Working from the Heart

Interviewing is an elusive process for many. We may be well prepared for interviews–with detailed lists of questions, desirable traits, and skills we expect from potential hires–but not understand what causes us to like or dislike a candidate? How do we process all the non-verbal information? While objectivity is highly prized, it is rarely achieved. To make the best possible decisions, we must be conscious of all the available data, not limited to literal information and “gut reactions”.

When evaluating candidates, many of us fall into an emotional-mental trap. We may try to be objective when meeting a potential hire (or friend, or date), but for some unidentified reason we dislike or distrust the person. Rather than identify the source of our own reaction, we rationalize our response, which distorts our mental evaluation process. We must discard vast amounts of data to maintain this limited perception. The same follows when we instantly like someone–that emotion is important data, but it should not trump a thorough evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications, history, and ability to interact effectively with other managers and team members.

It’s important to remember that although we are evaluating another person, all of the information comes from or through ourselves. We absorb data and process it through our own assumptions and perceptions. This is why it’s vitally important to recognize all the data we are receiving if we want to make informed decisions.

Behavioral neuroscience research addresses and helps us understand our physical-emotional reactions to human interaction. In his most recent work on Social Intelligence, Daniel Goleman, one of the best-known experts on emotional and social intelligence., cites the recent discovery of mirror neurons, which cause us to mimic the actions and feelings of others:

When we consciously or unconsciously detect someone else’s emotions through their actions, our mirror neurons reproduce those emotions. Collectively, these neurons create an instant sense of shared experience. (Goleman and Boyatzis, 2008).

Goleman goes on to cite research that indicates that emotional and physical signals influence perception significantly more than verbal input. When we ignore or minimize the information we receive from our emotions and bodies we not only ignore a rich source of data, we repress the input that has the most influence over our opinions and perceptions of others. It’s like judging food based on how it looks, and ignoring the smell and taste.

I propose that we break perception into three main data-gathering mechanisms:

Physical: Our body’s involuntary, instantaneous reaction to stimulus.

Emotional: Our sense of identification with others, attraction or aversion, like or dislike, and emotional interpretation of our physical reaction.

Mental: Our ability to detect inconsistency or contradiction, evaluate information against our own knowledge and experience, make objective observations, and put our physical and emotional reactions into context.

How does this work? Let’s say I’m interviewing a candidate for a position on my team. Her resume and qualifications are reasonably good, and she comes highly recommended by a colleague. When I enter the interview room, introduce myself and sit down, what information am I gathering?

Physical:

How does my body feel during the interview? Is my heart rate faster? Am I breathing evenly? Do I feel the need to create more physical distance between the candidate and myself or less? Is my stomach upset? Am I sleepy?

This information may be related to how I was feeling before I started the interview, but it also may be a subtle reaction to physical signals I’m gathering from the candidate.

Emotional

Do I feel an affinity or aversion for the candidate? Does she bring out a sense of nurture in me, or annoyance? Do I feel excited, frustrated, or bored when talking to her? Do I enjoy the interview, or do I want it to end as quickly as possible?

Again, some of this data may be related to my own assumptions and judgments. I may like or dislike her clothing. She may remind me of someone I don’t get along with. Her voice may sound like someone I have affectionate feelings for. Still, all this information is data that when made conscious can be evaluated against the other data I gather. If I am not aware of these feelings, they may bias me for or against the candidate and minimize the importance of more substantial data.

Mental

What do I think of the candidate’s qualifications and skills? What kind of consistency or inconsistencies between her resume and interview do I notice? Can she answer difficult questions easily, or does she seem to be struggling to create the answers I want to hear? Does she seem at ease? What is her level of energy? What is her temperament? What do her posture, facial expressions, and tone of voice tell me?

You’ll notice that rather than moving from mental process down to physical, we start with the physical reaction and move progressively up to mental reactions. This is because physical reaction is our first-line source of data. It informs our emotions, which in turn influence our mental processes. It’s tempting to “stick with the facts” when evaluating a candidate, but the only real facts we have are what the candidate tells us about herself, and what our perceptions tell us.

Interpretation

I may have first noticed that I was breathing a little faster or fidgeting during the interview. I then may have recognized that I felt excited and a little uncomfortable.  I also observed that the candidate smiled frequently, spoke very quickly, seemed somewhat hesitant, and had difficulty talking about how she handled conflict in her past position. I may conclude that she is somewhat nervous and under-confident. If this is an entry-level role, those are traits that I can probably work with if her intelligence, temperament, and qualifications are good. But I am interviewing her for a supervisory role, or one in which conflict may be a frequent occurrence, I now can assume that she could potentially struggle with one of the main requirements of the position.

In reality, we usually start with our mental evaluation and may or may not access our physical and emotional data later. If you tend to make decisions using your “gut feelings” you’re paying some attention to this alternate data, but lumping it together rather than using your mental facility to evaluate and test all the information against your initial evaluation.

The more adept you become at recognizing and utilizing your physical, emotional, and mental perceptions, the more effective your interview process will be. Further, the ability to recognize these subtle signals will help you anticipate and deal with challenging interpersonal dynamics in your workplace more easily and effectively.

Here are a few tips for effective interviewing:

Before:

• Have a well thought out, structured interview prepared. Make sure you ask probing, specific questions that will encourage the candidate to give clear, behavior-based answers.

• Avoid using business jargon and clichés. Some interviewees will pick up on jargon and use it to increase your comfort with them without giving you substantial information. Others will just be confused. Make sure you clearly define any blanket terms you use, such as win-win, excellence, team-player, etc.

• Tune in. Take stock of your physical and emotional state before you enter the interview. Take a few deep breaths.

During:

• Take notes. Remember to note your own physical state, especially if it changes. Note what emotions you feel and when in the interview they occur.

• Take mental breaks. Don’t rush through the process. Make sure you pause in between subjects to check in with yourself and note your thoughts, feelings, and reactions.

After:

• Synthesize your findings. Compare and contrast your physical, emotional, and mental findings and look for consistencies and inconsistencies. Remember, some of the data is unimportant or unrelated to the candidate, but you won’t know that unless you consciously evaluate it.

• Contrast with others. Ask other interviewers about their experience of the candidate. How did their physical, emotional, and mental experience differ or agree with yours?

• Repeat. If you feel the candidate is a good fit, set up a second and optimally third round of interviews. First impressions are just that–our minds naturally fill in the blanks when we are missing large amounts of information. This will lower the risk associated with hiring and help insure a good fit for the role you hope to fill.

For more information on utilizing emotional and social intelligence at work, check out Daniel Goleman’s Working with Emotional Intelligence and Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships.