I am sometimes astounded by the amount of misinformation available about how to conduct a good interview and spot an ideal candidate. As I was reading an article by Kathryn Tuggle on “How to Spot a resume of a Psychopath Applying to Work with You”, I was stunned by the outdated ideas were presented as benchmarks when determining your next employee. Many of her ideas could actually cause you to miss out on a great candidate with the first problem beginning with the title of the article.
First of all, NO ONE can spot a psychopath be reading their resume. As a matter of fact, you can’t find a great candidate at all by reading their resume. People on paper are not the same as they are in person. A complete measure of an individual candidate can only occur when you meet face to face.
Second of all, the article continues to pose that a candidate that you are hiring with work “with” you; you are hiring a person to work “for” you. There is an enormous difference in looking for a partner to work “with” and an employee who will work “for” you.
Then, there is the myth of job hopping. The idea that job hopping is a negative is one that we should stop measuring our candidates by. The concept should have gone out with the 50’s notion that we should work for one company until you retire. We have discovered having the same position for decades that lingers on and on (like a bad hangover) actually reduces our productivity. Research shows that people who job hop every 2-3 years are actually more successful. Ms. Tuggle quoted a psychologist who says that psychopaths will job hop. Well so do people in their 20’s who haven’t settled down yet. As well as those that realize opportunities may exist more quickly with other companies than a current position may hold. It doesn’t mean that they are a bad hire. In addition, I greatly appreciate a person who leaves a job because they know it isn’t a good fit versus one who will stay just to be able to put 2 years on a resume. Neither of these situations is a win-win for the employee and the employer. Also, Dr. Greenberg makes the assumption that someone who leaves before a year “can’t hold down a job.” What if they had to move home to take care of an aging parent? What if their military spouse got transferred to another state? You NEVER know why someone left a job and to assume that they left because they are a psychopath is dangerous and judgmental.
Dr. Greenberg continues to express a concern and assumption that clear sign of a psychopath is that they are unable to be quiet in an interview. Being a talker doesn’t mean your candidate is a psychopath. In a well run interview, the candidate should be talking most of the time and about themselves. They should be letting you know how they can help you, which is not the same as them “blowing their horn for an hour” as referred to in the article.
One point that was brought up that I may agree with a bit is when you hear a candidate blaming their boss for not getting promoted. This could be a clear sign that the candidate isn’t taking ownership for their part in the last position not working out. But again, that doesn’t make the candidate a psychopath. It could just mean that the candidate hasn’t worked out their issues with the last position. An experienced interviewer will be able to glean enough information from that person to decide if the issues are big enough to warrant not making a job offer.
The last point that Dr. Greenberg makes is that a candidate who compliments you on your office décor is a manipulator. Not necessarily true. They may be trying to break the ice. The discomfort of the interview process, especially for the candidate, is like no other we experience. If the compliment feels insincere or “slimy” certainly pay attention. However not all people who compliment the interviewer are manipulators.
Articles like these are dangerous. They make broad, sweeping arguments that a particular behavior is bad and that the person exhibiting the behavior is bad. I have successful exceptions to every one of these so called “psychopathic behaviors”. Dr. Greenberg needs to stick to therapy and stay out of interviewing or our work force will be completed misplaced.
You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater Beth.
Your tenor suggests you have never experienced, and have no empathy for those who have been manipulated exploited, bullied or destroyed working for a psychopath.
Your use of the word ‘should’ betrays your own narcissistic deployment of an unsubstantiated authority over someone obviously better qualified, though perhaps not so obviously of a more humane disposition than you.
The fact you also make no suggestion as to how the crucial matter of filtering out psychopathic applicants might take place also speaks volumes for your not ‘caring’.
Gordon, I appreciate your response. While I disagree with your assessment, your opinion is valuable to me. Thank you.