Improving Interview Processes
Sat, 31 Aug 2024
It's widely accepted that interviews are only a tool for evaluating a candidate's fit for a specific role. For a board, this can mean assessing their alignment with the organization's mission, their understanding of its core principles, and how they could contribute to the board's overall work. However, some interview processes, such as those heavily reliant on written responses to hypothetical situations or real-time discussions, may not provide the most accurate insight into a candidate's potential.
One approach involves a two-stage interview process where candidates are provided questions in a first-stage interview process and then evaluated based on their written answers. A second stage interview might follow this to see how they respond in a real-time interview. While it might seem like an excellent way to understand someone's thought process and how it aligns with the organization's values, it only tells part of the story.
An interview format based on isolated written responses falls short of capturing the essence of board work. Board work rarely involves individuals working in isolation to make unilateral decisions. It's a collaborative effort involving navigating organizational dynamics, communicating effectively, and gaining insights through discussion. Evaluating candidate responses in a vacuum, divorced from the collaborative context in which a board functions in the real world, deprives candidates of the opportunity to engage in conversations, seek clarification, and build upon the ideas of others, and as a result, limits their ability to provide insightful responses to those questions. A false initial signal is created without giving the context of how they might respond differently, given the opportunity for real-world interactions.
The later interview stage, which involves real-time verbal answers, may inadvertently create false negatives. Assuming a candidate has progressed beyond the written question-in-a-vacuum stage and has yet to be filtered out due to false signals, this stage could still disproportionately favor candidates who excel at formulating immediate, eloquent responses in real time. However, this skill doesn't necessarily correlate with the ability to make thoughtful, well-informed decisions, especially when complex issues require careful consideration and collaboration over time. Boards thrive on collaboration, where members engage in thoughtful discussions, leverage collective knowledge, and carefully consider the context and nuances of each decision.
The pressure to provide immediate answers during a live interview can prevent candidates from showing their true potential for deep analysis and reflection. Some people need time to think things through, discuss with others, and then return to their thoughts. This process can take time and might repeat numerous times.
Both written responses and real-time interviews don't mirror reality and often fail to capture a board's collaborative and context-rich environment, where decisions are made collectively after careful discussion and consideration.
To enhance the selection process, boards could consider a more comprehensive approach that mirrors their work. Instead of solely focusing on individual answers, incorporating group discussions with simulated board scenarios could allow candidates to showcase their ability to engage in constructive conversations, listen to diverse perspectives, contribute to group decision-making, and review and respond to matters thoughtfully, without the pressure of real-time answers, could lead to more insightful responses.
By prioritizing collaboration, context, and thoughtful deliberation, boards can create a selection process that identifies individuals who will thrive in their specific board's complex and dynamic environment. This approach values the importance of thoughtful deliberation in the selection process.