Nancy King and I had a side conversation in my blog, last night, about the concept of likability in the hiring process.
The thinking about likability in HR/recruiting circles goes something like this — all things being equal between two candidates, I will hire a candidate based on likability and fit.
I never believe that all things are equal between two candidates, and I don’t believe in social engineering the workforce around cultural fit, style, and learning preferences; however, I like to hire nice people.
How can you hire a nice person but avoid the trappings of sexism, racism, and other illegal behaviors? Can you hire someone who isn’t the strongest candidate but is 100% nicer than best and most qualified candidate?
What’s your personal likability threshold?
{ 6 trackbacks }
{ 38 comments… read them below or add one }
Yes, kiss but don’t tell!
M
The problem with hiring nice is whether they stay nice or in fact are just showing their extreme side, not there normal every day side. Can you see the whole house in a 50 minute interview? Is perception reality in an interview setting?
With that said I hire nice/likeable over stern/difficult/arrogant (maybe a little too self assured) most of the time…and then you hope they don’t go Darth Vader on you (the dark side!)…
M
Likeability to me means someone who you build good rapport with and an easy cadence of information exchange in the interview process. This can easily translate into cultural fit and ease of integrating into the team. Ultimately these folks will be productive more quickly because they can effectively communicate within your org. I’d argue that likeability is different from one org to another.
Being “likable” is a qualification, for many jobs at least. You don’t have to rely on your gut, though, to determine if someone has the right personality for a job. It should be evident in their accomplishments, or lack thereof. True jerks tend to have a hard time being effective, at least over the long haul.
If all things really are “equal,” despite someone’s [whatever trait you've picked as a tie-breaker based on your personal biases], that doesn’t give you the license to pick based on said bias. It just proves the irrelevance of your particular bias.
“Niceness” as a criteria for hiring makes me particularly nervous, because women are often held to a vastly different standard on this front then men.
Likeability is such a subjective thing. Someone might think I’m a douchebag, but customers might love me or vice versa.
For me consistency is more important, than likability (I likey people that make the company money), if you’re going to be a dick, be a dick all of the time, I can deal with that. I can’t deal with the people that are nice 70% of the time and total turds 30% of the time. Consistency rules!
One more thing, you know who was super likeable? Bernie Madoff. I think we often choose the poorer choice because we like them. Sociopaths have almost no problem being likeable.
I’m not sure I agree with @Mary Ellen, I know some pretty effective performers that don’t play well with others.
You need to look at the job that they will be doing – Will they be interacting with staff/clients/the public. If they aren’t nice or are arrogant, is the quality of what the can produce worth the headaches. If you have someone that is nice, but less qualified, are they trainable and do you have the time/resources to make sure they are effectively trained and set up for success.
@Laurie I’m curious why you don’t think it is a good idea to hire someone based on learning style? Why bring someone into a situation where they aren’t likely to thrive.
If we have a basically normal person and then a really notably nice person, the notable niceness wouldn’t sway me significantly. (And yeah, I can’t buy into the “all things being equal” thing either, because they never are.)
But I’m getting to the point I’m going to make arrogance a dealbreaker in hiring. It has never, ever turned out well.
Give me competent over nice any day. The last admin I hired was hard to warmup in the interview but she was amazingly competent. Everyone loved her because she was a whiz bang at doing what we hired her to do. The person she replaced was extremely likeable – but dropped the ball constantly. Funny how those “likeable, incompetent people” become not so likeable over time, when you are inconvenienced by their inability to do the job.
Lesson – don’t be deceived in the interview.
What qualifies as “nice” also varies culturally, and would do well to keep an open mind about that.
For example, our au pair is from Holland, and she has a no-nonsense quality that is somewhat stereotypical of the Dutch. Once, I teasingly asked my 2-year-old daughter if Wendy was “mean.”
Her response? “Nah, she’s just Dutch.”
I’m not defending flat-out jerks or bad manners here. I’m just skeptical that there’s a universal business standard for “nice.”
Likeability is totally subjective, for instance when the gorgeous big boob, pretty face candidate walks into my interview room, I look at her resume and start the interview. But when she walks into my bosses office, she’s already hired because she’s got a sweet ass and thats likeable to him. I think likeability can be discriminatory because being on a golf course with the good o’ boys can generate likeability because they look, smell, feel and talk like them, but it doesn’t mean that they are the right person. I’m a hispanic, female that doesn’t play golf, it doesn’t make me any less likeable, but I’m also not part of the good o’ boys club either….although I do get invited to eat sushi once in a while….so according to some people I’m “in” and I guess that makes me likeable…to some degree at least.
