The Secret Interview - a good idea, or a great one?

A few weeks ago, I caught three episodes of a reality TV show slash contest on Channel 5 (I know, I KNOW), called "Secret Interview". The premise of the show, for those not in the know (i.e. the 99.9% of the population who aren't addicted to terrible telly), is that two competitors from different companies in the same industry are followed for a week by the film crew. The episodes I saw starred estate agents, hairdressers and shop girls. Or retail assistants, or whatever you call them nowadays that isn't sexist. They are girls, who work in a dress shop, to clarify. Now, the contestants know they have a job interview lined up with an industry leader (included some property tycoon I'd never heard of, the hairdresser Nicky Clarke - who of course even a salon-dodger like me is aware of, and Jo Elvin of Glamour magazine... although who in their right minds looks for a fashion editorial assistant in a low end fashion shop?), and are told they are being filmed for the week prior to this to see how they prepare themselves. What the viewer - and interestingly, their boss - knows, is that this filming is going to be seen by the prospective employer, and n fact forms the entire interview itself, with the hiring decision made solely on the basis of the candidate's performance in their "normal" role. Except it isn't their normal role. Oh no. Because we've got actors coming in, being the world's most awkward customers or work experience girls. People who would test the patience of a saint, let alone a pink-tressed fake-nailed Mummy's girl hairdresser, a lying blagging wide boy estate agent and a bleached blonde Daddy's girl fashion assistant. Long story short, they all have the worst working week of their lives, and then have the shock of their lives when they realise their potential employer - and role model - has been watching them all along. Watching them moan to their Mum (also their boss) about the work experience girl from hell (actor), watching them tell a customer (actor) they didn't like that they had to go and value a house so couldn't talk to them, watching them try and appease a customer (actor, well, that frumpy comedienne off "Show Me The Funny" who didn't win and is now an "actor") who thinks she's a size 8 but is in fact a 14.... you get the gist. And then they're made to watch the footage with their interviewer and given feedback. The cringe factor is enormous. It makes great telly, I can tell you. The best man or woman always gets the job in the end, but that's not saying much. I have my suspicions as to whether any of them (save the lovely and kind Marcus who got the job with Nicky Clarke) will have lasted 5 minutes, or are in fact anyone's dream employee... but any publicity's good publicity for the bosses, right? We also wondered in our house, what happened to the ones who lost the contest, whose bosses know they are looking for new jobs and failed to get one on national TV? Bet they feel a bit sheepish, but hey, they had their fifteen minutes of fame so that's enough. If I was their boss I'd keep them on their little toes from now on though, but I'm just a vindictive cow. Hey, my kids love me for it. 

