There’s actually research on how little correlation there is between interview performance and job performance in most cases. This includes cases with “objective” tests during the process, if I remember right.
this is why the final step of our hiring process (don’t worry, there are only three steps, one of which is simply a short HR screening call) is to come to the shop and walk around and look at stuff and talk about it effectively
if you can’t do that, you can’t do the job, because that’s like half the job.
Would take me a while to dig up, it was from a few years ago. If you want, try searching something like “interview and job performance” into a research search database (Google scholar is usually an easy one to use). Trying it myself, first hit is a meta analysis with a good amount of citations. (But I’m not going to read anything right now, my kids are waking up lol).
That said, it’ll favor papers with statistically significant findings, so non findings get lost to the file cabinet problem.
Edit: I lied, curiosity got the better of me so while my kids were eating breakfast I glanced at the results of the meta analysis which gives a few corrections. Tldr, impression management, physical attraction, having non verbal things interview look at, etc, are ok predictors of interview ratings but weak with job performance. Doesn’t seem concerned with actual skills, but I think that’s better covered by what they’re referencing in their literature review.
And with what some recruiters put on linked in, some barely have any idea what they’re doing and just have some nonsense red flags to rationalize their job.
There’s actually research on how little correlation there is between interview performance and job performance in most cases. This includes cases with “objective” tests during the process, if I remember right.
Yeah, just because you can do something for an interview doesn’t mean you will do it again repeatedly for years on end.
And the list of skills needed and duties in the job posting often don’t overlap much with the actual work.
this is why the final step of our hiring process (don’t worry, there are only three steps, one of which is simply a short HR screening call) is to come to the shop and walk around and look at stuff and talk about it effectively
if you can’t do that, you can’t do the job, because that’s like half the job.
What’s the job just out of curiosity?
automated machine design
Also, if you made a mistake in an interview, that shows nothing about how youre capable of learning from a mistake.
Id rather work with someone who admits they made a mistake and learn from it than a person who “knows it all.”
Got sources?
Would take me a while to dig up, it was from a few years ago. If you want, try searching something like “interview and job performance” into a research search database (Google scholar is usually an easy one to use). Trying it myself, first hit is a meta analysis with a good amount of citations. (But I’m not going to read anything right now, my kids are waking up lol).
That said, it’ll favor papers with statistically significant findings, so non findings get lost to the file cabinet problem.
Edit: I lied, curiosity got the better of me so while my kids were eating breakfast I glanced at the results of the meta analysis which gives a few corrections. Tldr, impression management, physical attraction, having non verbal things interview look at, etc, are ok predictors of interview ratings but weak with job performance. Doesn’t seem concerned with actual skills, but I think that’s better covered by what they’re referencing in their literature review.
And with what some recruiters put on linked in, some barely have any idea what they’re doing and just have some nonsense red flags to rationalize their job.