June 2, 2017
By Marc Barowsky, BioSpace.com Contributor
A bat and a ball cost $1.10
The bat cost a dollar more than the ball
How much does the ball cost?
If you said, ten cents—you’d be wrong. If that was your answer you probably misread: “The bat costs a dollar more” as “the bat costs a dollar.” This puzzle seems easy but in fact was trickier than it appeared. The ball costs 5 cents. You simply made a false assumption, which is entirely normal and human; in fact, more than 50% of students at Harvard, MIT and Princeton got the answer to this riddle wrong.
We all make mistakes ALL the time and often aren’t even aware of them. The goal is to be aware of this and try to catch ourselves in various “assumption traps.” But becoming conscious of these traps isn’t easy.
Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, two Israeli psychologists with very different approaches to solving problems, became seminal figures in the worlds of psychology and economics. Over many years, they conducted social science experiments that, among other things, revolutionized the world of decision science. Kehneman wrote a book based on their research, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Their work was so seminal that its application has changed many industries—and also won Kahneman the Nobel Prize for economics.
One thing the pair discovered is that people make bad decisions and for a variety of reasons, often because of what they called “biases of intuition.” These biases of intuition—assumptions, if you will—prevent us from seeing clearly and with appropriate perspective both “what something is” and “why it is what it is.” They also prevent us from seeing “hidden” clues that can help us make better judgements and decisions. Intuition biases prevent us from thinking logically and fairly, and sometimes keep us from seeing the larger picture.
So, what does this all have to do with recruiting? Recruiting is, or should be, about making well informed judgments and clearly supportable decisions. However, much of what passes for recruiting these days is what I’d call pattern matching (the kind of thing a computer could do).
Here is what pattern matching in recruiting typically looks like. A need for a role is identified, such as the need for a scientist or systems analyst or receptionist. What follows is a checklist of requirements—skills and experiences—that often are sub-divided into Must-Haves and Nice-to- Haves. Next comes the research, identification and outreach (or qualifying of applicants), the goal of which is to find people who “match” the requirements. Those who match, we assume, are qualified and ready to be interviewed.
But wound up in this seemingly easy activity is a whole set of assumptions, such as that the identified candidates are qualified, skilled and competent in their abilities (not to mention that we assume they have those skills they claim). These are biases. One of the most common biases I’ve seen is related to intelligence and education. There are broad, deep and often erroneous assumptions we make based on what school a potential candidate has attended. I have heard hundreds of times how a candidate “went to [fill in name of prestigious school] so they must be super smart,” or the reverse that someone went to a less well-known academic institution so they must not be too bright.
One of the ways to get around our bias intuitions is a well-placed question. Let me give a real life example. Recently I had a discussion with a recruiter working with a client based in Boston. The role they were working on was for an internal corporate recruiter that the client said needed to be based in Boston. The search recruiter expressed frustration that the client insisted that the person not only needed to be local but needed to be in the client offices daily. I asked the recruiter if the location issue was a large reason the search was tough. Predictably, he said yes.
My next question was: “Why do they need the person in the office?” There was some hesitation and then a faint, “I don’t know.” Anyone who knows recruiting knows that much of the work occurs over the phone, and so it really doesn’t matter if that phone is in Boston, Mexico City or the Antarctic. It’s necessary to have a phone but irrelevant where that phone is located. (I could even make the case it is better for a recruiter not to be in the office). To be fair, it is entirely possible there is a logical and defensible reason why the client wanted the person to work in-house, but there’s only one way to find out—ask!
Which brings me back to the beginning. Most people are afraid to ask questions because they don’t want to be wrong (for the right reasons). They either think that they will look stupid or are reluctant to reveal that they don’t know the answer to a question they think they should know.
But that not knowing can have bad consequences.
In another example, I was speaking to a colleague who was relaying how angry a client was when a candidate turned down their offer in favor of a counter offer. It was assumed that the candidate would accept the offer. When I asked, “What did the candidate say when asked if they’d be susceptible to a counter offer?” their answer was “I never asked.” This simple question never got asked, and so the candidate’s ties to her current employer were never discussed in depth. These dynamics and others like them get played out over and over again by clients, candidates and recruiters, with the result being missed opportunities, poor communication and a lot of wasted time.
With recruiting, it all comes down to concreteness, clarity and context. The goal is not just to know but to understand. Questions like “based on what?” or “why do you think that?” or “how do you know that’s true?” can be keys that unlock the knowledge and understanding that a recruiter needs. Recognizing your intuition bias and asking deeper, more thoughtful questions can set you on a path to more efficient and successful searches.
Marc Barowsky is a business, consulting and recruiting professional based on the East Coast. He has over 20 years recruiting, sales and business development experience. His work has crossed multiple industries, including: Pharma, Biotech, Technology, as well as others. He has recruited professionals at many levels for companies of all sizes. He began his recruiting career at Russell Reynolds, a premier executive search firm and most recently was the Senior Director, Talent & Recruiting at Cytel, a biometrics CRO based in Cambridge, Mass.
