Guest Post: The $300,000 Meal

2010 January 11
tags: , , ,
by Grace Boyle

Note: This is a guest post from my friend, Rich. After my post last week about hiring over a meal, Rich and I were talking about his opposing viewpoint. I wanted his professional background in HR and recruiting to weigh in. Gotta have both sides of the fence represent.

Bio: Rich DeMatteo is a Philadelphia area HR/Staffing professional with experience in both agency and corporate recruiting. Rich runs Corn On The Job, a  job search, recruiting and HR blog. Connect with him through Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook or subscribe to his blog.

Every Sunday my family holds a traditional Italian meal.  If you were to stop by on a Sunday you would enjoy pasta, meatballs, sausage, braciole, fresh bread, salad, family, and endless conversation.  We are nothing like the infamous ‘Jersey Shore’ Italians, but you could say we are a bit stereotypical in how food and conversation is everything to my Italian family.

Why am I sharing this?

When Grace posted, “How do you hire?”, last week, she created a battle of epic proportions inside my head, fought between the HR background I have and my Italian culture.

Grace talked about an interview she read with Teresa Taylor, Quest’s Chief Operating Officer.  It’s not a bad interview, and Taylor seems to be beyond successful, but one of her answers in the interview threw me a wicked curveball.  Taylor states that she won’t hire a candidate until she has had a meal with them, which is something that I’d never suggest a hiring manager do.  Here is the full quote:

Taylor: “I never hire somebody without having a meal with them. I am absolutely convinced that that’s how you see what people are really like. You can tell by the way they order, you can tell by the way they treat the wait staff, you can tell by the way they drink too much or what they drink – you can pick up all these lifestyle things that you can’t get out of questioning them sitting in your office. Maybe they can’t make a decision on what to order, or they’re very snotty to the waitress. I absolutely have changed my mind on individuals after doing that.”

The culture that I’m accustomed to associates everything with food and conversation, so you would think I’d naturally enjoy an interview with food involved, right?  Wrong.

I believe that interviews need to be measurable.  Being able to accurately measure candidates against one another will clearly points out top talent, and also protects the company from a legal point of view.  The larger a company is, the more carefully it needs to tread in respect to its hiring practices.  To be specific, when an organization reaches 15 employees they must make sure their hiring practices are fair and that all candidates are treated in the exact same matter each and every interview.  This is where measurability and validity become critical.

Can Taylor quantify and make a score for her candidate’s ability to order food?  Nope.

What about a score for how nice they are to the wait staff?  The answer is no, again.

Can she prove that dinner is valid and crucial to the position?  Probably not.  While I understand the important lessons that can be learned from an observational meal, this practice puts her company at risk, and I would be curious to see what the HR folks at quest think about this practice.

I imagine that Quest utilizes some form of quantifiable interviewing for their in-house practices.  So, what happens if the highest-scoring candidate ‘performs’ terribly during their meal, but doesn’t get the job?  To be honest, in most cases probably nothing. They accept their fate and move on to another job.  That’s what happens in a perfect world, but if a candidate feels they were discriminated against, and sues the company, the pressure is on the organization to prove the meals importance to the position, show that eating at a restaurant is job-related, and lastly that the hiring practice can be measurable.  It’s not an easy task, and if the company fails then they will be paying out a large sum to the discriminated candidate.

For a single discrimination case, a company can pay out anywhere from $50,000 (15-100 employees) to $300,000 (501 or more employee).  Discrimination isn’t cheap, and when something goes wrong in this area its usually HR that takes the blame.  This is why HR can be seen as fun police, and why Michael hates on Toby so much.

Okay, so here is the deal.  Taylor wants an interview methodology that shows the real person and who they are outside of a strict interview.  I’m going to pretend I’m her HR guy and suggest the following interview method.

Behavioral Interviewing

Behavioral Interviewing asks the candidate “What DID you do”, which forces them to speak about real experiences in detail.  Not only is it measurable, but its also job related.

Behavioral Interviewing is a method that brings the interviewer a nice view of how this candidate will act in the future in similar situations.   When conducted correctly, with strong follow-up questions and probing, even the slickest of candidates will have a hard time lying or making up a story.  If interested, check out what I’ve wrote about Behavioral Interviewing.

