Have you ever selected the wrong person? How much did that mistake cost you?
And have you ever been strongly in doubt? Unable to figure out if the candidate was the right person?
The selection process for someone who will work in your firm or company is delicate and decisive. The cost of a wrong choice is not only high economically, but also in terms of time and energy, as well as emotionally exhausting for everyone involved.
Without claiming to exhaust such a complex topic, today I want to analyze 3 harmful but very widespread selection techniques, both among HR recruiters and among professionals, partners, and managers who interview potential candidates. Three selection myths that do more harm than good
Putting the person under pressure to see how they handle it
This strategy was very popular years ago even among professionals, recruiters, and assessors, while today I mostly see it used by professionals and managers who want to test potential collaborators. The underlying idea is that if a person handles pressure well during the interview, they will do so at work as well.
Let's start by saying that the topic is central! I don't know of any jobs or roles that aren't exposed to pressure, so being able to know if the person will be able to withstand and manage it effectively is crucial.
So the problem is not wanting to investigate this aspect, but how it is done. Specifically, the assumption that the reaction during the interview is transferable or predictive of behavior in the work context is wrong. The two types of pressure cannot be considered the same. It is very different to be effective in demonstrating one's competence during an interview and being effective in using one's competence at work. In other words, a person who gets performance anxiety during an interview may be extremely calm when facing a client problem and vice versa, a person who is extremely calm in an interview may lose patience or composure very easily at work... How to investigate effectiveness under pressure?
First of all, put the person at ease. The selection interview yields much better results if the interviewee feels comfortable and therefore collaborates. It's not an interrogation, but a four-handed job in which the candidate is the greatest expert on themselves. It would be too long to explain in detail how to do this here, but we can still state some principles:
In general, the goal is to put the person at ease so they can show you their full potential (see The Curve of Personal Effectiveness)
At this point, investigate how aware the person is of what interests, intrigues, and excites them on the one hand, and whether they are aware of what they do well, why, and under what conditions, on the other. The more a person knows how they function, the more effective they will be even under pressure. I have already explained in a previous article how competency models, and in general labels related to performance, have their limits (see ):But all of us have the experience of being more or less effective depending on the situation or of having changed, not only over the years, but also depending on the time of day.So, not only can a certain characteristic not be defined as absolutely positive or negative, but it should not be considered always present or always at the same intensity.When we are the ones asking for self-labeling, we may get some indications of how the person perceives themselves, but we must be aware that our question will strongly influence the answer: in an interview, if I am asked a question, I will try to give an answer, rather than question the assumptions of the question. And if you are thinking that, after all, it might be a good way to see if the person knows how to assert themselves or accepts everything passively, you have fallen back into the first point...If you have built a good atmosphere, just ask. Ask the person to tell you about themselves, why they chose this career, which significant people have influenced their path positively or negatively... from the answers you will see their portrait emerge.While listening, try to note recurring elements, mark who is the subject/protagonist (her, her team, the firm or company?), which adjectives are used to describe which situations. Try to pay particular attention to changes in tone of voice: for example, when the voice becomes particularly high-pitched it may indicate activation (anxiety or excitement) and when it becomes deep it may indicate that the topic is emotionally significant for them.If you have a doubt, be transparent: "listening to you, I have the impression that...", if possible do not define the person ("...you are...") but refer to particular situations, "...when you are in this situation, you tend to (noticed reaction)...", and then ask for confirmation, "does that sound right?". If the person confirms, good, if not, that's fine too! It's not about guessing, but about helping the person present themselves as they are.The situational interview is a codified technique widely used in interviews and assessments. It gives the illusion of being able to observe how the person would behave in that situation. Too bad it's pure theory! None of us acts in a vacuum, regardless of the context, or rather, of how we know and perceive the context, and the people we are in relation with, present or not... Added to this is that in interviews people want to "give the right answer". These questions, in fact, elicit textbook answers (what I have read or think is "right") or raise doubts and endless sub-questions to better understand... The only way to observe skills is to have them put into practice on the spot. Unfortunately, there is no simple technique for this in interviews. A trained assessor can modulate the conversation and propose topics to discuss together, but this is a method for experienced