But….doesn’t everyone say that very thing AFTER the decision to hire has been made? I’ve heard it a million times: “I REALLY liked her!” Our emotional response to a given candidate is an absolute factor in the decision. You can’t get around it. The best you can do is balance it out by involving additional people in the interview process who may have a different take on the person.
My job is to make sure that every candidate that is in front of a hiring manager is qualified for the position. Candidates will never have exactly the same qualifications, but all meet the minimum requirements for the position and our culture based upon the phone interview. I may have a favorite candidate, but I am not the hiring manager and unless the candidate blows it during the face to face interview (which has happened), all of the candidates should be acceptable for the position.
Likability is part of personality and is position, department and organization specific. I can train someone on industry, computer software, our products, etc… I can’t train intelligence or personality.
I am disagreeing with almighty Puf, even though he is my unabashed hero of recruiting world (cue your theme song). I have hired douchebags and I have hired likeables…. douchebags that perform well rarely perform well consistantly on a long term basis. And some fallout from their complete douchbagginess will eventually make me have to fire them. Likeables can get results too and sustain them without the high maintenance required of managing a douchebag and all of the fallout from their behavior…. So yeah, if I like you (or I think customers/coworkers/the President will like and get along with you) AND you’re qualified AND you’re smart AND you’ve got a good track record of results then you’re hired. Miss the mark on any of these? This job’s not for you.
Isn’t “nice” a euphamism for ugly…..as in “you’re a really nice guy HRD, but I just need to spend some time working on who I am and what I really want. Its not you….its me….and you know, I’m sure theres a girl out there who is really right for you…..” I’ve heard that a few times!
Sure I have to like people to recruit them, why on earth would I recruit someone I didn’t like?
But as for “nice”…..its just such a lame and inadequate word…..and just….sob….brings….sob back too many bad memories…..
I hope I’m never again described as “nice”!
I’m beginning to suspect that Laurie has never met a hornet’s nest that didn’t need poking with a stick.
I think it is human nature to hire someone that is likable over some one that isn’t. When all other things are equal, this really isn’t a problem. I prefer working environments without douchebags.
The real problem, is that things are seldom equal. Further, as other people have mentioned, it is a highly subjective, global assessment of an individual. Likeability is usually informed by “sameness” and physical attractiveness. We tend to like people that are just like us and we tend to like people that are physically attractive.The idea in the selection process is to avoid, not embrace irrelevant characteristics.
I’m guessing I get sucked in by people I like, but ultimately I know that who I see – and how I present myself – in interviews is not the whole or even likely the real picture most of the time. And I hate behavioral interviews; all it tells me is that the person who’s interviewing me has delusions of grandeur or is a sociopath so I won’t work for companies that do that anyway. Besides, ANY interview if behavioral.
I think for me there’s an internal scale of what I’m looking for, but most of the time one person in the batch stands out as the right fit anyway. It starts with qualifications and references and ends with how I think they’ll integrate with the people around them. The ideal work environment to me is one where everyone gets on famously, but that’s like chasing the holy grail.
likability talks to EQ. can the candidate connect with me?
nice is the way values show through
likability is the way in which you relate to others. most important…the hiring manager must be able to relate or the relationship becomes the barrier to suucess.
I think hiring for organizational fit definitely has merit. When you think about the people you know who have been fired (or the people you have fired), it’s almost always for “fit” reasons, not because they weren’t able or smart enough to do the job, or had the wrong experience/educational background.
It’s a lot harder to be successful at a company where you don’t fit the culture. If a company values teambuilding activities and company trips to local campsites where you sing around a bonfire together, and that makes you want to puke, you will probably not enjoy working there regardless of if you can do the required job functions in your sleep. They’re going to be pissed at you for being stuck up because you just want to get your job done and go home, and you are going to be pissed at them for being hippies.
I don’t think it’s always easy to interview for organizational fit, but I definitely think if you can, without protected class discrimination, it’s worth it.
As far as I am concerned, nice people – people who are more patient, courteous and better at reading and meeting someone else’s needs – a) have a better chance at getting along with coworkers (nobody seems all that fussed about putting “team player” in a list of qualifications, but it seems like a synonym for “nice” to me); b) are more likely to provide better client service; c) have a better chance at effectively taking on leadership roles (assuming “nice” doesn’t equal “doormat”); and d)
charmingsellingfacilitating customer engagement with your brand than someone who’s irritable or anti-social.Is “nice” a technical skill? No. Are there jobs where being nice can’t make up for a lack of technical skill? Of course. But all jobs involve dealing with people, so the better you are at dealing with people (all other things being approximately equal), the better you’ll be at the job, pretty much no matter what. Being nice is a job qualification.
It’s way harder when you have to fire a likeable person. They’re so damn…..likeable.
Depends on the job.
