How Interviewers Draw Conclusions About the Priority List Items
It is here that I believe the biggest misconceptions exist on the part of the interviewees and advice they may receive. How can it be expected of an interviewer that they will in a half-hour, one-hour, or two-hour interview be able to obtain a definitive and accurate reading on a candidate? It is easier to see differences at the very beginning of the interviewing cycle when the candidates represent a wider range of talent and brainpower. However, as candidates meet expectations and progress through additional interviewing cycles, accurate differentiation becomes increasingly difficult.
With the exception of the very last category, “Comfort with basic math,” there are no direct questions, or ways, by which one can accurately and definitively discern how a candidate “scores” on the various items on the list. During an interview, it is more of an art than a science. The most important thing to understand is that, absent any direct ways, all interviewers rely on “proxies” or “surrogates” to reach conclusions. This means that all interviewers infer from something they hear or see during the interview itself to project and reach conclusions.
This process of inferring and projecting is to a large extent a random process, because interviewers are different from each other: Some are smarter, some more perceptive, some deeper thinkers, some like/dislike different personality traits, and so on. In other words, any one given interview is subject to being random in outcomes. We really have little control over that. Assume that ten interviewers are sitting in on the same interview with one candidate. It would not be unusual to get varying opinions regarding the initial observations about the candidate. As they discuss their observations, they are likely to reach a more persistent perspective. This suggests that although each interview session with any given interviewer may be subject to a level of “randomness,” the overall process itself is likely to attenuate such randomness, which is the good news from the candidate’s perspective.
The bad news is that this process doesn’t work as well when a negative dissenting opinion comes from a higher-level manager, or if it were to happen at an earlier stage, where a single interviewer determines the outcome. There isn’t really all that much one can do about it. One can only hope that their interviewers will fall more into the “average, more common” category, meaning that they are more likely to react in a rational and predictable way to what they see and hear in an interview, and are not likely to be outliers in how they react and infer things. The good news is that most experienced interviewers will tend to fall into the normal, predictable category. Keep in mind that it only means more predictable judgment and not necessarily more accurate judgment.
Clearly, then, the question becomes: How would the “normal, more common” interviewers draw conclusions from their inferences?
Here, in my opinion, the list is separated into two categories—the items on the Priority List that are likely to produce more accurate observations versus those that might be subject to a greater degree of variance and inaccuracy. The most important item on the list, brainpower, is more accurately discerned and falls in the first category. (Of course, the accuracy for the basic math category is very high, but the category is a minor one with secondary priority.) All others fall into the second category. This implies an important observation. On the positive side, the most important factor for a job offer would likely be ascertained reasonably well. On the negative side, the others are less accurately discernible, yet certain to yield a rejection. There is no real balance here; it is mostly an all-or-nothing proposition.
Another observation of significance is the fact that all the factors on the list are inferred from proxies. The proxies themselves are not made up of known and consistent elements. They can vary significantly. Worse yet, the same proxy may receive a positive observation with one interviewer, but a negative observation from another. For example, a candidate gives an opinion about an issue. The interviewer then raises a counterargument and asks for the candidate’s response. The candidate counters with a logical premise. The interviewer responds with another counterpoint. The candidate rebuts with another logical counterpoint and in doing so maintains their original position. Assume further that the candidate’s counterpoints have not been all that compelling to the interviewer, but nevertheless have been logical and not inferior responses.
It is then likely that the interviewer will draw one of two opposite conclusions. One, the candidate was quick on their feet and able to quickly adjust their original thinking, absorb new information, and respond in a logical way. The other, the candidate showed a tendency to be stubborn and argumentative, as evidenced by the fact that they kept holding on to their original position, in spite of the interviewer’s logical counterpoints.
There is only one conclusion to draw from the above, outside of pointing to the randomness—that if one wants to maximize the outcome of a job interview, one must demonstrate brainpower without overdoing it, so one doesn’t give the impression of being arrogant. At the same time, one must avoid anything that might be viewed as a proxy for a critical liability. I will attempt to elaborate and make proper recommendations to deal with it shortly, but before I do so, here are three personal examples that will demonstrate some of the discussion points about interviews.
