The Interview is a Performance, Not a Prediction

By: Liz Lazar, Co-Founder & Principal

Over the past few months, I've found myself sitting on both sides of the interview table.  At Omni, we've been interviewing people to join our consulting bench. At the same time, I've been interviewing as Omni, with organizations looking for consulting partners.

It's been pretty enlightening.  The more interviews I participate in, the more convinced I become that interviews aren't actually very good at what we expect them to do.  Basically, they’re performances.  Candidates are trying to present the most polished version of themselves. Organizations are doing the same thing. Everyone is putting on their Sunday best and hoping the other side likes what they see.  Meanwhile, I don't think either side is getting the information they actually need.

Applicants to a job spend hours preparing answers to questions they've Googled a hundred times. "Tell me about a time you faced conflict.""What's your greatest weakness?""Where do you see yourself in five years?"  Meanwhile, organizations are putting on their own show.  "We're like a family.""We value work-life balance.""There's lots of opportunity for growth."

Nobody is lying exactly, but no one is telling the whole truth either.  The candidate doesn't mention that they hate public speaking or that they struggle with ambiguity. The company doesn't mention that priorities change weekly or that the team has been through three managers in two years.  Instead, both sides are selling the highlight reel.

I’m not saying that I think people set out to deceive, but I do think they are responding to the incentives we’ve created. If you're interviewing for a job, you're trying to convince someone to hire you.  If you're interviewing a consultant or an employee, you're trying to convince someone to choose your organization.  We've unintentionally designed a process where success depends on looking like the obvious choice, not on discovering whether the relationship itself will actually work.  Those aren't the same thing.

Some of the most common interview questions tell us very little.  Everyone has a polished answer for their greatest weakness.  Everyone says they work too hard, care too much, or are a recovering perfectionist.  Instead, what if we asked questions that were harder to rehearse?  ‘What type of work drains your energy?’  ‘What kind of manager gets the best work out of you?’  ‘What's something you hope isn't true about this role?’  And organizations should be answering questions just as candidly. ‘What frustrates your current employees?’ ‘Why have people struggled in this role before?’ ‘What does a normal Tuesday actually look like?’  Those answers are far more useful than another polished elevator pitch.

I think one of the biggest myths in hiring is that there's a perfect candidate, when in reality there isn’t. There are talented people who thrive in certain environments and struggle in others. There are great organizations that simply aren't great for everyone. The goal shouldn't be to convince someone to say yes, it should be to discover whether both sides should say yes.  That's a much harder conversation, but it's also a much more honest one.

Whether I'm interviewing someone to join Omni or sitting across the table representing Omni in a consulting opportunity, I've realized that my favorite conversations are the ones where the performance disappears.  When someone admits they don't know something; when a client openly shares what's been frustrating instead of pretending everything is under control, or when both sides stop trying to be impressive and start trying to be honest.

Those are the conversations that build trust. Maybe that's what interviews should have been about all along, not proving we're the right choice, but figuring out whether we're the right fit. Imagine how much time, money, and frustration we'd all save if we spent less energy selling the fit and more on testing it.