Writing code all day for a software development firm? I want you to sit in the corner and not need a lot of human contact.
Leading a construction project that involves coordinating activities between engineers, designers, clients, vendors and craftworkers? You better be Zig Frickin Ziglar to get those people to work together.
While it’s true that people generally socialize with folks who look, act and talk like themselves; I don’t think that “likeable” and “compatible interests” are interchangeable terms. I enjoy hanging out with a lot of people with whom I think I would despise working. I have great working relationships with people I would never consider hanging with off the clock. I realize that’s not quantifiable and I push my hiring managers to make their decisions objectively, but likability is absolutely crucial to some roles.
@Mark F Did you see Election with Reese Witherspoon? She was *nice* and ruthless. Nice scares me.
@Molly Likability is definitely different from one organization to another. I just wonder if it’s as valid as you suggest. Will nice people become productive in a faster way? I dunno.
@Mary Ellen Ah, so there’s a difference between likability and niceness? That’s interesting — and true. I want to think about this more.
@HRPuf OMG, cult of personality. I hear ya. Douche.
@Mary Ellen I spent four years in Western Michigan, the home of Dutch descendants. It’s funny how we bring some of our culture with us wherever we go — even if we were born in America but descended from people who once lived in The Netherlands. Malcolm Gladwell talks a little about this in Outliers.
@Woo I think our understanding of ‘learning styles’ is overestimated. It’s also a form of pseudoscience, IMHO.
@AskAManager Amen to arrogance. Be confident, but don’t be an asshole.
@LatinaHR You are so right that likability can be exclusionary. I don’t like sushi. I don’t play golf. Who likes me? No one!
@HRCrout So right. More input = stronger decisions. I also like the idea of being honest about our emotions. Let’s not deny that we’re human and fallible. We make decisions for dumb, petty reasons.
@Bonita I ask — why can’t you train for intelligence and personality? People grow personally & emotionally during the life of their jobs. I’ve seen it. I wonder about this… but I agree that your job is to get a qualified candidate in front of your hiring manager. That is absolutely right.
@Teresa I wanna see you and Puf take this battle to the blogs! Yeah!
@TheHRD OMG, so many guys use the word ‘nice’ to describe women in an unflattering way. I’ve had it used to describe me, too. “She has a nice personality.” OUCH.
@George This is why you need to go back to work — so you can apply your smarts to the working world.
@Diana “Any interview is behavioral.” Snap, that’s so true. I hadn’t thought about it that way.
@batgrrl I want to work in a place where relationships don’t matter and success happens because we’re all rallying around a temporary or long-term goal. Focus on the things that matter.
@Katie Interesting and valid — but I once fired a dude for photoshopping his boss’s face onto a picture of a horse. The horse had a huge erection and was being jacked off by a naked woman. That guy? He was nice. Grandfatherly. He was seriously a decent guy who thought he was being funny. (I love that story. Thanks for letting me tell it, again.
)
@Ian I think being nice is a qualification for life. That’s true. I agree on this.
@ScottS TRUE!
@ScottKY Hey, everyone keeps dropping the Zig Ziegler reference, lately. I had to google him in June. I never heard of the guy! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zig_Ziglar
I’m with the “cultural fit” camp. Poor cultural fit is the single biggest reasons externally hired managers derail. That could mean too nice or too nasty.
Personally, I’m always going to hire nice people. But I’d never work for a cut-throat company.
@Laurie: BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Cultural fit, team fit, good track record, potential, EI, self awareness, confidence, personality, right skill base – all things you want to get in the perfect hire. If you don’t get them, don’t recruit. Or compromise and go with what you can work with. Really depends on what the role requires. Personally, I wouldn’t hire on likeability all other things being equal. But neither would I hire someone I don’t like. That’s why even us HR people get it badly wrong sometimes!!
Maybe I’m too old school but we called it hiring with your gut (maybe in today’s slim minded world this word is taboo). I hired someone not only cause I liked them, their story, their confidence, their sense of humor. . . I also hired them if my gut reaction was a good one.
Now can I justify that in todays EEOC enforcement world? Sure I can “they were the most qualified candidate”. I worked for a mananger that hired exclusively this way and I often questioned her decisions. But in the end, her hires stood the test of time and turned out to be great co-workers and employees.
BTW, where the hell did you work as I always thought I had interesting HR stories but yours beat mine hands down (or should that be hoofs down!!!)
Okay I’m back. And I’ve spent the day in San Francisco learning from clients. I asked them about the fit/likability thing. No matter how fair and fact based you want to make a hire there’s bias. I don’t know yet what the correct word for it is, but it’s there.
I’m still going to think more about this, but I’m beginning to think it’s the great mystery of life or at least of hiring.
