Anna was a beautiful young woman who went to work for Ted's company a few years ago. When she interviewed for the position, she displayed a dazzling personality. The department head immediately made a salary offer, hiring her right away. She was the most likeable candidate he had interviewed in the three days. Why, then, was ANNA gone from the company in less than six months?

However, it turned out that Anna couldn't sell, couldn't type, couldn't spell, couldn't write legibly, couldn't use a computer very well, and couldn't be bothered to come to work more than 80% of the time. Most of the POSITIVE traits that had been attributed to her by the HR interviewer and the department head simply were never realized. Anna had to go because she couldn't really do the job. A more qualified individual was hired to replace her - an individual who actually possessed the qualifications and attributes those people at Ted's company THOUGHT Anna possessed.

Anna went on to apply for another job. She came into the interview overdressed. She spent a fair amount of time bad-mouthing her previous (albeit temporary) employer. The interviewer assumed she probably couldn't sell, couldn't type, couldn't spell, couldn't write legibly couldn't use a computer very well, and couldn't be bothered to come to work more than 80% of the time. Surprisingly to Anna, she did not receive an offer.

 

• What happened bewteen the two interviews? How could this be the same person?
• What mistake did the interviewer make in each of the two inteviews? How did the interviewer make it?
• What kinds of things could either interviewer have done to prevent bias and ensure a realistic assessment?

(Q.1) What happened between the two interviews? How could this be the same person?

Answer: What happened between the two interviews of Anna illustrates the professional competency of the human resource department from the first interviewer to the second interviewer. The purpose and function of human resources is that it locates the talent, then shares the best applicants (resumes, social profiles) to the hiring manager, allowing them to select the ones that they would like to see included in the interview process, and then from there HR conducts the primary screenings to make sure all skill and education requirements are met. In the preceding interview where Anna was accepted is that the professional ethics of the interviewers are violated in terms of the risk of familiarity threat or maybe the quality of process how the interviewers assess their interviewees.

(Q.2) What mistake did the interviewer make in each of the two interviews? How did the interviewer make it?

Answer: The mistake of the previous employer or interviewers focuses on the breach of their professional capability to assess whether an aspiring employee is fit for a position. To explicitly define the mistake, we narrow down to the quality of the interview process. Maybe the interviewers or the human resources department relied on the documents presented by Anna and have not assessed whether all of the information presented in the documents fairly presents her abilities as a candidate for the position.

In the 2nd interviewer, issue or mistake focuses about the bias of what had been shown by Anna by talking bad about her previous employer. The second interviewer could have been more neutral since in interviewing, interviewers must not show any bias even though interviewees don't possess the qualifications needed by the company. Remember that talent selection and acquisition is a complicated process. I mean it doesn't have to be, but it ends up being quite involved. There's the sourcing and mining of talent, which means sharing your opening with the market in which you will discover your ideal candidates. You also have the screening, evaluating and analyzing of the applicants' resumes, cover letters, and social profiles. Then the initial interview, usually starting with a phone call, then the face to face interview, which presents its own challenges logistically speaking. Don't forget the evaluation of the actual interviewee's responses to the desired answers. Toss in references and the whole "fit" piece into the mix and it becomes convoluted really fast.

(Q.3) What kinds of things could either interviewer have done to prevent bias and ensure a realistic assessment?

Answer: From a legal compliance standpoint, interviewing and screening applicants is a time of high risk for your company. Most employers know that it is illegal to discriminate against a candidate in the hiring process based on nationality, religion, age, marital or family status, gender, health and physical ability, military status and, in some locations, sexual identity and criminal background. What they don't realize is that many seemingly benign questions, either on the employment application or in the interview, can lead a candidate (or court of law) to conclude that you are doing just that—discriminating against a protected class.

As an addition to prevent bias and ensure realistic assessment, I recommend that you require candidates to fill out a formal, written employment application because you can use that to have the applicant attest that all information he or she provides is correct, whereas simply collecting a resume does not afford you that opportunity. On the application, its best to keep it simple and ask only those questions that are absolutely necessary. For example, yes, you'll need to know how to contact the employee, but you don't need to know whether the applicant rents or own his own house. And, indeed, that type of question can be construed to show you discriminating against a protected class.

Lastly, the final recommendation should get HR's approval, that's right HR should have veto power because HR is trained to find the best candidate save for using sex, race, age, ability or any other physical characteristics. That whole Civil Rights Title VII thingy. Yeah, sounds cheesy, until you're slapped with a case and then you'll be happy HR protected you from that circus.