feature | DECISION SCIENCE
DECISION SCIENCE
the distortions of p-hacking
Set against a deep and protracted talent drought landscape, entering the interview room with a sheath of CVs and the critical goal of finding the right person for the job, is no easy feat. Daunted by invisible forces, the spectres of heuristics and biases seem to work against our best intentions. But understanding these forces and what to do about them, can light the path towards making smarter hiring decisions.
ARTICLE BY LINDSAY KOHLER, LEAD BEHAVIOURAL SCIENTIST - SCARLETTABBOTT
A typical recruitment scenario is; the post calls for someone to manage some key client accounts and so interpersonal skills are obviously high on the list. Unfortunately, a candidate presents who looks great on paper, but didn’t necessarily exemplify what you were looking for in both interview rounds. Nevertheless, you take a chance on them and it turns out to be a very good hire, their client- facing persona shines through almost instantly and they quickly build the kind of client relationships the role required. The reason for the unconfident show at interview? That good old human trait, nervousness. Surely everyone has a story like this, where all signs indicate that someone was not going to be successful in a role, only to have them perform brilliantly. Or perhaps you have encountered the opposite scenario - a candidate that dazzles in interview and then crashes and burns spectacularly in the role. Why does this happen?
For years, decision scientists have studied how leaders in organisations make the choices they do. At its core, decision science is simply a form of advanced problem solving that helps us spot the judgements behind the decisions that drive behaviour. If you surveyed managers on how they make hiring decisions, they would describe methods such as reviewing the highlights of a CV, listening to their team’s feedback, and assessing role and culture fit. However, the following is more likely; “I went with my gut”! While the intuitive judgement of some professionals can be impressively skilled, that of others can be flawed. Intuition can be brilliant, based on years of experience, but the truth is that this is not always the case. Our hiring intuition goes awry because we often apply criteria inconsistently - and because we are not aware this is happening - we don’t build safeguards against inconsistent judgements.
We use plenty of mental shortcuts - k nown as heuristics - to make decisions in the workplace. This is not necessarily a bad thing, in certain contexts - such as an uncertain hiring environment - this “less is more” approach to making decisions can be beneficial. It stops us from overthinking things and allows us to move through our day more efficiently. However, these mental shortcuts can also lead us astray when it comes to interviewing candidates. In fact, the key tool in hiring decisions - the employment interview - has little correlation to job performance. For example, researchers at Yale studying the usefulness of the interview instructed half of their subjects to respond randomly to questions. Not only did the interviewers not realise the responses were random, but the end goal - their predictions of the interviewee’s next semester’s G.P.A - were much less accurate for students they interviewed than for those they didn’t. Why?
44 | thehrdirector | DECEMBER 2019
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