There are a number of comments about cultural fit – and I think that’s the single most important you are evaluating once you get to the interview stage. Having the right credentials, the minimum qualifications on paper – that’s the price of entry. From there I think gifted recruiters and hiring managers identify talent, potential and fit.
I think potential is different within different environments. Like all organic creatures – people thrive under different conditions. I think if the fit is right, that person who can do the job on paper, can do lots lots more.
Laurie, thanks for the great idea. @Teresahrgirl and I shall meet on the field of battle (my blog) next Wed.!
I think that likability can help you during the interview process but it certainly doesn’t mean you’ll be good a employee. If I had a nickle for all the times I’ve heard a manager say “I really like the employee but..” , well, I’d have a shitload of nickles.
A side issue that I’ve noticed in most HR discussions (here and elsewhere) is that we tend to discuss things in black or white. Is it right to hire based on how well you like a person? etc. etc.
I maintain that 80% of HR is gut reaction, whether in recruiting, discipline, or daily interactions with people. My gut is stop on when I think someone is going to fail a drug screen. My gut lets me know that a candidate isn’t right for a particular manager. My gut tells me when the chatty veteran is going to irritate the hell out of the new introvert. The list goes on.
We are expected, virtually all of the time, to categorize and provide hard data when really our jobs are about assimilating information and applying it based on our gut instincts. I know plenty of HR people whose instincts are totally out of whack and do a piss-poor job everyday. The ones who are effective have an internal sensors that work.
I think this is really what likability is all about. Do you visualize this candidate jibing with the mission, culture, skills needs of the organization, or are images of him/her berating the subordinates on a daily basis flashing through your mind? This is all gut.
I meant “spot on”.
@HR Instinct, you are spot on. Gladwell wrote about that every topic in Blink, and it’s proven to be right. We take in information — including fit — and decide on a candidate. I can’t imagine that fit isn’t the most important because there are tons of “qualified” people (on paper). In fact, I think the downfall of companies is hiring without paying attention to that. I think you make a deal with the devil when you hire for “performance” and don’t care about how you get that. Can you say, Enron?
@Instinct/Frank/Sarah You guys give me so much to think about. You know, culture is important (yes) but I think about a company like Kemper Insurance. We hired for ‘fit’, and we went into the toilet because ‘fit’ meant propagating a cycle of dysfunction — although none of the leaders thought that way, at the time. We make decisions in such a rapid way and based on such limited information. So many other examples — including, I would argue, Enron. No one challenged the culture of ‘cult of personality’ and performance was built on a shaky foundation of lies. No one was hired who challenged the status quo. (Although maybe I’m wrong — I’ve only seen the Enron movie and read a few articles about it. Totally not an expert.) Culture can be exclusionary if done wrong.
We need to suss this out, next week, in blog posts. I think ‘fit’ leads us to a natural discussion of the importance of culture. Maybe companies like Enron and Kemper should fail because of poor cultures, but I think of all the good people at those companies who were victimized because culture was hijacked by a few leaders at the top.
@dan You are so nice and I’d hire you in an instant.
@Minion I remember when a nickle could buy a pack of chewing gum!
@Puf AWESOME.
@Nelking you are so right — it’s like the chicken/egg argument. What comes first?
@HJJefe I have IBS, so I don’t do anything with my gut. It’s a dangerous weapon. (The horse story was from Monsanto.)
@NZ I hired a HR Assistant that I didn’t really like because she was, hands down, the most organized woman I’ve ever met. She gave me a portfolio instead of a resume, knew about technology in HR before anyone else, and she scowled. I don’t want friends at work. I want competency. She had it in spades and has been promoted several times since that decision.
@Laurie – yes, hiring by gut for fit an lead to cataclysmic disfunction, which is why leaders need to have their heads on straight in the first place and truly know what the position needs before they hire. You needed an HR Assistant to keep your world in order – gestapo tactics required. Hiring by instinct isn’t about hiring the one you like.
Two questions: 1) what does the position require on paper? (read – what qualifications are required?) and 2) what skills and qualities that don’t read well on a job description are required in order for the person to excel in the position and move the company toward its goals? Number 1 is the black and white. Number 2 is the gut.
Likeability is fine – so long as it isn’t based on some kind of chameleon-like monster who knows how to “fool” your like-ometer. On the other hand, just cause the HR person likes them, doesn’t mean they will fit in the business unit – or be “liked” there. On the other hand, as I’ve said before, Darwin’s tentacles are in us all – we all seek to embrace those like us, and are (subconsciously, anyway) at least somewhat put off by those who aren’t. Sorry, “diversity” officers – you’re bucking Mother Nature….
…not that there’s anything wrong with that….;-}