[Guest Post] Alan Davis on wether golf is the ultimate interview.

Does golfing style reflect work style?

If I had my druthers (and in an ideal world), I wish that I could play a round of golf with every long-listed candidate before deciding whether or not they would make the short list.

Of course it will never happen for many reasons - not the least of which is that it might be hard to prove its relevance to the job…or would it? What is it about a round of golf that would make it such an alluring screening tool? Let’s do some analysis.

A round of golf would allow the interviewer to observe the candidate’s behaviour in the following ways: Group dynamics;Inter-personal skills; Social skills; Ability to handle pressure; Honesty;
Ability to accept criticism / suggestions for improvement; Ability to follow the rules. etc.

None of these parameters bear any relevance to playing ability. In fact, it would perhaps be more of a measure for the poorer player than the low handicap player, except that the low handicap player on a bad day can get very frustrated (again, depending on the individual).

However, all of these parameters are directly relevant to the candidate’s ability to perform effectively at work. Also, they are the very same performance parameters that are so difficult to assess in the artificial setting of the job interview.

Given that a significant proportion of the population has absolutely no interest in golf (go figure!) and that our climate would mean that hiring would only take place during the golf season, what other venues come to mind as being relevant and therefore justifiable for the purpose of adding value to the selection process? The most obvious one is the breakfast, lunch or dinner scenario. My favorite is dinner, even though you have to forfeit your evening for it to happen.

So, you’ve arranged to have dinner with a top candidate…what specifically should you be looking out for? Clearly, if your candidate drinks too much and becomes loud and obnoxious, it should be your first clue that you might be making a hiring error (unless being loud and obnoxious is a bona fide occupational requirement!) I find it interesting to observe how hard a candidate works to keep the conversation going and I purposefully lapse into silence to see if the candidate will pick up the ball. I would argue that some of these social skills are just as important as specific knowledge and experience, again depending on the job.

Over dinner is also an excellent opportunity for the employer and prospective employee to discuss their respective styles and their expectations of each other. I recently was told of a situation recently where a newly hired Sales Executive quit his job after two months; the reason being that in his mind he was being micro-managed. Had he and his boss discussed the issue at the interview stage, they may have worked out a suitable compromise, or another candidate who didn’t mind being micro managed might have been selected instead.

Hiring decisions, like any business decisions, should be based on objective analysis and informed choice. While it is typical to see the business case to invest in things like equipment or property made in great detail (and with a wide variety of input) it is equally typical to see hiring decisions made after one interview. Even at that, the one interview is typically unstructured and conducted by a manager who has been provided with little or no training in the art.

The more exhaustive and rigorous the process, the better the result.

The higher the level of impact on the organization, the more exhaustive the selection process should be.

The process should be end to end and should include:

1. Telephone screen

2. Initial face to face structured interview

3. Second interview with hiring manager and some peers

4. Psychometric evaluation (including simulation exercises)

5. Detailed reference check

6. A “social “ final interview to discuss mutual expectations

7. A round of golf (of course)

   Having made the argument that golf is an effective way to screen candidates, I have found that it is an equally effective way of observing how my clients behave in pressure situations - behaviors like tossing clubs after a bad shot and stomping off the course to find solace (a.k.a. a beer) in the field bar. I also played a round with a client who decided to no longer keep their score once he started to lose (yes, in spite of rumors to the contrary, I have been known to win on occasion).
   

   So it begs the question…. Should I exercise the same rigor in selecting my clients as I do in selecting candidates…and vice versa?
   
   Alan Davis is former President of Alan Davis & Associates, an internationally-recognized leader in the recruitment and selection of executives, managers and highly-skilled specialists on behalf of quality-oriented customers both large and small.

   This post originally feature in Workplace.ca Newsletter.