TED Talk Highlight Week 2: Are We in Control of Our Own Decisions?
Every day we are bombarded with decisions. When we think we are being rational, are we really in control?
This week’s TED talk I’d like to share is by Dan Ariely, author of Predictably Irrational.
A behavioral economist, (yes, I had to Google it too – it’s a field of research in which psychological tools are used to study how people make decisions in the real world vs. how we believe we decide things) he introduces us to various visual illusions, experiments, and their results that open our eyes to our inherent fallibility in decision making.
It’s 17 minutes long and felt more entertaining than I expected. I came away surprised and with much to think about. More on that after the video!
Ever since watching this video, I see choices differently.
When I’m presented with three options, I specifically tune in. Is one of these the “ugly” option or the one I’m not supposed to want? What am I being driven to purchase? What do I really need?
In life, it may just be shopping.
At work, they’re often critical decisions and the impact is high. It’s important to have eyes open to bias and tread carefully to avoid regret later.
Which software should we buy?
Which candidate should we hire?
Which client should we work with?
I can’t be the first manager to admit I’ve made some hiring decisions that didn’t sit well with me later. In one case, I interviewed several candidates, but one was unusually funny and whip-smart in the job interview. It was one of my first hiring decisions and came before I was trained on hiring, bias, and experienced at methodically rating and selecting candidates. I related to the candidate’s life experience and current industry and wanted to “give them a chance,” so I hired them onto our team.
The chaos began in their first week and it’s a very long story for another time, but eventually that employee was terminated and I learned a valuable lesson right away.
Looking back, I see that in the interview they were unusually funny because they didn’t take the interview seriously. Once they got it, they didn’t take the job seriously either.
I would never repeat that same decision, but I often contemplate whether I am now prone to swinging the other direction out of an abundance of caution - or, if like the people in the TED talk, selecting a candidate just because there is a similar but “uglier” interviewee that makes them look great. (I wasn’t thinking ugly physically, goodness! but perhaps their experience isn’t as good, or they have had several unexplainable employment gaps, etc.)
The best way I’ve found to protect my sanity from these doubts during hiring decision-making is through methodical process and decision making, and it’s always improving.
My most recent process included these elements:
A uniform set of questions for all candidates, pre-written before starting interviews. Any changes made with the first candidate (it happens sometimes - you realize there are too many or not enough questions, or that a question needs rephrasing in the moment) needed to be noted and carried through to the other candidates.
A scoring system for each question set up in advance and shared with other interviewers. Ratings 1-5 for each question and a total score at the end (ideally calculated after scoring all the candidates is completed).
No more 1:1 interviews. Ideally I always had a colleague of another gender with me to help get a different perspective than mine. I was often surprised at details they caught or attitudes they interpreted differently than I did. I tried not to view their scores before making my own for each candidate.
No one with any red flags moves forward. If the other interviewer had a red flag, no matter if I disagreed, I respected it and eliminated that candidate.
Example red flags: spoke negatively about former employer, egregious technical errors in provided answers, etc.
Notes needed to be scored as soon as possible after interviewing to try and avoid recency bias.
I’m sure it’s not 100% bias-free as there are so many biases to consider, but having some framework helped me navigate hiring.
I eventually settled on consistent sets of questions for each frequently-hired role. This saved me time, and led to a more uniform experience for all candidates coming into the team at each level.
Do you have a specific situation you are looking at differently after watching this TED talk? What would you do differently than my hiring process, or add to it? I’d love to hear in the comments.
Thanks for joining me,
