Why Intuition May Lead Employers Astray When Hiring

Making informed HR decisions requires careful consideration and cannot be improvised. While many companies have improved their practices, some still rely on unreliable methodologies to screen candidates. For example, the unstructured interview has historically been the most popular tool for this purpose as it is perceived as more efficient, professional, and pleasant than other methods. However, this approach has contributed to deteriorating decision quality by leaving too much room for intuition, prejudices, and cognitive biases. As a result, many recruitment processes fail, and discrimination in the selection process persists.

Intuitive decisions can be highly beneficial in multiple ways. Firstly, these choices offer internal satisfaction as the emotions involved are heightened, making the decision-making experience more fulfilling. Additionally, intuitive decisions are perceived as a more accurate reflection of one's true self. This is why we often find ourselves defending our choices with greater conviction. Furthermore, others highly regard these decisions, and recruiters receive greater recognition from their managers when they utilize an unstructured approach rather than a structured or mechanical one.

Blindly trusting our intuition is not a reliable predictor of its effectiveness. While intuition may seem to reflect our deepest ideas and beliefs, it often leads us astray. The ability to accurately assess the reliability of our intuition is severely limited, often tainted by an illusory superiority bias—a tendency to overestimate our own abilities, believing ourselves to be at least superior to the average. Intuition, commonly perceived as a mystical or magical faculty, is actually grounded in clear physiological mechanisms. It corresponds to our brain's capacity to unconsciously recognize patterns of choices encountered in the past and retrieve relevant information from memory. This rapid and automatic process is based on prior learning and infused with emotions.

3 conditions to develop intuition

Consider a basketball player who has dedicated countless hours to practicing free throws throughout their career. Each shot is taken in a consistent and nearly identical setting, with the player standing alone in front of the basket. The outcome of each attempt is immediately perceived and leaves no room for ambiguity—the shot either succeeds or misses. According to Daniel Kahneman, this particular type of experience is crucial in developing a reliable intuition, regardless of the domain being considered. It is through such repetitive and focused practice that individuals can cultivate an effective intuition. Three factors are needed: (1) making decisions in a stable and predictable environment, (2) engaging in extensive practice, and (3) receiving immediate and unambiguous feedback on the quality of those decisions. Professional basketball players serve as prime examples of individuals who possess heightened predictive abilities when it comes to determining the success of their shots, thanks to their adherence to these conditions.

Intuition is, therefore, the subconscious recognition of patterns. When faced with a situation that mirrors recognizable patterns from past experiences, intuition naturally emerges within us. However, it is crucial to note that the conditions mentioned above, which foster reliable intuition in the realm of basketball, are highly unlikely to be replicated when making recruitment decisions.

Firstly, although certain data, such as personality traits and reasoning skills, can provide valuable insights into predicting an employee's future performance, it is important to acknowledge that recruitment always entails a degree of unexplained variability. Achieving a perfect prediction of an employee's future success simply is not possible. Unpredictable events in a candidate's personal life can greatly influence their performance, growth, and commitment to the organization, making it impossible to account for them at the time of hiring.

Moreover, the recruitment and business ecosystem is marked by constant changes, including environmental factors, health conditions, and technological advancements. These factors contribute to the inherent instability of the hiring process. A prime example is the significant redefinition of the concept of work experienced by a substantial number of individuals in the aftermath of the pandemic.

In addition, the workload of recruiters often hinders the opportunity to develop a reliable and well-informed intuition. As highlighted by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the national average in the United States alone ranges from 30 to 40 open positions per recruiter. Such volumes limit the opportunities for recruiters to encounter a sufficient number of successes and failures that would enable the development of a reliable intuition. The structure and duration of recruitment missions often fall short of nurturing the depth of experience necessary for intuition to thrive.

Lastly, a significant challenge in the realm of recruitment is the limited availability of immediate and unambiguous feedback. Unlike a surgeon operating on a patient who would instantly witness blood spurting out in the event of an error, recruitment lacks such clear-cut feedback mechanisms. There are several reasons for this.

Intuition Essential Reads

Decoding the Unseen Signals in Decision-Making

Unleashing Your Sixth Sense: The Power of Neuroception

First, there is often a considerable time gap between the recruitment process and the candidate's integration into the organization, making timely feedback challenging. Additionally, assessing a candidate's performance immediately upon arrival in a new job would not provide a relevant measure of their long-term success. Lastly, many recruiters lack access to comprehensive feedback on the performance of candidates once they have assumed their positions. Also, the performance review process within companies is frequently marred by problems. These reviews tend to rely on simplistic theories and the subjective judgment of evaluators, leading to biased evaluations. Disturbingly, recent studies indicate that employees who are well-liked receive more favorable evaluations and that minor changes in the evaluation scale can amplify gender discrimination. This further underscores the complexity and potential shortcomings of the feedback mechanisms within the performance evaluation framework.

Going beyond our intuition

While recruitment activities may not provide the ideal environment for the development of intuition, it is important not to disregard it entirely. Intuition is an inherent part of who we are, and suppressing it can be a challenging endeavor. However, this does not mean that intuition cannot be questioned, expanded upon, or viewed as just one aspect among many.

The crux of the issue lies not in intuition itself but in the blind faith and excessive confidence some place in it when making decisions that profoundly impact the lives of others and their businesses. It is essential for HR professionals to acknowledge the limitations and biases of their intuition, as well as those of other self-proclaimed experts.

They should instead embrace a more scientific approach that involves testing their intuition and hypotheses with valid and verifiable data. In essence, everyone should prioritize investing time in measuring the criteria that yield reliable predictions of a candidate's potential for success.

By adopting a more rigorous and evidence-based approach, HR professionals can make well-informed choices that have a greater likelihood of yielding positive outcomes. In particular, research in psychology has shown that (1) personality and reasoning skills are better predictors of job performance, (2) algorithms are more efficient and accurate for effective recruitment, and (3) companies that follow recommendations from personality and reasoning tests make better hires.

Integrating structured and mechanical decision support methods in hiring processes, however, requires individuals to overcome their potential aversion towards these tools and innovations, which can sometimes be perceived as a threat to personal autonomy. It is natural for self-centered concerns to emerge when confronted with any form of change, and addressing these concerns with well-informed responses becomes crucial to promoting the widespread adoption of a standardized, probabilistic, and scientific approach to recruitment and HR activities. For this:

• It is crucial to clarify the distinction between fictional portrayals and the practical reality of these tools. By disentangling the two, we can redirect the debates towards the genuine benefits and value they offer, rather than perpetuating a divisive "people against machines" mindset that leads to their outright rejection;
• The designers of support tools and standardized recruitment solutions should make greater efforts to demonstrate the benefits and relevance of algorithms. This includes highlighting their capabilities, explaining their construction, and addressing the ethical responsibilities associated with their use. By effectively communicating these aspects, designers can foster a greater understanding and appreciation of algorithms, leading to their wider acceptance and adoption in the realm of recruitment;
• Users have a vested interest in implementing adaptive and learning strategies if they wish to maintain their autonomy while improving their decision-making. Those who possess intellectual humility and curiosity to understand new recruitment methods are the ones who can truly harness their full potential.

Enhancing the structure and robustness of decision-making through algorithmic solutions is essential for mitigating biases, ensuring fairness, and optimizing outcomes in the recruitment process. Recognizing the value and practicality of algorithms allows one to make informed choices that are grounded in objective criteria and reduce the negative consequences associated with intuition.