Anyway, all this got me thinking (and that's dangerous as you know by now) about how seeing people in their work environment would be a really useful addition to an interview, as opposed to a replacement for an interview. Because anyone can put on an act at interview, and pretend to be someone they're not. Nobody confesses to being a workshy porn addict who has a fag break every half an hour, after all. Nobody admits to being grumpy to customers and spending more time applying make up than arranging merchandise. And nobody, when questioned about their strengths and weaknesses, answers "I am good at timekeeping but have compulsive tendencies to murder people and eat them. And I have acted on these before." Even with the advent of additional checks, people slip through the net. Let's face it, Ian Huntley passed his CRB check, and anyone else that does could still potentially be dangerous. They just haven't a) acted yet or b) been caught yet. Less scary, though, is the general behaviour and attitude of people. Let's keep psychopaths out of it, and agree that most of the population won't be hiding their murderous intentions from an interviewer. Even I don't harbour murderous intentions towards anyone other than Richard Hammond (before you ask, it's the bug eyes. And his smugness. Okay, and the height issue). But he's hardly likely to interview me, so I should be fine. And I DO have a CRB, if that reassures anyone, which it won't. But seriously, wouldn't it be good to be able to observe how people act in their current role, to help make the choice when it comes to hiring them? I'm not talking Apprentice style - that's ridiculous. Most people do not make gourmet sausages, have to find top hats at the cheapest price, create a fake brand, or hold their BlackBerrys at arm's length and shout into them as opposed to holding them to their actual mouths. I'm just talking watching - okay, stalking - someone at work. In their day to day routine and tasks, to observe how they carry out their work, how they interact with other people, and what sort of employee they are. Now, this started to make even more sense to me when the news about Andrew Mitchell, the Chief Whip, and his rant at the police outside 10 Downing Street hit the press. Mitchell's alleged to have called the police "effing plebs" for asking him to dismount from his bicycle and leave via the pedestrian gate. He felt that the main gates should be opened for him as they would be for other vehicles. Mitchell denied using the word "pleb", then the "f" word, then admitted he'd said something disrespectful but wouldn't say what... well, we've all read the news. It's still bubbling on, even today, as the Guardian reports that some of Mitchell's fellow Tories are pressurising him to resign. But he apologised to the police, so surely he should be left alone? Like I say to my kids, if you were really sorry, you wouldn't have done it in the first place. They love me for that too. Anyway, if someone as high profile as Mitchell can behave that way in the workplace (albeit outside), it throws an interesting light on the way that other people could too. Would watching footage of a potential employee behaving like Mitchell did on work premises put you off them, or could you excuse it as someone having a bad day (after all, he had been forced to go to a fine dining curry house for lunch, and that's stressful for anyone, even us plebs)? What if you witnessed a candidate being inappropriate at work, making dodgy sexist or racist jokes, or being snappy with the receptionists and rude to the cleaner? It is all a bit Big Brother, I grant you, but would make compelling viewing.I wonder how many people have been hired on the strength of a good CV, then a great interview... but within weeks turn out to be unsuitable due to their behaviour - they grate on everyone else's nerves, are negative and sarcastic or rude, or won't pull their weight. Obviously, this is why we have probationary periods. But these can last for months and most employers feel they've wasted valuable time on a totally useless employee - and then have to go through the process all over again to find someone else. Imagine if we could spy on them before making that offer, to see what they're really like. It would be fascinating, if nothing else, and offer some great insight into what the candidate is REALLY like, rather than  the impression they have worked hard - and in many cases most likely been coached by a recruiter - to give. I think it's a brilliant idea, and one that would be very useful to potential employers. And candidates too, if constructive feedback is given... they may have no idea how they come across at work, especially if their current boss is too nice/ wimpy / disinterested to tell them. Obviously, it'll never happen, because stalking people is a criminal offence. So I'll just have to stick to checking out peoples' Facebook pages to get the dirty on them, I suppose. I wonder if Andrew Mitchell has a FB profile...

Are we not all Olympians?

So the Olympics is underway. Six years of preparation and somewhere in the region of £11billion later, and London is finally hosting the biggest sporting event in the world. I'm not going, and I must admit that I haven't been watching it, but I hear it's been pretty popular. Obviously, Team GB haven't done as well as we'd hoped (4 medals at the time of writing, none gold as yet), but there's time. Unfortunately, there's also competition. That's what it's all about though.

We can all act as armchair experts, sitting and yelling at the screen when our guys n gals come on, encouraging and criticising, but none of us have any idea of what it's really like to compete. It's sad, but when Tom Daley failed to bring home the goods, he was subjected to a nasty tirade on Twitter. The Tweeter eventually apologised, just saying he was disappointed. HE was disappointed? Poor Tom, who is still just a teenager, has worked his backside off for years in order to compete. We mere mortals can't imagine what it feels like to train for hours every day, week after week, month after month, year after year... But then again, we have to go to work and perform day after day, week after week etc - and failure isn't an option for most of us. Whereas an athlete can shrug, apologise and explain they weren't at their best, or tried their hardest and still failed, the rest of us can't get away with that. We can't repeatedly turn up at client meetings, completely mess up and then tell the boss we're sorry, we weren't at our best. We'd be fired, eventually. And rightly so. But then, we're British, so we almost expect our athletes to fail, as much as we would wish otherwise.

Yes, the Olympics is exciting, and nail-biting, and disappointing, and amazing. But it happens once every 4 years. This year is different, obviously, because we're competing on home territory. Yet, it's not that different. Our athletes have still spent the past 4 years training, and competing, and suffering, and striving - for the chance to achieve bronze, silver or gold. We are grateful to them for trying to claim glory for Britain, yet at the same time we have little patience for their weaknesses, or if they lose. I admire them all. For the early rising, hours of training and physical endurance, watching their diet, sacrificing a social life, and so on. But then again, they are not doing this for "us" - they are doing this for their own glory as well as for Britain, like everyone else, pushing to do their best in their chosen career for their own sense of achievement and fulfilment. There's nothing wrong with that. Heck, we all want to be someone, to achieve something. Perhaps they just get more praise, press coverage, and admiration for it. And sometimes, more sympathy from the public when they fail to achieve, because we all buy in to the idea of the Olympian athletes running, jumping and swimming for "us"... when the reality might well be, that they are doing it for themselves and their own ego - all along. That doesn't detract from their achievements, but perhaps we should consider that they are only human, and this is their job. Unlike most of us though, they also suffer from adverse publicity from the press should they not achieve what is expected, and who would choose that over a quick tongue lashing from the boss?