Interviewing with Booz Allen: How Random Can It Be?
Between my first and second year at Wharton, I had an interview on campus for a summer internship with a partner from Booz Allen, who sought me out after consulting the resume book. He explained that he had selected me because it appeared I could be of value on a project that involved computer systems and information technology (IT). My prior experience at EDS would fit perfectly, he said. He told me that with my experience and understanding of computers and IT, I would be a major asset to the team and be paid full salary, which was a lot of money. I was salivating. The interview lasted for a number of hours, throughout which he reaffirmed my fit for the project.
My English at the time, as I mentioned earlier, was not very good. I had to really concentrate whenever I had to form sentences. When I concentrate, my countenance becomes very serious. During the interview, I also focused on trying to convince the interviewer that I was smart, since Booz Allen had a reputation for hiring very smart people. So my demeanor throughout the interview was serious. At the conclusion of the interview, the interviewer said, “David, you are very, very smart and a very impressive candidate, probably one of the best I’ve seen in years. Your knowledge of IT is superb. You would make a great addition to Booz Allen. But I’m not going to offer you the job with me for the summer. However, I will make sure that Booz Allen pursues you very aggressively for a full-time job next year following your graduation.”
This was not the response I expected, and I asked him to explain why he decided against an offer after having repeated so often that I would be of great value to his team. He said, “You know, as consultants, team members spend hours upon hours with each other. We travel together, eat together, work together, and spend a tremendous amount of time together. You are a very serious person, nothing but business. I prefer someone who is fun to be with after work. Someone who has a sense of humor, who can crack a joke, and relax with the team. So, I decided not to offer you the job.” Then he repeated again, “But I think Booz Allen should hire you, and I will make sure that they interview you next year, when you graduate.”
I was devastated. First, a lucrative opportunity with a great firm had just dissipated in front of my eyes. Second, I didn’t believe that he meant it when he said that he would advise Booz Allen to pursue me aggressively upon graduation. I was sure that he said it just to soften the blow. Third, I knew I came across very seriously, but to think that I didn’t have a sense of humor?!
I stewed over what he said for the whole of the following week. I thought about it constantly. I was extremely upset with myself for having come across so seriously. Then I got even more upset with how I could have been so stupid not to have understood it in advance and been more relaxed and humorous during the interview. However, now that I understood it, I was determined to never repeat this mistake again.
Just to put things in perspective, the following year I went through five interviewing cycles with Booz Allen and accepted an attractive offer for a full-time job. After I had been at the firm for a while, I was curious as to whether my hiring was just part of the normal hiring process or if the partner had indeed followed up on what he told me. I went to the person in charge of the recruiting process, who had contacted me initially, and asked. The partner indeed had followed up on what he promised, writing a glowing letter to the head of the strategy group to make sure that they followed up with me. So, he didn’t just use what he told me as an excuse; he actually meant everything he said.
Interviewing with Bain & Co.: How Random Can It Be?
Right before graduating and about nine months after my failed interview for the summer position with Booz Allen, I got a call from Bain & Co., ahead of the start of the recruiting season. You may remember the name, since I mentioned it in an earlier chapter. Bain & Co. was an up-and-coming consulting firm that was started by Bill Bain, who left the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) with a number of BCG partners to form their own firm. I was convinced that working for any of the top four consulting firms would offer a great career path.
In those days, the top four consulting firms were highly sought after by graduating students, and I tempered my expectations for succeeding in the interview process. Everybody knew how tough it was to receive an offer, and many did not even try. To be a successful consultant, one had to be articulate in spoken and written English. I questioned how well I would do, given my lack of proficiency in English.
