This post was mentioned on Twitter by gracekboyle: Check out Rich’s guest post (@cornonthejob) weighing in with his professional viewpoint on “hiring over a meal:” http://bit.ly/5nOVF0...

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!

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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!