Up to this point, Taylor appears to have been successful in the practices she uses, but just one slip up could end up costing her company a boat load of money.

Which hiring practice do you see eye-to-eye with?

Related Posts with Thumbnails

from → Career, Guest Blog Post

  • http://www.theskooloflife.com/ Srinivas Rao

    Rich,

    I'm kind of torn on this. On the one hand I see your point about the fact that it's about quantifiable measureable methods for assessing somebody's employability. But, on the other I can relate to her need to have a meal with somebody. I've always felt that you get to know somebody best outside of a formal environment. Many jobs are often filled through connections and those often happen in informal settings. I do agree that from an HR standpoint this kind of practice could be viewed as discrimination and cost the company a small fortune.

  • LostInCheeseland

    I can see how the treatment of a waitor and how relaxed a person might get during a meal could indicate how they might perform as an employee of a company, that is, perform WITH others. Interact and work constructively in teams. Respect of others should be considered equally as important as qualifications (well, you need BOTH rather than just one). But I agree with Rich that judging a candidate by what they choose to drink, eat and perhaps even HOW they eat is not only unquantifiable but unfair.

    Of course a candidate that chooses to drink alcohol during a meal with an interviewer would probably lose some brownie points but people get nervous. It's like dating – how many people have given off mediocre first impressions over a meal with a new guy or girl simply because they were nervous? “How much do I eat? What if I have bad breath? food stuck in my teeth??”. These same anxieties are bound to present themselves during an interview, with someone you barely know.

    So while I see what Taylor aims to prove, I think it is ultimately a poor recruiting method.

  • http://www.smallhandsbigideas.blogspot.com Grace Boyle

    @LostInCheeseland You (and Rich) bring up very good points and I think exclusively, you shouldn't hire someone solely because of one meal. However, exclusively, Taylor doesn't judge on the way they eat or drink, but more how they interact outside of a formal setting.

    She has other interviews but I believe that over a meal, you really can balance the act of implementing culture into your company and learning about that person, potentially as who they really are.

  • http://www.cornonthejob.com/ Rich Dematteo

    Hey Srini – yeah, I totally understand the point of it, and I've been on Meal Interviews, but when you take away formality, you are open yourself up to risk and factors you can not control. When a company gets bigger, they have a lot more to worry about. I feel like someone can absolutely fake a meal interview, and it would take a complete idiot to mess that up. I mean, anyone can fake being nice, and I would assume everyone knows to avoid getting bombed at this sort of event.

    I just feel there are better ways, but we all have our own opinion

  • http://www.CornOnTheJob.com/ Rich Dematteo

    Hey Lindsey – yep, you are spot on! I feel interviewing should always be on-site, no matter what. Taylor obviously interviews people in-house first, and then looks to bring them somewhere to eat at some point in the hiring process. Not only is it unfair, but it takes more time. Top talent doesn't wait to get hired, they go out and find work. This is another step of the hiring process that could really confuse candidates as well as piss them off. Scheduling one more meeting could be the last thing they want, especially if Taylor met with them once or twice before.

  • SalesRecruiter

    I love it and agree with Taylor. I wouldn't hire someone without having a meal with them either!
    Great post.
    Peggy

  • http://unfetteredyouth.wordpress.com Kat_ksk

    I'm not very experienced in all this, but my perception has always been that a whole lot of job interviews is totally subjective anyway. Maybe this is only the case for lower-level positions where the playing field is wider, but I always thought that if they just don't like your personality for whatever reason, that can be why they don't hire you.
    It's actually always annoyed me because I have a higher-toned voice and before an interview or meeting people often suggest “try to speak a little lower.” If someone doesn't hire me because of my voice, that's messed up! But I always thought that was within their rights. Perhaps I've just been accepting unfairness?

  • http://www.CornOnTheJob.com/ Rich DeMatteo

    Hey Peggy – glad to see you here. I think for agency recruiters like you it is a bit different, when you are finding talent for your clients.