I vividly remember a student who described to me exactly what those consulting firms were looking for. According to his father, who was the CEO of a large company, consulting firms look to hire only the best. But he went a step further. He said, “Let me give you an example of the kind of students they are looking to hire. They are looking for students who have already proven that they can walk on water, and now they want to see that they also could run on water.”
Bain & Co. had decided to preempt the normal recruiting cycle. As soon as the Wharton students’ resume book was released, Bain selected a number of students for early interviews. My resume caught their attention, which confirmed in my mind that I was right in my approach to restructuring the traditional resume. The initial interview on campus apparently went well, and I was invited to fly the very next week to Boston to interview at the company’s headquarters. I interviewed with five professionals. I was called the following day and invited to attend another round of interviews. This time I met with a group of six different professionals, which resulted in being invited for a third round.
When I arrived for the third-round interview, I was greeted by the individual who first interviewed me on campus. He was a senior job manager at the firm and became my “handler” for the duration. He told me that I had done exceptionally well to that point, and that this time I would be interviewing with one of Bain’s highest-level partners. I understood that this interview would be the final hurdle for me to cross. He then said to me, “Don’t get nervous; you’ll do well. You have done superbly well so far; I just don’t see how you are not going to do well with this person.” It was nice of him to say it. Indeed, it helped calm me down a bit.
I met with the senior partner. At the conclusion of the interview, I was asked to wait in a lobby. About half an hour passed and my handler came with the news that the firm was prepared to make an offer that very day. I was to have lunch with Bill Bain, the founder, who would formally extend the offer. I was elated.
I remembered my experience with the Booz Allen partner the year before, and I was determined not to repeat that same mistake. I wanted Bill Bain to see my light side, so I resorted to telling jokes over lunch so that he could see that I had a sense of humor. He seemed to have enjoyed the jokes and laughed quite a bit. But as we ordered dessert, an offer had not been made and I started to get nervous.
We finished dessert and still no offer was forthcoming. I thought that something must be wrong. I debated whether it would be wise for me to bring it up, but it seemed to me that once we concluded lunch and left the restaurant, I would not have another opportunity. I mustered my courage and asked Bain whether I could ask a sensitive question. He said, “Sure.” I said, “I’m a bit confused. I was told that the firm was going to make an offer to me over lunch. Lunch is coming to an end. Did I misunderstand the situation?”
He responded, “Well, not exactly. A final decision had not been made.”
I then asked, “What did I do wrong during lunch to lead you to decide against making a job offer?”
He said something polite but noncommittal, words I don’t exactly recall. But I do remember every single word that followed.
I said, “Please, do me a favor. Please tell me what went wrong. I promise not to respond to your answer, no matter what.”
He said, “Oh, nothing really. I just don’t believe that we are ready to make the offer today.”
I said, “Please, please, I know something went wrong. Please help me understand what it was, so that I don’t make the same mistake again with somebody else. Please help me. I mean it; I promise not to say a single word in response.”
He looked at me for a few seconds and said, “Okay, I’ll tell you. Indeed, I took you out for lunch to make you an offer and try to convince you to accept it. But during lunch you didn’t come across as a serious person. You kept telling all those jokes, and I don’t know if we can trust you with the clients—we can’t leave an impression that we are not serious professionals, so I decided not to make the offer.”
I started laughing uncontrollably. I couldn’t stop myself. He looked completely bewildered. After I had an opportunity to get ahold of myself, I said, “Thank you so much for telling me the truth. I really appreciate it. I know I told you that I would not respond to whatever answer you gave me, and I do not intend to do so. But let me tell you why I started laughing.”
I told him about the previous experience with the Booz Allen partner and why I told the jokes. He shrugged his shoulders and said, “Well, that’s the way the cookie crumbles.” We got up and left the restaurant.
I am sharing these experiences not just for the entertainment value. They serve an important illustration of the overall points I’m trying to make. Before I start with specific recommendations, one more example may be in order. This example had nothing to do with interviews, but it does demonstrate how vulnerable we all are to inferences from proxies. This occurred when I started working at Sammons Enterprises as vice president of systems development.
