Job Applicants' Cultural Fit Can Trump Qualifications

[Admiral Yi]

English please?

It's a line from an Ally Bank commercial.  Mildly amusing, worth searching for on YouTube.

[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.

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

Really? I have been to a number of interviews (both as an interviewer and when talking to headhunters from other firms) and we spent an hour or so talking without any personal life subjects ever coming up.

I find it odd that when people talk about, say, hiring someone as a M&A lawyer, the discussion must always go into marital status or where they go on vacation.

It is especially funny considering that, when I started a thread recently about disclosing my relationship status at work (where I have worked for 13 years), so many people were adamant about such things never coming up in work conversations (I think BB may have been one of them), but then they are unable to fathom such things not coming up during an hour long talk of two strangers.

[Caliga]

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.

I'm not saying you should do this.  I'm saying there are ways to obtain this information if you're hell-bent on doing so.

[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.

Really? I have been to a number of interviews (both as an interviewer and when talking to headhunters from other firms) and we spent hour or so talking without any personal life subjects ever coming up.

I find it odd that when people talk about, say, hiring someone as a M&A lawyer, the discussion must always go into marital status or where they go on holiday.

It is especially funny considering that, when I started a thread recently about disclosing my relationship status at work (where I have worked for 13 years), so many people were adamant about such things never coming up in work conversations (I think BB may have been one of them), but then they are unable to fathom such things not coming up during an hour long talk of two strangers.

I wasn't one of those people.  Marital status will come through if one is wearing a ring.

Also as a candidate, I know it can be positive for me to talk about some of those sensitive things. Being single can be played up to show that I can easily relocate / be available for travel.

[Martinus]

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

Anyways... not when I interview new prospective laywers, it isn't. 

And actually, anecdotal evidence, from talking to partners and counsels, is that this is not viewed as a positive, especially when the kids are very young, as you will be viewed as someone unable or unwilling to work long hours or on weekends. Plus there is always a risk of some kid-related emergency coming up (which is pretty often).

[Caliga]

My wife's uncle had an interview a few years ago where he went out of his way to say he was married, had two kids, was a deacon at his church, etc.  When he told me about this I told him I thought he had made a mistake and should never divulge this sort of information.  He looked at me like I was retarded and said he felt it was critical to get the interviewers to understand what sort of 'person' he is, as opposed to just a collection of qualifications.

Clearly he wasn't being interviewed by Mart since he did get the job.

[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.

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

Really? I have been to a number of interviews (both as an interviewer and when talking to headhunters from other firms) and we spent an hour or so talking without any personal life subjects ever coming up.

I find it odd that when people talk about, say, hiring someone as a M&A lawyer, the discussion must always go into marital status or where they go on vacation.

It is especially funny considering that, when I started a thread recently about disclosing my relationship status at work (where I have worked for 13 years), so many people were adamant about such things never coming up in work conversations (I think BB may have been one of them), but then they are unable to fathom such things not coming up during an hour long talk of two strangers.

I never said they were bound to come up.  Which is why I think my hypothetical 'newly married female looking to get pregnant' can get through a job interview without calling attention to her status.

In fact in my interview for this job it only came up in the very last question - my now boss asked me something like 'well you seem like a great candidate.  My only concern is that you've moved around - how do I know you'll stay here'  To which I replied we had a new son and wanted to be close to family, so were unlikely to move around just for kicks any more.

[Barrister]

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

Anyways... not when I interview new prospective laywers, it isn't. 

And actually, anecdotal evidence, from talking to partners and counsels, is that this is not viewed as a positive, especially when the kids are very young, as you will be viewed as someone unable or unwilling to work long hours or on weekends. Plus there is always a risk of some kid-related emergency coming up (which is pretty often).

Well, for most people I think view it as a positive.  Means (or they think it means) I'm responsible, dependable and devoted.

There are a few job environments where they do want you to be 'married to the job'.  I suspect your law firm might be one of them.  In which case its best for those employers and me to know we are not meant for each other.

[Malthus]

I got my current job because the partner interviewing me liked the pattern on my tie.

It was an MC Escher tie.

[The Brain]

I get my jobs because people come up to me and offer me jobs.

[MadImmortalMan]

I got my current job because the partner interviewing me liked the pattern on my tie.

It was an MC Escher tie.

Mine had the text of the Rosetta Stone on it. 

[dps]

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

Anyways... not when I interview new prospective laywers, it isn't. 

And actually, anecdotal evidence, from talking to partners and counsels, is that this is not viewed as a positive, especially when the kids are very young, as you will be viewed as someone unable or unwilling to work long hours or on weekends. Plus there is always a risk of some kid-related emergency coming up (which is pretty often).

Well, for most people I think view it as a positive.  Means (or they think it means) I'm responsible, dependable and devoted.

There are a few job environments where they do want you to be 'married to the job'.  I suspect your law firm might be one of them.  In which case its best for those employers and me to know we are not meant for each other.

It can also apply to, say, hiring someone to work a night shift--stangely, parents of small children often prefer not to work night shifts.  OTOH, if you've got a family to support, sometimes you have to take what you can get.

Personally, I never cared whether or not an applicant was married.  I was always careful to explain the working hours and conditions to anyone I was seriously considering, and to ask them if any of what I was telling them would be a problem.  If it was going to be a problem, I didn't hire them.  As far as why it would be a problem for them, I didn't really care, but most people who had a problem would go into great detail about why.

[Martinus]

It's not that the person was not getting hired because of having kids, but I heard more than once someone saying about a recent hiree that they are concerned about his job performance because he has young kids but that they are willing to give him a chance.

And to be honest I don't really get the connection why not putting a condom on and/or being a heterosexual means you are responsible, dependable and devoted. 

[Martinus]

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

Do you normally say you are gay at your job interview?

[Camerus]

The problem with a lot of today's creative industries is that extroverts have somehow convinced everybody that typical extrovert traits are a net positive for any employer and typical introvert traits are a net negative.

This is of course bullshit, as extroverts, in addition to making good first impressions and being sociable and fun to work with, are also rather bad when it comes to attention to detail, being disciplined or seeing a project to its end. Unfortunately, introverts prefer to fume quietly in their cubicles instead of trying to convince the world of this.

The fact that people in recruitment positions who invent these new recruitment processes are extroverts (i.e. it's a joke job that lazy schmoozers are attracted to) does not help.

  I'm mostly rather introverted, but I am a great actor and can do an excellent job of faking extroversion for an interview.  It's when I'm in the actual job day-to-day that I can't keep it up.