Are we not all Olympians, then? No, but we all try our best year after year, we all polish our craft in order to be the best at what we do, and we all want to make somebody proud. This year, I think that Team GB will make us proud. They may not be the best, but they try their best. For the rest of us, we can find fulfilment in making ourselves proud, by doing our best in our chosen careers. And if we don't win Gold, then nobody's going to splash it across the front of the Daily Mail. For small mercies, we should all be grateful...

To hire or not to hire - should you go for personality or experience?

Interviews are tricky beasts. And I don't just mean for the person being interviewed, but equally so for the interviewer. After all, you're trying to choose the perfect person for your team, from a shortlist of several potential employees, after spending weeks or even months sifting through CVs and selecting the strongest candidates. Whilst it can be nerve wracking for the interviewee, its you who has to do the most work in terms of preparation, both for the interview itself as well as the initial drawing up of the job spec - and sometimes the creation of a brand new role. And then you have to find time in your busy schedule to see people, and then hopefully find the right person in that limited time because you need someone - as of yesterday.

Most interviewers have a pretty good idea of the sort of person they need to take on, bearing in mind the mix of technical and soft skills, the background, and the right cultural fit. But how DO you make that final choice, especially between two close-running candidates with not much between them. Perhaps one has a slightly higher level of technical ability, but the other has a better sense of humour and might get on with the team better. At what point do you make the decision and choose the "right" man, or woman, for the job? Just because you like someone, does that mean everyone else on the team will? Or do you have a gut instinct borne from years of working with your colleagues, and just "know" that they will love Candidate A too? Or perhaps Candidate B isn't as personable, but has a slightly more sophisticated technical awareness, and could be better on Project X than their competitor. On the other hand, Candidate A is slightly more easy going and definitely has more in common with other members of the team. But then Candidate B won't need training on Software Y... and so on.

What if we replace experience with aptitude? Let's say Candidate B has 5 years' experience in their specialism, and Candidate A only 2, but the latter has previously shown the aptitude to pick up new skills quickly, perhaps already having shifted industries and made a success of the change. Yet why wait for a candidate to learn new skills, when Candidate B is already qualified and ready to start applying these skills straightaway? But then again, Candidate A does seem to be, at this stage, a better bet for someone who can manage the entire role - including working within the team well - and Candidate B might get stuck within the technicalities. In competency based interviews, personality is not at the forefront of the questioning. I have been to interviews where not ONE personal question was asked, not even "Why are you looking to change jobs?". In less formal interviews, it is very easy for hiring managers to gauge personality, and their interview style will usually reflect their own personality, making mirroring easier on both sides. This can be both a good and bad thing. Good if the personalities are a genuine match, and misleading if the candidate pretends to be someone he or she isn't in order to mirror, or impress, their potential employer.

The real question comes down to this - do you hire the person you like the best, or the person who is best qualified and experienced to do the job? Do you think the person you like the most can learn the bits they're missing quickly enough to make your decision a sensible one, or do you feel that the more experienced candidate will grow on you as you work together? Do you worry that your instant connection with Candidate A is overweighing their lesser experience? Is your heart overruling your head? The decision will be different for different organisations. In a large company, perhaps personality is less important than experience, whereas in a small business, personality and fit is key. Then again, it depends on the size, and the closeness, of the existing team. In some small companies, everyone who works there meets potential new employees before they are hired, to make sure everyone feels they can get on with them. In larger organisations, it tends to be the hiring manager and perhaps a line manager who will choose new employees who they feel will benefit both the company as a whole as well as their team or department.

It's a difficult one. But each hiring manager knows what he or she is looking for, and often will get that "feeling" at an interview that they may have found the right person. Perhaps we should all just follow our hearts and hire the person we like the most - after all, we have to work with them day after day. As long as they also have ability, because even the best personality is useless if they can't do the job, they'll be an asset to our team. Hopefully. And if we choose wrong, and they turn out to be a psychopath, then perhaps it's time for US to look for a new role, and hope someone likes OUR personality...

Don't Be Evil?