Sammons Enterprises: Be Wary of Proxies, as They Are Not Irrelevant
As you will recall from my resume (chapter three), I was senior system analyst at Electronic Data Systems (EDS). I joined the company in 1973 after graduating with a master’s degree in computer science. At the time, computers and systems development were experiencing rapid growth, and companies began to form their own IT departments, referred to as data processing (DP) departments. Knowledge and expertise in IT/DP were very sparse, and few companies knew how to manage this new practice well. It had become an expensive cost center with users constantly complaining about the poor quality of results and service.
EDS was an exception. It built its business by convincing its clients it could capably manage the IT/DP function with better performance and for a lesser cost than having the IT/DP function in-house. (This concept is nowadays referred to as “outsourcing.”) The first clients they were able to procure were a number of Blue Cross Blue Shield companies. In the case of a company like Blue Cross Blue Shield, they did so for a predetermined fixed price per claim. EDS would also assume heavy penalties should the processing of the claims exceed a pre-agreed time period. The proposed fixed cost represented about 30 percent of Blue Cross Blue Shield’s actual costs at that time. EDS also committed to improving the processing time of claims by 80 to 90 percent. EDS was so efficient, and its clients were so IT incompetent, that EDS was convinced that it would meet the new pricing with significant profit margins. EDS was indeed right, and their business started growing in leaps and bounds.
In 1974, I was recruited by Sammons Enterprises, a privately held conglomerate that owned eight different and independent companies. The owners wanted to launch a company that would emulate EDS’s success. The first clients would be their eight captive companies, so that they could work out the bugs and create reference accounts. A year and a half later, there was nothing but problems. Performance was just terrible. No matter how hard they tried to fix it, it just didn’t work. The client companies complained constantly.
Sammons’s worst problem was that practically every single night, when the computers were supposed to process the day’s business results and generate management reports for the following morning, they would crash. This meant that no management reports were available to the various client companies the following morning, because the computers had to be rebooted and the reason for the crash fixed. It took anywhere between one to three hours to do so, almost each and every morning. Finally, the owners decided to fire the management and brought in a new president to turn the situation around. The president was not an IT/DP person, and I have no idea why the owners thought he could help fix the problem. However, he was an experienced accounting professional and a very wise person. He asked an executive search firm to hire talent from EDS, and so I was contacted. For some odd reason, he believed that I was at a higher level than I really was, perhaps due to the recommendations I received. He contacted me, and after a number of interviews with the president, I was offered the position of vice president, with a large increase in salary. Two days into my job, I realized that the IT/DP company’s processes were completely inadequate at the most basic of levels. I knew I could fix many of the problems with some simple procedural changes. I could stop the nightly computer crashes immediately. I informed the president and the owners that within a week the crashes would stop. They expressed disbelief, but I was certain!
The problem was relatively simple to fix. At EDS, we had two parallel systems. One was called the “production” system, and the other the “test” system. Whatever changes were needed were extensively tested with the test system. It is impossible to make changes to computer programs without encountering some mistakes. When a change was tested and failed, we needed to analyze it and figure out why it failed, make corrections, run the changes again, and so on, until all mistakes were rectified. This process could take days, weeks, or months, depending on the complexity of the changes. Only then did the manager give permission to migrate the changes to the production system. Thus, the production system rarely crashed.
Sammons Enterprises had no parallel test system. Every night, multiple programmers would make changes to the production system. Of course it crashed every single night! The answer was to copy the production system, thereby creating a test system, and not approve any updates to the production system until I was convinced a change had been extensively tested and the bugs worked out, just as we had done at EDS. A week later, I became a hero with the owners. The president became a good friend and mentor. He also gave me complete freedom to do whatever I wished from that point on. I actually did a great job for them. All their problems emanated from simple mistakes that were easy to correct.
