TORC

Fine Gael leader, Enda Kenny, rallying troops during the 2007 general election

In a recent article in the Galway Advertiser, Ivan Yates doesn’t dispute the sometimes less than favourable competency perceptions of, his former ministerial colleague, Enda Kenny.

Yet, at the same time, he leaves us in no doubt that, in his opinion, ‘Kenny is well capable of being a good taoiseach’.

His reasoning is simple: sure, Kenny may sometimes appear a bit light on oratory, or on knowledge of the economy, or on some other arcane policy detail, but that he more than compensates with some time-honoured human qualities, in particular his (1) likeability, (2) energy, (3) decency, (4) modesty and (5) good humour.

Character impressions at interview
Now, when was the last time you saw these particular human factors highlighted in any job specification, interview or psychometric test?

Surely, interview processes are so carefully structured and standardised today around a pre-determined core of job-related competencies, that such subjective character impressions no longer cut any ice. Right?

That is the conventional wisdom, but is it true? Do character impressions play any part?

Intellectual capacity vs human qualities
In the case of Enda Kenny, his recent interview on the Late Late Show gives us an opportunity to examine this at first-hand.

It is particularly instructive to review those instances where the audience interrupts with applause and, ask … to what are they actually responding in those moments: his intellectual capacity or human qualities?

I think you’ll agree that the audience clapometer seems to be firmly with Ivan Yates on this.

Yates in good company
And, on the more general point, Ivan is actually in some good company: legendary businessman, Warren Buffett; Hollywood mogul, Stanley Kramer; and, modern e-marketing guru, Seth Godin, all offer similar insights:

Buffett’s advice is oft-quoted:

“In looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if they don’t have the first, the other two will kill you.”

In the same vein, Kramer (maker of such films as High Noon, The Wild One, Guess Who Is Coming To Dinner, Judgement at Nuremburg and Death of a Salesman), famously eschewed screen tests, preferring instead to select actors based purely on whether or not he felt they were right for the part.

And, Godin looks on the standard 1-hour interview as little more than a five minute sniff test followed by 55 minutes of wasted time.

X-Factor exposed
What these examples speak to is the frequency with which members of an interview panel short-circuit the strict evaluation process, by placing more trust on how they feel about a candidate (that indefinable x-factor) than on how he/she rates against the formal requirements of the job.

This is hardly surprising, I suppose, as we all have a natural tendency to latch on to any available heuristic, if it saves us time in coming to a decision.

The underlying science
What is surprising, however, is when scientists tell us that most interview panellists are doing this subconsciously all of the time, even when they are trying diligently to comply with the formal interview criteria.

It is simply impossible to be absolutely objective.

And, moreover, there is some compelling evidence to suggest that it often, in fact, gives the better result – which, of course, forms the basis for Malcolm Gladwell’s 2005 bestseller, Blink.

Bottomline is: we all have to be conscious that a job interview is not just a structured assessment of skills & competencies, but also a human interaction where gut-feel, hunches, impressions and related intangibles are all in play.

Performance & rehearsal
In essence, an interview is a performance. And, like any good performance, it demands rehearsal to help us improve – to become more confident, disciplined, fluent, etc.

And, above all else, a central consideration must be: how to make a favourable impression … and, not leave our X-Factors to chance!

PS. For more interview preparation pointers, please click here for a related article or case study.