4 ms·

My wife is an Industrial/Organizational psychologist. It's a thing I didn't even know existed until I met her. In her years of grad school education, she learne

by burnte 11y ago

My wife is an Industrial/Organizational psychologist. It's a thing I didn't even know existed until I met her. In her years of grad school education, she learned all about memory, learning, human interactions, workplace management, etc, everything relating to how human psychology affects work. Part of that was how to hire the right people. It turns out there ARE things that can strongly indicate employee competence and success, but nearly no one uses them. People like her get hired, and then management promptly ignores their suggestions. On one of her job interviews, while waiting for a manager to come in for the interview, she got to talking shop with the HR rep who was co-conducting the interview. They talked a little bit socially afterwards too, and the HR rep agreed with my wife that the interview went terribly because it didn't focus on anything of real substance. The HR rep said to my wife, "we've been looking for someone like you for months, and we've seen a few as qualified as you, but not many, and we've never made an offer to folks like you because they won't listen to me, I keep getting overruled, and we're still without that position filled." They can't fill the job because they keep ignoring the advice they're paying for. One example is the interview. It turns out the interview as we do it is actually one of the WORST ways to hire people, because it rewards all the wrong behaviors over the real needed skills. Simply scanning a resume isn't great either, you need to engage with the person on theoretical tasks, like an audition, rather than simply conversation and crazy questions. TL;DR We know how t hire people, experts have it worked out, but we don't want to listen to their advice.

1123581321 11y ago
What are the things that can strongly indicate employee competence and success? I am sure it is a big topic, so a link to an article your wife would agree with would be as good as an answer. It's troubling to think that something is being done backwards, but it happens in so many areas that it seems nearly inevitable that it is also done in hiring.
- gergles 11y ago
  IQ tests, but those have legal problems, so instead: Work sample tests. Schmidt & Hunter, 1998: http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%20Validity%20and%20Utility%20Psychological%20Bulletin.pdf http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%...
- burnte 11y ago
  Talked with my wife, she'll try to drum up some research links, but in the mean time, I picker her brain for a few minutes, and we came up with this: Honesty is a huge factor. She mentioned a blog post by a semi-well known HR professional Tim Sackett that ends on a very telling note: "Here’s my take on candidate lies – candidates continue to lie, because Talent/HR Pros don’t call them out on it. We (HR) also perpetuate this problem by hiring the folks who give you the crappy lie, but don’t hire the folks who come clean and tell you the truth." Here's a link [ http://www.timsackett.com/2013/07/24/top-candidate-lies/ http://www.timsackett.com/2013/07/24/top-candidate-lies/ ] but the lies were less important than the fact that interviewers ignore the honesty and look only at the "problem" that was revealed. She said if someone told her "yes there was crime X from ten years ago," it's more important to evaluate their honesty about it and the circumstances than simply crossing that person off the list, for example. Did they bounce a check, or get a single DUI in college? Is that really relevant when they're 35? Isn't that level of honesty a good sign? Another aspect of honesty was revealed by that study that came out last year: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/narcissists-do-better-on-job-interviews-study-finds-1.2678526 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/narcissists-do-better-on-job... "Narcissists or shameless self-promoters do better in job interviews than more modest personalities, a study by University of British Columbia researchers finds" She read the study and felt it was very insightful and academically solid. Again, interviewers examine the delivery but not the substance. Which is better, someone who says, "Yes, I'm very proficient" to every skill question, or someone who honestly says, "I'm very god with XYZ but I do feel there's room for improvement"? It turns out the latter winds up being a more conscientious and useful employee, but they don't perform as well in interviews. Testing is huge, as well. There are a lot of companies that use it, but some, like ProMetric tests given to low level retail employees are still flawed, and don't use sound methodologies in eliminating biases in answers. In my own businesses, she's helped me create better hiring methods, and I went from never hearing about "I/O Psychology" to wondering why more people don't know about that seemingly very valuable type of professional. Note: I'm not trying to blow my own horn or even my wife's, but simply point out that there's a lot of science in HR that a lot of companies don't utilize. HR is more than managing people like machines.
  - gaius 11y ago
    I love the term "HR Pros". Because everyone else is a "resource" but they don't like applying the term on themselves.
JackMorgan 11y ago
Does she have any suggested literature? I'd hire her AND listen if I had budget.
- burnte 11y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9555089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9555089 I'll try to remember to add to this after a few days when she's found more for me to share.
gaius 11y ago
you need to engage with the person on theoretical tasks, like an audition I agree in theory, but the real world doesn't work like this. There is a very high probability that the candidate that you want to hire is a very busy person and can devote half a day or a day to figuring out if they want to come work for you. Similarly if you have 5 people on your shortlist, you can only devote a finite amount of time to figuring out which one of them is the best fit.
- burnte 11y ago
  I agree with you it doesn't work this way, and my wife would say "that's why you don't get good employees." And she'd be right. It doesn't take half a day to give a short 20-30 minute skill assessment. And if you're going to pay this person $50k and up a year, both of you should find the time to do it. The cost of onboarding a new employee can be tens of thousands of dollars in salary and training costs before they're an effective employee. If you have 5 people on your short list, you can spend an entire day adequately testing them and still come out ahead.
davidgerard 11y ago
> It turns out the interview as we do it is actually one of the WORST ways to hire people, because it rewards all the wrong behaviors over the real needed skills. Everything about the interview process incentivises both sides to LIE, LIE, LIE. The skill being tested for is acting. Your cites below will be useful. Thanks :-)