So it's March 1st. An important date not only for the Welsh - Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus i bawb! - but also for Google, as they launch their new privacy policy on the far-too-suspecting public. I was sent a great link to an article yesterday, "Eight reasons to fear Google", which actually made me first start to really think about all this information sharing malarky. Google's new policy has been spoken about, debated and discussed all over the internet for a few weeks now, but the date is here and it's going ahead despite grave concerns from the EU regarding its lawfulness. Google care not, it seems, and have ploughed full steam ahead with their plans to share information from a single Google account across their 60 services, including Gmail, YouTube and Blogger. Having not blogged for a while, I had to wade through the entire privacy policy in full before I could accept it and sign in to write this. It seems rather more innocent than the outrage posted across forums would suggest, but then I didn't have the patience to read it fully. According to Google, this new policy of gathering, collating and sharing personal data will make it "Easy to work across Google", "Easy to share and collaborate", and ensure that services (ads, presumably) are "Tailored for you". Sounds innocuous enough, really. And where's the harm in cross-platform information sharing within a corporation/ group of companies? After all, Google don't sell the information they gather, so it remains with them for their own use. You can follow Google's own advice to protect your privacy, such as altering dashboard settings and deleting browsing history. And if you don't like it, there are alternatives to using Google, so opt out. But the problems have already begun. Google are guilty of tracking web-browsing habits of millions of iPhone users without their consent, and Microsoft have accused them of bypassing Internet Explorer's privacy protection. It seems that many android users also require Googlemail accounts, and so are unable to opt out. People who use the Google Wallet app to store credit card details to purchase at the tap of a finger must be aware by now that Google keep records of what they buy, where they buy it from and how often they buy. For a corporation whose mantra is "Don't be evil", Google is attracting a lot of negative attention.

But privacy issues don't just affect Google users. Facebook is also experiencing issues with its determination to impose the new timeline on account holders, where nothing is deleted and everybody's updates, comments and photos are available for viewing in chronological order. No more hiding that misspelled slag-off post about your boss after you staggered in late from another works do and he's offended you. The trouble with social media is that employers (or potential employers) are as savvy about it as your mates, and can easily have a look for you on Facebook, or follow your Tweets, to find out more about you. There have been a few stories in the past year of teachers, particularly, ending up in hot water over social networking posts and photos - whether deservedly or not - and at least one who lost her job over ill thought-out Tweets to students, which were reported to the school board and read by her bosses. Facebook have been slammed for their "Facebook for mobiles" app, which could potentially collect data from texts to sell on to third parties - all with users' permission, if you agree to the long-winded and rarely read Ts&Cs. Worrying, isn't it?

We all know that if you post something stupid on Facebook or Twitter, chances are it might come back to bite us. If, for example, someone looking to join the police force posts of an illegal activity on Facebook, could it come to light if the wrong person sees it, scuppering their chances of a career in the force? I KNOW that teachers, for example, have the right to privacy and to be able to chat to their mates on Facebook or Twitter, but when they choose to have parents and/or pupils as "friends" or followers, then they need to make sure their content is appropriate for their audience. Slagging off parents or making lewd comments to students, for example, is not only inappropriate but intensely unprofessional, and yet is done because people don't seem to realise, or appreciate, the power of the written word and how it makes them come across to other people.

But back to the privacy (or lack thereof) laws - what does it mean for us? As far as I can see, very little right now. The concern is that, in future, will Google follow the Facebook route of collating information with the intent of selling it onto third parties for whatever revenue-generating reason it can think of? At present, we have companies in the UK who track our spending habits in order to build credit profiles, available on application to lenders who use it to assess our suitability for mortgages and credit cards, as well as to potential employers for whom a credit check is necessary. What if someone decides to create a service whereby potential employers can buy a "social media and web credit check" - to see what candidates post on social networking sites, how they behave, their web history, their online purchases - in order to assess whether the person might be a valuable employee or merely a porn-surfing, excessive shoe purchasing drunkard with a penchant for posting photos of themselves with their bottom out on Facebook whilst moaning about their clients on Twitter? And for how LONG will Facebook, Google et al retain this information for? Will a graduate who spent three wild years out partying and sharing it with the world find themselves explaining their party lifestyle to a future employer for five years? Ten? What effect could this have on being hired - or fired? At the moment, information stored about us is used with our implicit consent, the moment we hit the "agree" button when presented with the terms of use. How many of us actually READ these terms in any detail? And Facebook basically own us the moment we sign up for an account - they can do whatever they want with our information, because it belongs to THEM. If (when) Google follow suit, there's no saying who will one day be able to track what we search for online, how many pairs of jeans we buy each month, how much beer we drank at college, and even how we sign off emails to our mum.

It might not be evil, but it doesn't mean it's right.