• 
• Training
• Consulting
• Resources
• Store
• About Us

• » Articles
• › The Official Rules for Hiring Top Talent
• › Newsletters

Blink and Why First Impressions Must be Ignored

By Kathy Barton, November 22, 2006

Recently, during a training class in Houston last week, I was asked a very interesting question. As many of you know from following Lou's columns over the years, Performance-based Hiring^sm has three fundamental principles. One of those principles is to "wait 30 minutes" during the interview to assess the candidate's possible fit for the job. (Just for fun, I'll send a free copy of Lou Adler's Basic One-Question Interview CD to the first five managers who email all three fundamentals to Kathy@AdlerConcepts.com.) "Wait 30 minutes" arises from the fact that the typical employment interview renders a 57% accuracy rate - only 7% better than flipping a coin. In fact, the Wall Street Journal did a study showing that 70% of hiring managers make a judgment to advance the candidate (or not) in the first three minutes of an interview; then spends the rest of the interview gathering information that reinforces that first impression. (This first impression is based on the candidate's presentation - how he or she looks, speaks, dresses, shakes your hand, meets your eye, etc.)

What is meant by interviewing accuracy in this context? It boils down to whether the person you hired performed at the level you expected -- displaying the ability and motivation to do the job. If the typical employment interview is only 57% accurate, then making a decision based on a first impression must not be a good strategy. First impression is biased and, in many cases, inaccurate. The candidate's presentation does not accurately predict his or her performance in the job. The concept of waiting 30 minutes - until your initial impression is either validated or changed by real evidence using The Basic One-Question Interview - is extremely important if you want to be able to assess a candidate's competency and motivation from 85 to 90% accurately.

You may be wondering, at this point, just what is that interesting question I mentioned. It's one I've heard several times since Malcolm Gladwell published Blink in January, 2005. The premise of Blink is that choices that are made unconsciously - in the blink of an eye - aren't as simple as they seem. In fact, according to the book jacket, "Blink reveals that great decision makers aren't those that process the most information or spend the most time deliberating, but those who have perfected the art of 'thin-slicing' - filtering out the very few factors that matter from an overwhelming number of variables." Which may cause one to wonder, why does Performance-based Hiring advocate waiting 30 minutes when Blink tells us that great decision makers make decisions in the blink of an eye? (Yes, I have finally gotten to that interesting question!)

Many people have read excerpts from the book, seen it quoted, and read the book itself. This concept of the validity of quick and instinctive decisions captures the imagination. What's most interesting, of course, is that this is only a small part of what the book says. The theory of Blink explains that when you know a tremendous amount about a given area, then you have internalized certain critical decision criteria based on years of training and experience. Take driving. How many times have you seen a situation developing ahead of you and find that you've already started braking or switching lanes before your conscious mind has analyzed the specific danger? For those of us who have tried to teach a teenager to drive (my sincere sympathy and admiration to those of you who have!) one of the most frustrating things is that a beginning driver doesn't have that base of knowledge and experience. They react slowly, or in a less than desirable way, because they don't recognize the danger the way an experienced driver does. However, if you don't know a lot about an area - like the beginning driver - a quick decision may be disastrous. Gladwell spends as much time in the book discussing the dangers of rapid decisions as he does discussing their value, with examples like the Warren Harding Error and New Coke. Gladwell demonstrates that the area where snap judgments are most likely to be wrong is regarding people.

Why? He identifies the answer and calls it "implicit or unconscious associations". We relate particular traits with certain "types" of people and base this on associations we make without even realizing it. For example, Gladwell makes the point that in the US population 14.5% of all men are six feet or taller. However, if you look at CEO statistics of Fortune 500 companies, 58% are over six feet. This is a discrepancy that can't be explained by coincidence or inherent talent. (I've yet to see a study that shows that tall men are, by virtue of their height, better leaders.) This is based on an unconscious association on the part of a large number of people that leadership ability and imposing physical presence are related. Studies have shown that, on average, men who are taller than the norm also make more money than men who are below average in height.

It seems unlikely that this is a conscious bias. After all, if I asked you if you thought that men over six feet were smarter, more capable, or better leaders than men under six feet, I'm sure you would tell me that you thought no such thing. But are you positive? How do we explain then the disproportionate number of CEO's over six feet? If you have two candidates, one being taller than the other, are you positive this doesn't weigh in the taller candidate's favor? What if one is significantly more attractive than the other? Or a different sex? Or a different race? What if one went to your alma mater and one went to your school's greatest rival? What if one seems nervous and the other confident? Ever taken a dislike to someone without knowing the reason? The power of implicit association is that we don't necessarily know we are making that positive or negative association; although, it can be measured in something called an implicit association test (IAT - try one at www.implicit.harvard.edu).

The encouraging conclusion in Blink is that these implicit associations - which cause us to be unconsciously biased about an individual based on presentation - can be overcome. How? By becoming very aware that all of us have unconscious biases and by taking the time for that first impression to pass. The first impression will eventually be separated from discovery based on evidence. In other words, wait 30 minutes and use the Basic One-Question Interview. Hmmm . . . sounds like Performance-based Hiring, doesn't it?

We all want to make good hiring decisions that are based on a person's ability, track record and motivation. In other words, we want to make the best decisions we can based on evidence. I don't believe any of us want to make decisions based on unconscious or implicit associations of which we aren't aware and can't control. The good news is that we don't have to. Wait 30 minutes. Be a little tougher, than you normally would be, on the people you instinctively like. Give those you don't like right away the benefit of the doubt. Suspend your judgment, while using the Basic One Question Interview to gather concrete facts and evidence about a candidate. This methodology will lead you to hire better people. You can learn to overcome unconscious biases. Isn't that an outcome that's worth waiting 30 minutes?