Kanarupan's Legacy Layers

https://www.linkedin.com/embed/feed/update/urn:li:share:7222367036671213568

There’s no ‘the truth’ – my title scorer jumps to 85% with those click-bait terms, sorry about that.

Impressions do matter and they do play a big part (or bias). But that’s different and doesn’t serve as a valid premise for the argument and conclusion touched upon in the LinkedIn post above. Some times they do work, but never reliable

The retaliation in short- five minutes or any subjective number of seconds may be enough to form an initial impression, but those instincts or impressions need to be:
– verified
– ‘objectively’ measured (to an acceptable extent)
– conveyed to all stakeholders

The required qualities (which vary by context) won’t be ‘obvious’ as the author claims—unless it’s a lucky day for him. And what does ‘awesomeness’ even mean? This post exemplifies why the 5-minute interview is a terrible idea. It’s sprinkled with subjective terms that generate different mental images for different people (even for the same person at different times).

This process requires an indefinite, and more often than not, an infinite amount of time. We do our best to achieve ‘good enough’ results within the allowed/available constraints.

Maybe in a true dictatorship, a leader could decide who is who within five minutes, based solely on their gut feeling, without needing to justify their decision. This must not be case in any reasonable enterprise.

There is no magic, silver bullet question or criterion. That’s the beauty of it. If such a criterion existed, it would be easy to fake as well.

The trade-off:
– there’s no perfect interview, there’s no way to truly fathom an individual’s specific aspect, so overdoing/over-spending that isn’t effective nor efficient
– that doesn’t mean a quick one does the job. I couldn’t imagine a > 60% correlation between positive-first-impression & finding-a-fit-hire in any case.
– strike the balance based on the overall context and risk-factors.

Some key points
– False Positives vs. False Negatives: More often than not, It’s better to miss ‘good enough’ candidates than to hire unsuitable ones
– the number of rounds, depth, types of the Interview depends on the various risk-factors, resource allocations etc.
– It’s almost always better to have multiple rounds/perspectives ideally from multiple individuals (interviewers) permitted by the resource constraints
– Sure, getting a general idea of a candidate helps, but some individuals excel in interviews but not during the actual work. It’s a common issue that has emerged and/or given rise to many interview coaching businesses. Titles like “How to Ace Interviews,” “Grokking/cracking Interviews,” etc focus on passing interviews a bit too much. The actual working knowledge is a mere side-effect – this to be inverted.

Actionable
– We all must focus on the value, utility and relevance – not to spend time specializing in some superficial stuff like ‘acing interviews’. Sure it’s important yet secondary.
– The interviewers must dynamically adopting new techniques and landscapes to truly understand the fit candidates. And equally or more importantly early-eliminate the ‘unfit’.

Disclaimer:
Here, ‘unfit’ isn’t derogatory. It only has a professional meaning in this context.
On a general note, it would be nice if all of us contributed to a world with diverse contexts/settings so that each individual can happily “fit” into at least a few.