017 study by the University of London found that many organisations use cultural fit as a rationale for rejecting candidates who are different from the existing workforce, thus perpetuating a cycle of exclusion. The danger here is that cultural fit, when interpreted as likeability, can lead to a lack of diversity and a homogenous workplace culture that stifles innovation.

The challenge, then, is to strike a balance between objectivity and the natural human tendency to be swayed by likeability. This requires a conscious effort to separate personal biases from professional judgment, and to focus on the qualities that truly matter in a candidate: their skills, experience, and potential to contribute to the organisation’s goals.

The Case for Professional Likeability: A Measured Approach

While likeability should not be the deciding factor in recruitment, it would be naive to suggest that it should be completely disregarded. After all, the ability to work well with others, to build relationships, and to foster a positive work environment are all important qualities in a candidate. But likeability should be measured in a professional context, rather than based on personal preference.

Professional likeability, as defined by organisational psychologist Tessa West, is about being respectful, reliable, and able to communicate effectively. These are traits that contribute to a healthy work environment and can enhance team dynamics. However, they are not the same as personal likeability, which is often based on superficial characteristics and unconscious biases.

Incorporating professional likeability into the recruitment process means focusing on behaviours that are directly related to job performance. For example, does the candidate demonstrate respect for others’ opinions? Are they able to collaborate effectively with diverse teams? Do they communicate clearly and professionally? These are the questions that should guide our assessment of likeability, rather than whether we would enjoy having a drink with the candidate after work.

Moving Forward: Redefining the Role of Likeability in Recruitment

As recruiters, we must recognise the influence of likeability in our decision-making and take steps to mitigate its impact. This begins with awareness—understanding that likeability is often a reflection of our own biases, rather than an objective measure of a candidate’s suitability for a role.

One approach is to use structured interviews, where candidates are asked the same set of questions and evaluated against a standardised rubric. This helps to ensure that all candidates are assessed based on the same criteria, reducing the potential for likeability to sway our judgment.

Another strategy is to involve multiple stakeholders in the hiring process, each bringing a different perspective. This can help to balance out individual biases and ensure a more objective assessment of a candidate’s suitability for the role.

Finally, it’s important to foster a culture of diversity and inclusion within the organisation, where differences are valued and likeability is not conflated with cultural fit. This means challenging the status quo and being willing to embrace candidates who may not fit the traditional mould of what is deemed "likeable."

So .. The Likeability Factor – Valid or Vain?

The likeability factor in recruitment is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it’s a natural human instinct to be drawn to those we find likeable. On the other hand, it’s a subjective, often biased consideration that can undermine diversity, inclusivity, and even job performance.

As recruiters, our challenge is to recognise the role of likeability in our decision-making and to ensure that it does not cloud our judgment. This means focusing on the qualities that truly matter in a candidate—skills, experience, and potential—while being aware of our own biases and taking steps to mitigate them.

In the end, likeability should not be the deciding factor in recruitment, but rather one element of a broader, more objective assessment of a candidate’s suitability for the role. By redefining the role of likeability in recruitment, we can create a more diverse, inclusive, and ultimately successful workplace.

So, is the likeability factor valid or vain?

For me, the answer lies in how we choose to approach it. Likeability, when measured professionally and objectively, can be a valid consideration. But when it’s based on personal preference and unconscious bias, it becomes a vain, irrelevant factor that has no place in the recruitment process.

Let’s strive to keep our focus on what truly matters, and ensure that likeability serves to enhance, rather than detract from, the integrity of our hiring decisions.