professionals and is difficult to replicate. The most solid tool is the practical test, ideally a real case. For example, we have developed a form of that makes people work on real cases, with the possibility to move freely involving whoever they want. This approach overcomes the limits of artificial exercises, where the numbers are static and there are no real people (at most actors), but it requires a different setting from the interview.Even questions about the past have the same limitation... because we do not have the contextual elements. However, in an interview, there is a possibility: the semi-structured interview based on the models proposed by McClelland, such as the interview.In this, ask them to describe a critical situation, , the contingent task/goal, , what was done, , and the result achieved, . Bonus, a little trick to use this outline well: the question to integrate at each step is "why". Ask the person to explain why those conditions occurred, why they had that task/goal, why they acted that way and, finally, why they achieved that result. The answers to why will tell you how much the person has understood, internalized, and capitalized on the experience. In this way you will have two key indications: "can they learn?" and "do they know themselves?", which are the two success factors across any role.Good luck and best wishes for your next selection!Work psychologist, with a specific focus on consulting for freelance lawyers and associated firms. With my clients I carry out assessment, coaching, workshops and team-building, working equally in Italian, German and English. I am among the founding partners of , an associated firm of work psychologists and certified Benefit Corporation. With Nicola Di Molfetta, director of MAG of Legalcommunity.it, I host the .
Have you ever selected the wrong person? How much did that mistake cost you? And have you ever been strongly in doubt? Unable to understand if the candidate was the right person? The selection process for someone who will work in your firm or company is delicate and decisive. The cost of a wrong choice is not only high economically, but also in terms of time and energy, as well as emotionally exhausting for everyone involved. Without claiming to exhaust such a complex topic, today I want to analyze 3 harmful but very widespread selection techniques, both among HR recruiters and among professionals, partners, and managers who interview potential candidates. This strategy was very popular years ago even among insiders, recruiters, and assessors, while today I mostly see it used by professionals and managers who want to test the pulse of potential collaborators. The idea is that if a person handles pressure well during the interview, they will also do so at work. Let's start by saying that! I don't know of any jobs or roles that are not exposed to pressure and therefore being able to . So it's not wanting to investigate this aspect that's wrong, but how it's done. Specifically, it's the assumption that the reaction during the interview is transferable or predictive of behavior in the work context that is wrong. The two types of pressure cannot be considered the same. It is very different to be effective in demonstrating your competence during an interview and being effective in applying your competence at work. In other words, a person who gets performance anxiety during an interview can be extremely calm in front of a client problem and vice versa, a person who is extremely calm in an interview can lose patience or composure very easily at work... First of all, put the person at ease. The selection interview yields much better results if the interviewee feels comfortable and therefore collaborates. It's not an interrogation, but a four-handed job in which the candidate is the greatest expert on themselves. It would be excessively long to explain in detail how to do this here, but we can still state some principles: In general, the goal is to put the person at ease to allow them to show you their full potential (see )
At this point, investigate with the person how aware they are of what interests, intrigues, and excites them on the one hand, and whether they are aware of what they do well, why, and under what conditions, on the other.
The more a person knows how they function, the more effective they will be even under pressure.
Here is a possible sequence of questions:Asking about strengths and weaknesses
I have already explained in a previous article how competency models, and in general labels related to performance, have their limits (see Why we must immediately say goodbye to HR competency models and not just update them):
But all of us have the experience of being more or less effective depending on the situation or of having changed, not only over the years, but even depending on the time of day.
So, not only can a certain characteristic not be defined as absolutely positive or negative, but it should not even be considered always present or always at the same intensity.
When we are the ones asking someone to label themselves, we may get some indications about how the person perceives themselves, but we must be aware that our question will strongly influence the answer: in an interview, if I am asked a question, I will try to give an answer, rather than question the assumptions of the question. And if you are thinking that, after all, it might be a good way to see if the person knows how to stand up for themselves or accepts everything passively, you have fallen back into the first point...How to investigate a person's characteristics?
If you have built a good atmosphere, just ask. Ask the person to tell you about themselves, why they chose this career, which significant people have influenced their path positively or negatively... from the answers you will see their portrait emerge.