    When I spent time as an agency recruiter, I would meet people for coffee or for a quick bite to eat, but I obviously wasn't trying to hire them. My client was, and I was looking for an easy way to meet them and open them up a bit. When it comes to a large organization, they need to be careful to treat every candidate the same exact way, or this opens them up to legal scrutinization.

  • http://www.CornOnTheJob.com/ Rich DeMatteo

    If your personality trait stops you from getting a job, it should be job-related. So, if you curse a lot and it is a Customer Support position, then they can make the case that it is a job requirement to never curse. Cursing on the interview would result in not getting the job, because it is job-related.

    I doubt people have passed on you because of your voice, but if it has been for personality reasons, then yes, I agree it is messed up.

  • http://herestothegoldendays.blogspot.com/ Jennifer

    I understand your standpoint, but I definitely wouldn't mind being interviewed over a meal. ;)

  • http://www.cornonthejob.com/ Rich DeMatteo

    Hey Jennifer – yes, the HR view isn't always the most popular, but it is pretty important to take care of the company and make sure all is legal. Thanks for your comment on this.

  • http://twitter.com/rachevincent Rachel Vincent

    Rich, in my last position, I was reasonable for overseeing the 2nd phase of hiring, which was an intensive week long training session at which potential hires had to demonstrate that they were capable of developing the skills by the end of the week that would allow them to do the job. Only about 7-8% of candidates are brought out for the training session, and only about 75% of those that come to the training session are finally offered the job. So, it was fairly competitive.

    So much of the job was interacting with other people in the company and with so many of our customers that small things often made the difference in whether someone was hired. How they treated customers who asked lots of questions. How they dressed. Their attitude toward feedback. Their friendliness or likeability. How they treat the fellow trainees. (some personality traits that I imagine you could also see in how they acted during dinner). All really important but often kind of hard to measure. What have you found useful in trying to measure personality characteristics (interaction habits, attitudes, friendliness, openness, etc)?

  • http://www.cornonthejob.com/ Rich DeMatteo

    Hi Rachel – great comment here. Let me to my best to answer….

    Well, it seems like your company provided a Realistic Job Preview setting interview, which is think is great. Not only do you get to learn about the candidate, but they get to learn about everyday work. I'm sure some of the people that weren't hired probably didn't want t be after seeing what they might not have liked.

    I'm going to tackle each thing you mentioned separately:

    In measuring customer service ability, I would have suggested having a few clients complete surveys. It is one way to measure that provides a real score. You could have also had managers listen in on the phone call and to see who interacts better, then provide a score on each candidate. This is also easily measured in Behavioral Interviewing.

    Dress is a funny issue. Your company most likely had a dress code. This isn't really something that a company can hire or not hire someone for. This is just a pass/fail type test. If they dress to your company dress code, then they pass, if not, then they fail.

    Their attitude towards feedback. This is almost another pass fail. Either they take it and improve, or they do nothing, or get angry. If they use it and try to pass, then they pass the test.

    Friendliness and likability should be thrown out completely. If people hired based off of how likable someone was, we would have tons of people in the wrong jobs. I can understand using attitude toward feedback as an important job factor, but friendliness and likability shouldn't be part of it. I know it is important and we all want someone friendly, but it goes hand in hand with customer service. Just focus on their customer service skills, not if they are friendly off the phone.

    How they treat other fellow trainees would probably show how they are on the phone as well. If they say anything rude to others, or make harsh remarks then obviously they should just move on. If someone is rude to a fellow trainee, they'd probably give off that vibe in a formal interview. When you ask enough questions about real life experiences in an interview, the real person is bound to come out sooner or later.

    Thanks for this!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-/x-13207-Generation-Y-Examiner Sharalyn

    Rich, you obviously know infinitely more about HR issues than I do (and Grace, I love that you brought this up) but I think she's onto something here. We do this informal meeting to discuss business all the time in sales. In fact, the reason this caught my attention was the mention of Teresa in the first place. I've had a meal with her. I used to work in national ad sales for the Denver Post and Qwest was one of my big conquest accounts. Somehow I managed to land a meeting with her, we set it for breakfast. It was fantastic. For starters, I knew I was going to get at least an hour of her time and I learned so much about her. Not just from the business standpoint, but I observed the same things mentioned in the article, in Grace's commentary and in other reader's comments. It helped me know what I needed to do to best interact with her. After that meal, she was incredible and literally offered herself (a ridiculously busy woman who was at the time overseeing all the labor union disputes) as a resource to get me into see the leaders in the marketing department.

