Job Applicants' Cultural Fit Can Trump Qualifications

[Valmy]

At least in the US, there are a lot of things that you cannot legally ask an applicant on either a job application or in an interview, but it's often very easy to get them to divulge said information anyway without you directly asking for it.

Well most people going into a job interview are not aware they are supposed to be withholding information.

[Admiral Yi]

Man.  The only people more stupid and worthless than journalists are academics.  I wonder if corelation and causation are the same thing?  They are if you're a journalist or academic.

Maybe if you're an academic in one of the politicized fields like sociology.  Plenty of academics understand causation just fine.

[Martinus]

At least in the US, there are a lot of things that you cannot legally ask an applicant on either a job application or in an interview, but it's often very easy to get them to divulge said information anyway without you directly asking for it.

But that's exactly what I have a problem with. If you are not allowed to ask for certain information, but then you ask questions which, if answered honestly, will almost always reveal the information you are not allowed to ask for, this becomes a charade. And since most people are not comfortable with lying or telling half truths, even if they deliberately answer in a way that does not give away the sensitive information, this will also be noticed by the interviewer and most likely will count against them.

So the entire thing becomes a fig leaf for discrimination.

[garbon]

So what would you rather have happen?

[The Larch]

Job interviews are a charade by definition.

- What would be your worst defect?
- I work too hard.

[garbon]

Job interviews are a charade by definition.

- What would be your worst defect?
- I work too hard.

[Barrister]

At least in the US, there are a lot of things that you cannot legally ask an applicant on either a job application or in an interview, but it's often very easy to get them to divulge said information anyway without you directly asking for it.

But that's exactly what I have a problem with. If you are not allowed to ask for certain information, but then you ask questions which, if answered honestly, will almost always reveal the information you are not allowed to ask for, this becomes a charade. And since most people are not comfortable with lying or telling half truths, even if they deliberately answer in a way that does not give away the sensitive information, this will also be noticed by the interviewer and most likely will count against them.

So the entire thing becomes a fig leaf for discrimination.

Bah.

I have no problem divulging that I am married with kids because I know most people view that as a positive.

But if I am a, say married young female I know darn well I don't disclose that I'm trying to get pregnant (and thus go on mat leave) during a job interview.  People are well aware of what might count against them.

[Warspite]

In my experience, a lot more hiring mistakes are made when too much weight is placed on cultural fit, rather than on competency and skills.  IMO, competency cures a lot of fit problems.  That's why I never bothered with such cheesy questions when interviewing candidates.

This. I don't need colleagues I can hang out with, I need colleagues that make my, and each other's, professional lives easier.

If they're good for a beer after work too, then that's an coincidental benefit.

[DGuller]

I have no problem divulging that I am married with kids because I know most people view that as a positive.

That's another problem with letting a candidate volunteer sensitive information.  People who have an answer to a restricted question that is perceived to be positive will volunteer the answer, while those with a negative answer wouldn't, at which point their silence would give it away anyway.

[Martinus]

I have no problem divulging that I am married with kids because I know most people view that as a positive.

That's another problem with letting a candidate volunteer sensitive information.  People who have an answer to a restricted question that is perceived to be positive will volunteer the answer, while those with a negative answer wouldn't, at which point their silence would give it away anyway.

Exactly.

[Martinus]

So what would you rather have happen?

Tell candidates what the sensitive information are and tell them they are not allowed to volunteer such information or they will be disqualified from the process. During interviews, ask questions pertaining directly to the job they seek and do not ask questions about personal life, hobbies etc.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm an avid catamaran sailor and I love my bank's raise your rate CD.

[Martinus]

I'm an avid catamaran sailor and I love my bank's raise your rate CD.

English please?

[garbon]

So what would you rather have happen?

Tell candidates what the sensitive information are and tell them they are not allowed to volunteer such information or they will be disqualified from the process. During interviews, ask questions pertaining directly to the job they seek and do not ask questions about personal life, hobbies etc.

So basically act as though you aren't a person? Inevitably those things are going to come through.

[Barrister]

So what would you rather have happen?

Tell candidates what the sensitive information are and tell them they are not allowed to volunteer such information or they will be disqualified from the process. During interviews, ask questions pertaining directly to the job they seek and do not ask questions about personal life, hobbies etc.

Good grief.  So I have a perfect candidate in front of me who I must disqualify because they said they were, say, recently divorced?