by burnte 11y ago

1123581321 11y ago

What are the things that can strongly indicate employee competence and success? I am sure it is a big topic, so a link to an article your wife would agree with would be as good as an answer. It's troubling to think that something is being done backwards, but it happens in so many areas that it seems nearly inevitable that it is also done in hiring.

gergles 11y ago
IQ tests, but those have legal problems, so instead: Work sample tests. Schmidt & Hunter, 1998: http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%20Validity%20and%20Utility%20Psychological%20Bulletin.pdf http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%...
burnte 11y ago
Talked with my wife, she'll try to drum up some research links, but in the mean time, I picker her brain for a few minutes, and we came up with this: Honesty is a huge factor. She mentioned a blog post by a semi-well known HR professional Tim Sackett that ends on a very telling note: "Here’s my take on candidate lies – candidates continue to lie, because Talent/HR Pros don’t call them out on it. We (HR) also perpetuate this problem by hiring the folks who give you the crappy lie, but don’t hire the folks who come clean and tell you the truth." Here's a link [ http://www.timsackett.com/2013/07/24/top-candidate-lies/ http://www.timsackett.com/2013/07/24/top-candidate-lies/ ] but the lies were less important than the fact that interviewers ignore the honesty and look only at the "problem" that was revealed. She said if someone told her "yes there was crime X from ten years ago," it's more important to evaluate their honesty about it and the circumstances than simply crossing that person off the list, for example. Did they bounce a check, or get a single DUI in college? Is that really relevant when they're 35? Isn't that level of honesty a good sign? Another aspect of honesty was revealed by that study that came out last year: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/narcissists-do-better-on-job-interviews-study-finds-1.2678526 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/narcissists-do-better-on-job... "Narcissists or shameless self-promoters do better in job interviews than more modest personalities, a study by University of British Columbia researchers finds" She read the study and felt it was very insightful and academically solid. Again, interviewers examine the delivery but not the substance. Which is better, someone who says, "Yes, I'm very proficient" to every skill question, or someone who honestly says, "I'm very god with XYZ but I do feel there's room for improvement"? It turns out the latter winds up being a more conscientious and useful employee, but they don't perform as well in interviews. Testing is huge, as well. There are a lot of companies that use it, but some, like ProMetric tests given to low level retail employees are still flawed, and don't use sound methodologies in eliminating biases in answers. In my own businesses, she's helped me create better hiring methods, and I went from never hearing about "I/O Psychology" to wondering why more people don't know about that seemingly very valuable type of professional. Note: I'm not trying to blow my own horn or even my wife's, but simply point out that there's a lot of science in HR that a lot of companies don't utilize. HR is more than managing people like machines.
- gaius 11y ago
  I love the term "HR Pros". Because everyone else is a "resource" but they don't like applying the term on themselves.

JackMorgan 11y ago

Does she have any suggested literature? I'd hire her AND listen if I had budget.

burnte 11y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9555089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9555089 I'll try to remember to add to this after a few days when she's found more for me to share.

gaius 11y ago

you need to engage with the person on theoretical tasks, like an audition I agree in theory, but the real world doesn't work like this. There is a very high probability that the candidate that you want to hire is a very busy person and can devote half a day or a day to figuring out if they want to come work for you. Similarly if you have 5 people on your shortlist, you can only devote a finite amount of time to figuring out which one of them is the best fit.

burnte 11y ago
I agree with you it doesn't work this way, and my wife would say "that's why you don't get good employees." And she'd be right. It doesn't take half a day to give a short 20-30 minute skill assessment. And if you're going to pay this person $50k and up a year, both of you should find the time to do it. The cost of onboarding a new employee can be tens of thousands of dollars in salary and training costs before they're an effective employee. If you have 5 people on your short list, you can spend an entire day adequately testing them and still come out ahead.

davidgerard 11y ago

> It turns out the interview as we do it is actually one of the WORST ways to hire people, because it rewards all the wrong behaviors over the real needed skills. Everything about the interview process incentivises both sides to LIE, LIE, LIE. The skill being tested for is acting. Your cites below will be useful. Thanks :-)