    My long, drawn-out point (sorry) is a breakfast allowed us to establish a rapport I'm quite convinced wouldn't have happened otherwise. I think the same would be true in hiring. Even if all interviews are conducted on site, I just can't imagine that 100% of the decision is always made on the quantifiable and measurable things. Quite often when you're in the final stages of hiring (and especially for high level positions Taylor hires) the qualifications are going to be so similar, the decision will really come down to whom the hirer thinks is best for the job.

    Spending a little time outside the typical office setting sounds like a very good way to get your finger on that all-important pulse.

    Thanks for the insight Rich (and Grace!)

    P.S. FWIW, Teresa Taylor is such an impressive woman. She's obviously very successful but she is so kind and personable, one my favorite clients I've ever interacted with.

  • http://www.cornonthejob.com/ Rich DeMatteo

    Hey Sharalyn thanks for adding in the story. That sounds amazing and I'm sure it was a wonderful experience, but chatting with a client, vendor, or business contact involves less legal restrictions than an interview.

    The EEOC, ADA, ADEA, OFFCP, blah blah blah the list goes on an on of agencies that monitor employer hiring. Slip ups can be costly, and measurability is a huge issue.

    Organizations just interview bad. They create an us vs. them feel onsite, and that's not how you should run an interview. Just because you aren't sharing a meal in an office, it doesn't mean you can't find a way to get them to open up and be themselves. It's just silly to me that people feel a meal is the only way to get that out of someone.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-/x-13207-Generation-Y-Examiner Sharalyn

    Totally get that, Rich, I definitely understand that hiring is VASTLY different than other standard business meetings. I guess I just don't see how the subjective nature of the meal is that much different than the subjective nature of an interview period. No matter how 'by-the-book” and interview is, it cannot ever be completely quantifiable. Nothing dealing with people can be. So I just don't see how some subjective observations in a meal setting that weigh in on a decision are any different than the subjective observations inside an office. (Yeah, yeah, I know you are now going to argue that the meal is openly set up as a place to specifically make those observations).

    I will agree with you on this though…most people are just poor interviewers. I've been in my fair share, conducted a few and although it was for something different, I used to conduct live interviews on TV for my job. It is an art. Unfortunately one that few posses. So I agree 100% that thinking a meal is the only way to really get someone comfortable and to be themselves is quite silly. If the HR person/hirer/whatever-you-want-to call them is really doing their job, they can do that in-house too.

  • http://www.smallhandsbigideas.blogspot.com Grace Boyle

    @Sharalyn I'm so happy you contributed on this point, especially with your real meeting with Teresa (good for you)! I do agree with you Sharalyn and think that there' s an extremely subjective nature to hiring, because we as humans are like that. We are not machines (for lack of a better word).

    @Rich I don't believe that a meal is the only way to find out the many layers to a person and understand who/what they're about. I do think that adding a meal, interaction with the company, infusing the culture to the interview is a PIECE of interviewing. I think it can add to the mix quite nicely.

    Aren't there many ways to interview? As long as it's uniform for that particular company or reflects the important aspects the company is looking for, then it works for all of them? We may be talking about corporate recruiting versus hiring for a small business, non-profit or even a corporate company that might have their own rules to follow (like Zappos and their 10 values that HR actually asks/fits for each potential employer).

  • http://doniree.com doniree

    I don't think I have the background or know-how to weigh in on the ramifications an HR department might face for these hiring practices, but I just wanted to let you know that I enjoyed this post because it pushed me to think of this from a point of view I might have never considered. I certainly see merit in getting a candidate out of the typical office interview setting to gauge more of a personality fit, but now understanding more of why that shouldn't happen in a larger work environment makes more sense. Thanks for your thoughts!

  • http://fiwk.blogspot.com Royce

    Blatant attempt by you, Grace, to take a blogger like Rich who just got ONE HUNDRED comments on his last blog and try to get some pageviews! Haha or maybe it's just cause he's a really good blogger, which is also true. And also phenomenal job linking back to COTJ, Rich!

