

Do interviews predict job performance? How about dating for marriage? - andrew_null
http://andrewchenblog.com/2009/07/28/what-if-interviews-poorly-predict-job-performance-what-if-dating-poorly-predicts-marital-happiness/

======
wallflower
In Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, he referenced how Professor Gottman can predict
which couples will survive the long-term with just a short meeting.

"University of Washington researchers who have been putting marriages under
the equivalent of a microscope say it is possible to predict which newlywed
couples will divorce from the way partners interact in just the first three
minutes of a discussion about an area of continuing disagreement.

Couples who later divorced began these talks with significantly greater
displays of negative emotions, words and gestures and fewer positive ones than
did couples who remained married over the course of a six-year study."

And with a longer study (one hour interview, past relationship research):

"Psychologists trying to determine why marriages flourish or end in divorce
have refined a tool that predicts with 87 percent accuracy which newlywed
couples will remain married and which will divorce four to six years later. It
is also 81 percent accurate in predicting which marriages will survive after
seven to nine years."

[http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/1999archive/09-99arc...](http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/1999archive/09-99archive/k092799.html)

[http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2000archive/03-00arc...](http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2000archive/03-00archive/k032700a.html)

~~~
jerryji
Kudoz to Professor Gottman. However, a more relevant question is: can _you_
predict the long term relations around you just by "blinking"? I can't, hence
I don't see any practical application of Malcolm's "Blink".

------
jlees
An interesting take on short-term predictors and how they bear out in the
long-term.

To continue the dating analogy, you don't just get married after a romantic
dinner for two (unless, perhaps, you're a celebrity); you 'test drive' the
relationship first. You also, hopefully, maximise chances of success at
bringing up kids, sharing finances etc, by getting a chance to learn the other
person's values and attitudes.

This seems to me bang in line with the 'give an interviewee some real work to
do' school of thought. I do wonder why so few types of jobs involve a trial or
probation period, though; perhaps due to mistrust? When you start dating
someone, you're not committing to the next _n_ years with them, yet when you
join a company, you kind of are.

I've seen from MMO guild leadership that having a trial period can really help
stop significant problems further down the line (although, unfortunately, not
always). Yet I'd not consider hiring an employee, at least in the software dev
world, on spec (i.e. the 'do some real work' part of the interview is actually
the start of the job). The only intermediate is perhaps contracting someone
first, then bringing them on fulltime. I wonder how customs have evolved this
way; respect for other people's need to pay the bills? Desire to minimise
short jobs, churn, and to maximise the ability to seek new jobs while still in
one? Hmm.

~~~
ShabbyDoo
>why so few types of jobs involve a trial or probation period, though; perhaps
due to mistrust?

Good employees might be risk averse due to life circumstances (family
obligations, etc.). Asking someone to leave a job where he's liked and feels
secure for one where he knows he's being "auditioned" for the first few months
might not sit well around the dinner table at home.

~~~
LeonSodhi
Indeed, I am sure for many a trial period wouldn't be acceptable, but
companies should give those that show potential a choice if the alternative is
an outright rejection.

~~~
ShabbyDoo
Agree. There might be some nasty adverse selection bias for the employer as
well. Those who are at risk of getting fired at their current employer will
probably jump ship for anything, and those who are rockstars (to use a cliche)
won't worry about the auditioning process. However, those in the middle, even
though they would probably be great employees, might not take the job due to
risk aversion.

------
axiom
Recently we've started giving automatic IQ tests to everyone that applies to
us - then we take the top 20-30% and look at their resumes to get 10-15
candidates for the in person interview. So far it's worked remarkably well -
precisely in directing us to candidates that looked weak on their resume but
turned out to be brilliant on the job.

~~~
Angostura
Surely you can't evaluate whether it works "brilliantly well" until you have
compared the success of your selected sample against another randomly selected
sample.

You may find that carrying out interviews on the roll of a dice is equally as
effective at letting you meet candidates who wouldn't otherwise make the CV-
lead cut.

~~~
axiom
One of the things I looked for were candidates that previously would not have
made the cut because of a crappy resume - and there were quite a few of those.

I didn't do any kind of controlled study - so this is definitely anecdotal
evidence.

------
alain94040
You _can_ turn an interview into real work:
<http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/gv981229.htm>

Nick Corcodilos was a pretty popular voice 10 years ago and was one of the
first to give that sort of hiring advice.

------
edw519
For both the interviewing and dating analogies, OP overlooks the most critical
detail that any good salesman could tell you: decisions are made by emotion
and confirmed by logic. He barely touched upon the emotional aspect.

What could companies do to better employ emotional considerations?

First they must treat the recruitment process as a _two way street_. Why hire
someone who will become unhappy or disillusioned and just leave? Yet companies
continue to hide their underwear until after the candidate is hired. Do you
really think they won't notice that you misrepresented yourselves?

They must also focus more on the people side of things. Take the candidate out
for dinner or drinks. Invite the spouse. Take them to an event. You can learn
just as much about each other as you can from a technical test.

I'm surprised companies don't do this much anymore. Have we gotten so
technical that we forgot that we're human?

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
I have to agree with that.

I've been in my current job for 10 years. One of the things that initially
sold me on the company was that besides the technical stuff, they took time to
get to know me as a person during the very long interview day. A bunch of us
went out to lunch and chatted, back in the office we discussed everything from
hobby projects to old work, etc. Since they had flown me over 1,000 miles for
the interview, people suggested some places to visit until my return flight
two days later (I came up on Friday and left on Sunday) so I could see if I
might like living in the area, etc...

And in the end I had a really good feeling about working for these guys that
has pretty much persisted for the time I've been here.