While listening, try to note recurring elements, mark who is the subject/protagonist (them, their team, the firm or company?), which adjectives they use to describe which situations. Try to pay particular attention to changes in tone of voice: for example, when the voice becomes particularly high-pitched it may indicate activation (anxiety or excitement) and when it becomes deep it may indicate that the topic is emotionally relevant for them.
If you have a doubt, be transparent: "listening to you, I have the impression that...", if possible do not define the person ("...you are...") but refer to particular situations, "...when you are in this situation, you tend to (noticed reaction)...", and then ask for confirmation, "does that sound right to you?". If the person confirms, good, if not, that's fine too! It's not about guessing, but about helping the person present themselves as they are.Asking what they would do in a certain situation
The situational interview is a codified technique widely used in interviews and assessments. It gives the illusion of being able to observe how the person would behave in that situation. Too bad it's pure theory! None of us acts in a vacuum, regardless of the context, or rather, of how we know and perceive the context, and of the people we are in relation with, present or not... Added to this is that in interviews people want to "give the right answer". These questions, in fact, elicit textbook answers (what I have read or think is "right") or raise doubts and endless follow-up questions to better understand... How to investigate a person's skills?
The only way to observe skills is to have them put into practice on the spot. Unfortunately, there is no simple technique to use in an interview. A trained assessor can modulate the conversation and propose topics to discuss together, but this is a method for experienced professionals and is difficult to replicate.
The most solid tool is the practical test, ideally a real case. We, for example, have developed a form of Workshop Project Based that has people work on real cases, with the possibility to move freely involving whoever they want. This approach overcomes the limits of artificial exercises, where the numbers are static and there are no real people (at most actors), but it requires a different setting from the interview.
Even questions about the past have the same limitation... because we lack the contextual elements. However, in an interview, there is a possibility and that is the semi-structured interview based on the Behavioural Event Interview model proposed by McClelland, such as the S.T.A.R. interview. In this, ask them to describe a critical situation, Situation, the contingent task/goal, Task, what was done, Actions, and the result achieved, Result.
Bonus, a little trick to use this framework well: the question to integrate at each step is "why". Ask the person to explain why those conditions occurred, why they had that task/goal, why they acted that way and, finally, why they achieved that result. The answers to why will tell you how much the person has understood, internalized, and capitalized on the experience. In this way you will have two key indications: "can they learn?" and "do they know themselves?", which are the two cross-cutting success factors for any role.
Good luck and best wishes for your next selection!For any clarifications and further information, do not hesitate to contact us,
Paolo Lanciani
Paolo Lanciani
Occupational psychologist, with a specific focus on consulting for freelance lawyers and associated firms. With my clients I carry out assessments, coaching, workshops, and team-building, working equally in Italian, German, and English. I am among the founding partners of De Micheli Lanciani Motta, an associated firm of occupational psychologists and certified Benefit Corporation. With Nicola Di Molfetta, director of MAG at Legalcommunity.it, I host the Complex podcast, law beyond the surface.
