|
by Michael Shelton
Employing staff members who take a genuine interest in
youth and who possess a strong work ethic are essential to the success
of a camp season. Camp administrators often feel proud when they hire
candidates who display these qualities. But it is these same administrators
who also hire the staff who are less than successful, those who are terminated
before the season is over and cause no end of frustration to supervisors
and co-workers. How can an administrator hire two such opposite individuals?
Camp administrators and those responsible for hiring
realize that the way candidates present themselves during the interview
process may not match their true character in the actual camp setting.
Many recommendations, such as background and reference checks and interviews
with family members, have been suggested to deal with this problem. These
practices, however, have not markedly reduced the number of bad hiring
decisions. It is becoming increasingly obvious that it is imperative for
the interviewer to augment his abilities in order to more fully realize
the chance for a successful match between a candidate and the camp. Successful
hiring assumes an equal amount of responsibility from both the candidate
and the interviewer.
No research has been performed specifically at camps
to illustrate the problems inherent in interviewing. However, large corporations
have invested much money and time in analyzing their hiring practices.
Two consistent findings have been released.
The first is that the confidence of the interviewer in
his abilities in no way correlates with the actual success rate. Although
many administrators believe that they have a "special touch"
in hiring just the right people, all available evidence refutes this.
Successful hiring appears to be more related to luck than skill. The second
finding is that practice does not necessarily improve interviewing skills.
A person who has years of interviewing experience will make just as many
bad hiring decisions as a novice.
Large and small businesses are increasingly turning to
science to assist in the hiring process. The findings of science — particularly
psychology and biology — have dramatically altered the understanding of
the brain and how it makes decisions. This knowledge can be utilized by
the camp industry.
Bad Hiring Decisions Explained
There are thousands of sensory stimuli bombarding a human
being’s senses every second from outside (e.g., noise, smells) and from
within (e.g., a headache). If a person had to pay attention to all of
these, then life as we know it would be impossible. The brain fortunately
filters out almost all of these stimuli so that only the most relevant
are consciously processed. This automatic and constant filtering has a
major drawback though; we are consciously oblivious to 99 percent of what
occurs around us.
The 99 percent of filtered incoming sensory information
does not completely evade the brain; information we are not consciously
aware of continues to affect our actions.
Hypnosis presents a perfect example. Most people have
witnessed a stage hypnotist performance in which selected members of the
audience present amusing behaviors under the guidance of the hypnotist.
A person in a trance state instructed to stand up and leave the room every
time the hypnotist gives a subtle signal (e.g., picking up a pen) will
perform this activity each time that signal is given even though the individual
retains no memory of the suggestion. Hypnosis clearly illustrates that
individuals will follow instructions hidden from the conscious mind.
One finding from hypnosis research applicable to hiring
is that people will create an explanation, no matter how outlandish, for
their actions. When asked why he left the room, the above hypnotic subject
might respond, "I needed some air" or "I needed a stretch."
The person will create a completely false explanation to justify the otherwise
irrational behavior. Medical personnel dealing with stroke victims have
also witnessed this type of rationalization in action. Individuals who
find themselves paralyzed on one half of their body may completely deny
this state and explain that the reason they aren’t moving their left arm
and leg is that they are "too tired." These individuals may
tenaciously hold on to this belief for several weeks.
Unconscious Motivation Impacts Decisions
Human beings have an underlying need to explain events;
this is built into the brain. Unfortunately, the brain is more focused
on speed than accuracy. The brain simplifies complicated situations and
interactions in order to better cope with the innumerable stimuli that
bombard it every second. The brain makes decisions for us based on this
simplified evaluation of input.
In spite of educated efforts, hiring decisions are often
based on these quiet unconscious processing of the mind. An interviewer
makes a hiring decision within two to five minutes of meeting a candidate
—
often before the formal interview has even started. In this short period,
the candidate may not even have had time to sit down and introduce himself.
The candidate may on a purely unconscious level remind the interviewer
of a beloved aunt or wear glasses that resemble those of a disliked rival.
The interviewer does not consciously detect these subtle cues but his
opinion of the individual is nevertheless affected.
The interviewer makes his choice based on these unconscious
motivations and then rationalizes the choice of the candidate. Thus, the
candidate that has impeccable qualifications but recalls to the brain
the rival will not be hired due to some quirk or problem that the interviewer
can somehow find, while the truly under-qualified candidate is heartily
welcomed to the camp even though the true reason is that she subtly suggests
the beloved aunt. The human brain is an expert in creating reasons for
hiring decisions even though the reasoning might be as fallacious as found
in a hypnotic trance.
Candidates are chosen not because of their qualifications
but rather because of the effects they have on the unconscious mind. Interviewers
never realize that they are doing this because they are experts at rationalizing
their decisions. This is an explanation for the questionable hiring success
rates interviewers experience in spite of confidence and practice.
The Team Interview Concept
There is a solution for this dilemma. It is important
though to reiterate that the brain automatically makes decisions for us
without our awareness in order to simplify our reactions to the thousands
of stimuli affecting us every second. The goal is not to change this functioning
of the brain but rather to work better with this hardwired programming.
The first step of the solution is awareness. The knowledge
that hiring decisions are highly influenced by unconscious processing
of the brain allows the interviewer to be more focused on the actual decisions
he makes. Awareness is not enough, however, to cause dramatic change.
The second step is team interviewing. Each person has
different unconscious motivations and cues. While one interviewer may
find a candidate a strong contender based on unconscious motivation, a
second interviewer may find the same candidate worrisome based on different
unconscious cues. Having three interviewers meet with each candidate separately
and then discussing their reactions will assure that a hiring decision
is based on objective criteria for the candidate rather than on one person’s
unconscious cues. It strongly appears that better decisions are made with
a team interviewing approach — three short interviews for each candidate
— rather than one lengthy interview held by a single interviewer. It is
possible to have the team interview the candidate as a group if time is
short. This approach has not worked as well though due in large part to
the group dynamics that occur in such a scenario.
Conduct structured interviews
Research has demonstrated that structured interviews elicit the most valuable
information. Most interviews, however, are loosely assembled with a content
that changes dramatically from one candidate to the other. Prior to beginning
interviews, each interviewer should be taught what basic skills, experience,
and competencies are sought. Interviewers should also seek the same competencies
in candidates. Experts recommend that to minimize unrealistic expectations
from both the interviewer and the candidate a maximum of six competencies
should be sought in candidates. This is in striking contrast to many camps’
job descriptions, which are several pages long.
Team interviewing utilizing a structured interview format
will improve hiring decisions. If large businesses use this as a standard
practice, then it would behoove camps to also adopt the technique. This
will, for many camps, lengthen and complicate the hiring process. However,
good staff members are the most valuable assets to the success of the
camp. Can you afford not to use this technique?
Originally published in the 2000 November/December
issue of Camping Magazine. |