About two months into the job, a group of four division presidents approached my president to discuss a project that had received considerable investment over the previous eighteen months, but its goals were not being achieved. The point had been reached where a decision had to be made to continue with the project or abort it. It involved building a new system, and these division presidents had heard about our IT/DP successes and wanted to know our opinion.
They described what the system was supposed to do and then asked me for my assessment. I knew exactly what needed to be done! I answered, “No problem. I can get it done within three weeks, fully running and completely implemented.” They thanked me and then my president excused me.
About fifteen minutes later, the four division presidents left, and my president called me back into his office. As soon as I sat down, he said, “David, can you guess what the first thing was that they said to me as soon as you left?”
I figured that he was serious and expected a serious answer. I said, “Well, probably that I must be very smart, since I knew immediately the answer to their problem.”
He laughed and said, “No, the first thing they said was, ‘Can we trust that guy?’”
I was not proficient in formal English, let alone colloquial English. I interpreted words literally. So, I said, “Why would they have a problem with trusting me? They don’t even know me.”
He laughed again and said, “They didn’t mean ‘trusting you’ in that way. They meant, ‘Does he know what he is talking about?’”
Now I was completely surprised. I asked, “Why would they question if I know what I am talking about?”
He very patiently continued, “This is why I called you in. You are one of the smartest people I’ve ever met, and I know that you know exactly what you are talking about. I am also 100 percent certain that you can get done what you promised them within the next three weeks. But you have to look at it from the perspectives of other people. For them, it was a problem that nobody had been able to solve for the last eighteen months, in spite of many repeated promises. So, they believe that it is a difficult problem to solve and might even be impossible.
“They explained it for about twenty minutes to you. You heard it for the first time in your life. Yet, it took you no time at all to tell them that you can solve their problem—one that nobody has been able to solve. What else did you expect them to think?”
I looked at him and said, “But I know I’m right and they know that it is my job to know. If I didn’t know, I would’ve told them so.”
He laughed again and said, “David, you are missing the point. From now on, for the rest of your life, if you find yourself in the same situation, before you give an answer, just look at them and say, ‘Hmmm, very interesting question or problem.’ Take ten seconds to make them believe you are thinking about it, and then tell them in the following language: ‘I believe it can be done, and I think I might be able to solve it.’ Do it this way and nobody will ever question again whether they can trust you.” This was the first time I became aware of how important it is to think in terms of, and then put into words, an answer that relates to other people’s perspectives. Just in case you might be curious, I was able to meet the promise I had made. I was confident because I well knew that the challenge wasn’t as complicated as it appeared to them, and that any reasonably competent professional could have easily accomplished the same.
In Conclusion: Be Aware and Beware of Proxies!
The above observations and examples clearly illustrate just how random an interview may be, and how easy it is to mischaracterize a candidate through inferences from proxies. However, don’t draw the conclusion that as a result there is not much we can do about how we are perceived in an interview. On the contrary, there is!
First, the examples illustrate that in any one given interview the process may be random. At the same time, it is quite common for different interviewers to draw different inferences from the exact same interactions. That creates a real dilemma for a candidate with no ability to predict which interviewer may infer what in any given interview.
Thus, there is only one conclusion to draw if one wants to maximize the opportunity for a positive outcome from an interview: Beware of proxies. Whether positive or negative, avoid them altogether! Meaning, don’t say anything that could be used to infer anything else, positive or negative. Of course, it is easier said than done. But I will provide you with a list of the most common and “damaging” proxies that you should know, and I hope this knowledge will help you.
To summarize, there are three critical observations worth repeating:
1.The brainpower criterion is an asset, without which an offer will not get extended.
2.Any single “negative proxy” may produce a liability that will most likely result in rejection.
3.Any single “positive proxy” will have a marginal impact on a final offer.
The last two points are why I said “avoid proxies altogether.” The positive offers little benefit and the negative will kill you. The risk is just not balanced.
We are now ready to address the specific recommendations I believe will help you maximize the quality of your interviews. First, we turn to the brainpower criterion and then address how to deal with proxies.