Have you ever selected the wrong person? How much did that mistake cost you? And have you ever been strongly in doubt? Not able to figure out if the candidate was the right person? The selection process for someone who will work in your firm or company is delicate and decisive. The cost of a wrong choice is not only high economically, but also in terms of time and energy, as well as emotionally exhausting for everyone involved. Without the ambition to exhaust such a complex topic, today I want to analyze 3 harmful but very widespread selection techniques, both among HR recruiters and among professionals, partners, and managers who interview potential candidates. This strategy was very popular years ago even among insiders, recruiters, and assessors, while today I mostly see it used by professionals and managers who want to test the waters with potential collaborators. The idea is that if a person handles pressure well during the interview, this will also happen at work. Let's start by saying that! I don't know of any jobs or roles that are not exposed to pressure and therefore being able to . So it's not the desire to investigate this aspect that's wrong, but how it's done. Specifically, it's the assumption that the reaction during the interview is transferable or predictive of behavior in the work context that is wrong. The two types of pressure cannot be considered the same. It's very different to be effective in demonstrating your competence during an interview and being effective in applying your competence at work. In other words, a person who gets performance anxiety during an interview can be extremely calm in front of a client problem and vice versa, a person who is extremely calm in an interview can lose patience or composure very easily at work... First of all, put the person at ease. The selection interview yields much better results if the interviewee feels comfortable and therefore collaborates. It's not an interrogation, but a four-handed job in which the candidate is the greatest expert on themselves. It would be excessively long to explain in detail how to do this here, but we can still state some principles: In general, the goal is to put the person at ease to allow them to show you all their potential (see ) At this point, investigate how much awareness the person has of what interests, intrigues, and excites them on one hand, and whether they are aware of what they know how to do well, why, and under what conditions, on the other. The more a person knows how they function, the more effective they will be even under pressure. I have already explained in a previous article how competency models, and generally labels related to performance, have their limits (see ): But all of us have the experience of being more or less effective depending on the situation or of having changed, not only over the years, but also depending on the time of day. So, not only can a certain characteristic not be defined as absolutely positive or negative, but it shouldn't even be considered always present or always at the same intensity. When we ask someone to label themselves, we might get some indications of how the person perceives themselves, but we must be aware that our question will strongly influence the answer: in an interview, if I'm asked a question, I'll try to give an answer, rather than question the assumptions of the question. And if you're thinking that, after all, it might be a good way to see if the person knows how to stand up for themselves or accepts everything passively, you've fallen back into the first point... If you've built a good atmosphere, just ask. Ask the person to tell you about themselves, why they chose this career, which significant people have influenced their path positively or negatively... from the answers, you'll see their portrait emerge. While listening, try to note recurring elements, mark who is the subject/protagonist (her, her team, the firm or company?), which adjectives are used to describe which situations. Try to pay particular attention to changes in tone of voice: for example, when the voice becomes particularly high-pitched it may indicate activation (anxiety or excitement) and when it becomes deep it may indicate that the topic is emotionally relevant for them. If you have a doubt, be transparent: "listening to you, I get the impression that...", if possible don't define the person ("...you are...") but refer to particular situations, "...when you find yourself in this situation, you tend to (noticed reaction)...", and then ask for confirmation, "does that sound right to you?". If the person confirms, good, if not, that's fine too! It's not about guessing, but helping the person present themselves as they are. The situational interview is a codified technique widely used in interviews and assessments. It gives the illusion of being able to observe how the person would behave in that situation. Too bad it's pure theory! None of us acts in a vacuum, regardless of the context, or rather, depending on how we know and perceive the context, and the people we are in relation with, present or not... Added to this is that in interviews people want to "give the right answer". These questions, in fact, elicit textbook answers (what I've read or think is "right") or raise doubts and endless sub-questions to better understand... The only way to observe skills is to have them put into practice on the spot. Unfortunately, there is no simple technique to use in an interview. A trained assessor can modulate the conversation and propose topics to discuss together, but this is a method for experienced professionals and is difficult to replicate. The most solid tool is the practical test, ideally a real case. For example, we have developed a form of that has people work on real cases, with the possibility to move freely involving whoever they want. This approach overcomes the limits of artificial exercises, where the numbers are static and there are no real people (at most actors), but it requires a different setting from the interview. Even the question about the past has the same limitation... because we don't have the contextual elements. However, in an interview, there is a possibility and that is the semi-structured interview based on the model proposed by McClelland, such as the interview . In this, ask them to describe a critical situation, , the contingent task/goal, , what was done, , and the result achieved, . Bonus, a little trick to use this outline well: the question to integrate at each step is "why". Ask the person to explain why those conditions occurred, why they had that task/goal, why they acted that way and, finally, why they achieved that result. The answers to why tell you how much the person has understood, internalized, and capitalized on the experience. This way you'll have two key indications: "can they learn?" and "do they know themselves?", which are the two success factors across any role. Good luck and best wishes for your next selection! Occupational psychologist, with a specific focus on consulting for freelance lawyers and associated firms. With my clients I carry out assessments, coaching, workshops and team-building, working equally in Italian, German and English. I am among the founding partners of , an associated firm of occupational psychologists and certified Benefit Corporation. With Nicola Di Molfetta, director of MAG of Legalcommunity.it, I co-host the .