    I've taken this opportunity to officially make a Disqus account… you're welcome.

    Rich did you see this article about performance reviews on BusinessWeek.com today? It talks about “Not 'How', but 'Why' ” as the predictor for future success; that is to say, it echoes your sentiments that you need to get to the core of what motivates someone to be a inspired employee and work their butt off. What engages them? What annoys them? They call it “peeling back the layers of the onion,” which is an effective if inelegant metaphor

  • http://www.CornOnTheJob.com/ Rich DeMatteo

    Hey Sharalyn – See why life is hard for HR? I must also make it known that I am no expert. There may be some wrinkles in the law that allow the meal to happen, but from my experiences and what I've learned, so it is something I would suggest against.

    Interviews need some form of note taking, especially in larger and regulated organizations. The amount of regulations that come in are a bit insane, and I can not even being to explain how much crazier they get when a company has federal contracts. HR is taught to avoid any and all risk at possible and sometimes HR is stricter than people would like.

    Getting to your point about how not everything can be quantifiable/measurable. When jobs are evaluated correctly, an organization can identify the skill sets needed for the position correctly and measure only those skills. Obviously, if someone comes in and is blatantly rude, falls asleep, curses, or anything else that would be inappropriate then that needs to be written down and could potentially disqualify them. But, there are organizations that get this right, and they measure what is needed of person to show they are qualified and nothing else. It works.

  • http://www.CornOntheJob.com/ Rich DeMatteo

    Good points Grace, here is my thing… I believe in only having one interview. One and done. I see no point for a second interview, but I'm pretty strict with interviewing. I feel that great talent is found, and they are taken quick. When an organization takes their sweet time with multiple interviews, and then a dinner on top of that, its just trouble. There are many styles in interviewing, but I always suggest it be on-site.

    Culture is something that employees learn once on-board. In hiring, there are regulations that must be followed, as set by the government and employment law. If one candidate makes a claim of discrimination (even if there is none), the company will almost alway shave every practice scrutinized carefully. This also brings bad press to the company.

    I wish I was an expert in all of this, so I could give a clear cut answer. This discussion is great, and resembles the battle that goes on at work in a way.

  • http://www.cornonthejob.com/ Rich DeMatteo

    Hi Doniree, thanks for leaving your thoughts on this. It is a tough issue, and it is why its not always fun being in HR. When we take a practice away, we must provide something that can add value. In this situation I would take away the meal, but offer a practice that I feel would bring the same result, but would absolutely ensure the company is secure legally.

  • http://www.cornonthejob.com/ Rich DeMatteo

    Hey Royce – Grace and I talked before my recent post went live, I just hope she thinks I'm an OK blogger. I've always loved her site so it was great for me to be here in a guest post.

    Royce, that article sounds right up my alley! Great find. When you find out 'Why' you can get to the bottom of things, for sure. Engagement is a huge issue in HR these days. With so many people (45%) stating they are not happy with their jobs, engagement has become an even bigger issue.

    Thanks for that, and your thoughts!

  • http://www.smallhandsbigideas.blogspot.com Grace Boyle

    @Royce You're always causing a ruckus, aren't you?

    Glad you joined Disqus – next, you need to add a picture so you're not all anonymous and invisible.

    Good article in BusinessWeek.com and thanks for adding to the conversation. Give Rich a hard time, anytime ;)

  • brentdaily

    I agree with you both with a giant asterisk. Interviewing is about acquiring as much data on someone as possible. Going to dinner allows one to gather additional information in a setting that isn't possible within the work environment but it doesn't tell you much about the person IMO. Just like in an interview (nearly) anyone can act like a reasonable human being for a couple of hours.

    We too often rely on subjective measures to decide who we should hire and inevitably it comes back to bite us. Nearly half of the people we all hire 'fail' within 18 months. That's not good enough. And it's expensive.

    Incorporating objective measures that are uniform across candidates help us confirm or deny our gut feel. Shameless plug alert – At RoundPegg we've built software that identifies which candidates look like and fit best with the people who are successful on a given work team (from a 'soft skills' perspective – values, communication style and personality). It's part of a solution that when combined with behavioral interviewing can lead to identifying employees who will be engaged on the job at a higher rate than those who just use their gut.

