Sometimes innovative ideas suck. Check out this creepy recruiting scenario where assessing commitment went too far…
I read an article from Inc. called “Weirdest and Best Interview I Ever Had”. It is about interview processes that required, as the last part of the interview process, the final decision maker come to his home and conduct a “home interview”.
Wuh.. What!?
The candidate writes, “I was told the hiring decision maker, would schedule an interview at my home, ostensibly to meet with me on neutral territory and discuss the position.” His wife prepared light horsderves, beverages, pulled out the red carpet. The interviewer with a “well-choreographed step” had Glen leave the room to get him some tea. This was a diversion so the interviewer could interview Glen’s wife. The purpose? To see if the family was supportive and committed to this job prospect.
Wuh… What!?
After the “wife interview”, the decision maker pulled out an offer letter and gave him the job. OMG. Kill me.
Creep factors:
- Sorry, but I don’t know you well enough to invite you to my house, you creep
- Glen wasn’t told this was part of the process until he was in final stages
- The interviewer used diversions (aka lies) to get Glen out of the room
- Poor wife… gross for her. And a lot of pressure to perform. Who know what will be asked of Glen (or his wife) later
What if:
- The wife was sick, the marriage was in trouble, a completely different personality from the candidate. What if she fails her interview? What high stakes for irrelevant information.
- What if there were 2 kids running around their house and things are nuts, therefore disrupting the interview? What high stakes for irrelevant information.
- What if legal stuff…blah, blah, blah.
Here are better ways to get to know your candidates commitment level (rather than their family’s levels):
- Ask them “what are the top three things that, theoretically, could make you quit this job”.
- Job history questions can’t hurt, but delve more into commitment to the work rather than the tactical reasons they left. Really who cares why they left. Again I’m more interested in their commitment level when they were there.
- When did their desire to leave overcome their commitment to make the job work? Why?
- What would they have been willing to do to have stayed in that role?
- Who were they the most committed to while you they were there? Why?
- Have a tiered interview process. If they are committed to three interviews, a homework assignment, and assessments…. Good chance they are committed to staying.
We now know that at work it is important to have social interaction with employees. Gone are the days HR and decision makers should be afraid to know anything personal for fear of being sued. Social interaction is fine and encouraged. But too far is too far.
Social interaction is cool; taking on the role of “Big Brother” is not.
I agree that employing this kind of subterfuge in someone’s home, and with their partner, is completely unacceptable.
There are however some careers where this type of check has a purpose. In the UK, for example, anyone applying to join the police can expect a home visit by a sergeant or officer of higher rank. As a vocational career which becomes an integral part of a persons lifestyle, it is appropriate to find out more about their home life. That said, I can see where it would be difficult to preclude the subjective prejudices of the home interviewer.
I guess that was my question too – what kind of job was this for?
Other than that, I totally agree. I would turn down an offer from this kind of company.
If they thought it was OK to interview your spouse at home, then they are probably OK with a lot of other objectionable things. This one’s right up their with “can I have your facebook password?” Perhaps they would require that you allow bedroom inspections, too?