I don’t get this question posed to me often, but once in a while it comes up, and is worth addressing. The inquiry is this, and is composed of two parts: is there an advantage to the place in order in which I interview, and is there a strategy hiring managers or recruiters use when setting the order of interviews? The third part of this question – are there any psychological effects in terms of order that affect the interviewer’s decision as to who is ultimately selected for the job?
The most common theme in relation to these questions has to do with the primacy and recency effects. These are terms used in psychology to describe the effect of order of presentation on memory. The primacy effect results in events or information presented earlier being better remembered than information presented later on. The recency effect results in better recall of the most recent event or information presented. Combined, these two effects are said to lead the earliest and latest event or information in a given presentation being recalled best, with the event or information in the middle being least remembered. In other words, the first and last people interviewed will stand out in the interviewer’s mind the best, and those interviewees in the middle will be forgotten.
Interesting notions, but how much truth do they hold? Although there have been extensive studies conducted in social psychology on these two effects, the findings have varied. Some studies have supported the theory of primacy, others the theory of recency, and other studies showed no effects for primacy or recency. Outside factors such as the person’s ability and motivation to process the persuasive communication, the context in which the information is learned or presented, and the individual’s attitude toward the information being presented are also contributors. The answer to the question is – it depends.
I cannot honestly think back to a time when a group of interviewees were interviewed and only remember the first or last; what I remember were the candidates who were “memorable” because of specific traits, background or real-life experiences. And not all were positive, so even though it is possible that an interviewer could be impacted by primacy and/or recency effects, an interview that did not go well will stand out as negative. There seems to be a strong assumption among some people that just because one interviews first or last it will give him/her a distinct advantage. Again, it depends on factors that influence the interviewer, but if a candidate in the first or last slot blows the interview, it will make no difference at all. Let me take this opportunity to stress the most important factor of all, and that is I would be much more concerned with how you actually prepare for and perform in the interview versus where in the pecking order you are placed. If you cannot demonstrate you are the best candidate, you will not get the job. Period.
It seems to me there is a small faction of people who have almost turned this otherwise non-issue into some kind of conspiracy theory as to why they are not being selected for jobs. I have run into a handful during my time, and in my experience the order they interviewed has nothing to do with it. However, their interviewing skills, experience, and abilities relative to the position and in comparison with the other candidates do. If you find yourself being passed up time after time after time, you probably want to examine your actual interviews instead of placing blame on the order you interviewed in. Further, realize that the order of interviewees most times is simply luck of the draw, with no thought whatsoever by the interviewer put into who interviews when. The order is commonly determined by who fits into interview slots when, or I have also seen it determined alphabetically. No conspiracy theories in these situations.
It is true that once resumes have been sorted, and skills and experienced assessed on paper, that sometimes a leading candidate (or candidates) emerges. But this is why interviews are held, so that interviewers can see firsthand if the same luster shines off the paper, too. So even if there is a leading or first choice candidate, there is no way of telling that this individual won’t blow the interview. It does happen, and whether this person was first, last or in the middle, it is irrelevant.
Now there is one way I can think of where there is a definite strategy in which interview orders are set. Sometimes recruiters do this, and save the best candidates for last. The reason is that they can glean information from earlier interviewees in terms of questions asked, stressed requirements, and client feedback in order to better prepare subsequent candidates with additional information. But it does not always translate into the candidates deemed by recruiters as being the best receiving the offer. Again, is an interview is blown, it won’t matter that he/she interviewed last. Or it may simply a matter of the client liking someone different. As with the other examples, it has less to do with the order, and more to do with the actual interview.
The bottom line is, there are many other factors that play into who is ultimately selected for a position outside of what slot in the order he/she interviews. While it is true that some interviewers are influenced by recency or primacy effects, other interviewers are not. My recommendation is rather than placing emphasis or worrying about where in the order your interview is going to occur, focus instead on the interview itself. Taking time to research the company, prepare good questions, and think about how you are going to answer questions with real-life achievements will carry much more weight to how you are remembered versus whether you were first or last.
No comments:
Post a Comment