    Hiring is a blend of art and science. But relying too much on either one is bound to fail more often than it succeeds.

    Great post.

  • http://www.cornonthejob.com/ Rich DeMatteo

    Hey Brent, thanks for this input. Would love to talk to you more about RoundPegg, which I believe I've heard of. I'm a fan of Behavioral Interviewing, but I do feel sometimes there needs to be a bit more to it to complete the process.

    If you read this – email me at CornOnTheJob AT Gmail.com

  • http://www.opheliaswebb.com Elisa Doucette

    First things first. If I am ever in the Philly area on a Sunday, I'm crashing your house. Hope that's ok. :)

    Secondly, I am awed that my little analytical mind is torn on this one. Cause really, you offer a concrete, viable and measurable way to do something. And for that I am 100% on board.

    But having sat on the hiring side of many tables I have to say that I am seriously torn on what you say. I think that only the top 3 of potential candidates should make it to a “meal” interview. And of that only certain (pre-determined) positions should be invited to the meal interview.

    The reason is this. People can be REALLY GOOD at interviewing. I've met them. They're like professional interviewers. It's part of the reason I leave them to sit with my secretary for about 15 minutes to see how they react there. How they treat the “seemingly meaningless” people in the company. Because that really DOES say a lot. When no one is looking, how do you behave?

    In a world where no one will (can) give you an honest reference/job evaluation it's a nice counter option.

  • http://www.cornonthejob.com/ Rich DeMatteo

    If you are in Philly you let me know, and I'll have the pasta ready!

    I agree with how you say that only the top 3 of potential candidates should make it to a “meal” interview, but to be honest with you, I only like to interview 3 candidates. If screening is done really well, and phone screens are how they should be, then interviewing 3 candidates should be enough (especially these days).

    Also, what bothers me maybe most about the meal is that it's more time that the candidate needs to plan. Great talent is found, and smart companies move fast on top talent. My old organization used to do 2 or 3 interviews, and I cut it down to 1. We stopped losing talent to competitors and we closed deals quicker. It was amazing.

    People can be great at interviewing when the process has holes in it. In behavioral interviewing it is really hard for someone to be “good” at interviewing. Behavioral interviewing is almost a science, and is not an easy task for an interviewee. They have no idea which skill sets will be interviewed, and what exact behavioral questions will be asked. The amount of probing in a behavioral interviewing needs to be to an extend where even the best liars in the world will suffer.

    But, I do get your points, and so does everyone NOT in HR who hears these arguments from my peers and I. While I see the value in the meal, I feel it is not only a risk to the company, but can also slow up the process resulting in lost talent.

    Thanks for your comment!

  • http://www.cornonthejob.com/ Rich DeMatteo

    If you are in Philly you let me know, and I'll have the pasta ready!

    I agree with how you say that only the top 3 of potential candidates should make it to a “meal” interview, but to be honest with you, I only like to interview 3 candidates. If screening is done really well, and phone screens are how they should be, then interviewing 3 candidates should be enough (especially these days).

    Also, what bothers me maybe most about the meal is that it's more time that the candidate needs to plan. Great talent is found, and smart companies move fast on top talent. My old organization used to do 2 or 3 interviews, and I cut it down to 1. We stopped losing talent to competitors and we closed deals quicker. It was amazing.

    People can be great at interviewing when the process has holes in it. In behavioral interviewing it is really hard for someone to be “good” at interviewing. Behavioral interviewing is almost a science, and is not an easy task for an interviewee. They have no idea which skill sets will be interviewed, and what exact behavioral questions will be asked. The amount of probing in a behavioral interviewing needs to be to an extend where even the best liars in the world will suffer.

    But, I do get your points, and so does everyone NOT in HR who hears these arguments from my peers and I. While I see the value in the meal, I feel it is not only a risk to the company, but can also slow up the process resulting in lost talent.

    Thanks for your comment!

  • Pingback: uberVU - social comments

  • Pingback: Hiring Your Level of “Weird” | Small Hands, Big Ideas