I’ve been thinking a lot lately about my own and my clients’ experiences of performing for the purposes of being assessed – job interviews, auditions and the like – and what can make the difference between a successful, positive experience and a negative one that might lead to shame, fear and a knock to self-esteem. I’ve experienced and heard about interview and audition situations that range from the joyful to the downright traumatic. This has made me a passionate advocate for an approach that pays attention to psychological safety as a means of getting the best from the candidate. Below, I offer some tips and reflection points to support leaders involved in recruitment, audition and assessment of candidates to create a safe and welcoming enough environment to help the hopefuls to shine.
It feels important to note that a positive experience (whether or not the person gets the job, passes the exam or bags their dream role) is created both by the individual being assessed and those tasked with judging their performance. And there may be an element of assessing ability to perform under pressure involved in many cases, but I’d argue that being judged by people who have the power to change their life represents a sufficiently pressurised situation, no matter what the context. We don’t need to engineer additional stress on top of what may already be a nerve-wracking experience.
So, what do I mean by ‘psychological safety’? This is about creating conditions that allow people to feel welcome, valued and able to express themselves authentically. When people feel safe and grounded, they can access the skills, qualities and brain functions that allow them to give their very best performance. It’s true that we can’t create or guarantee a sense of safety in someone else, regardless of what we put in place – some of that work rests with the individual. But we all have a different baseline and set of experiences that influence how we feel and function, both in general and in specific situations. We all consciously and unconsciously bring baggage wherever we go. In our bags, we may be carrying messages and judgements that influenced us as children, previous experiences that influence our thoughts, communication and the way we use our bodies. Some people may have worked hard at unpacking their luggage and discarding any reactions and coping mechanisms that are outdated and unhelpful, only to find that they have sneaked back into their bags when a stressful situation presents itself. If a candidate has had negative experiences of being seen, heard and judged or assessed in the past, they may find that they need to do a lot of work to calm and ground themselves enough to be able to give their best performance (tips on reducing performance anxiety in part 1 of this series here). So, what can you put in place as a recruiter/assessor to help candidates show you what they can really do?
-Be warm and welcoming:
An authentic attempt to connect and show someone that they are welcome and valued can make a real difference to their experience. We are wired to seek out signs of whether we belong in an environment because it has historically been crucial to our survival. Most of us are well attuned to signs that someone is impatient, bored or disengaged. This may be something to consider at the point where interviews, auditions etc. are being scheduled, as an over-stretched, exhausted or rushed recruiter may well have a negative impact. Additionally, gentle eye contact can often support an overwhelmed person to ground and re-regulate (I acknowledge that in some cases, direct eye contact can increase stress - e.g. for some Autistic candidates. It’s best to be responsive to individual reactions and follow their lead).
-Manage expectations:
As far as possible, let candidates know in advance what to expect and offering any information you can give about the format, timings, space and anything else that might help them to prepare. This stage also offers an opportunity to find out if any reasonable adjustments are required if you haven’t already. Predictability can help to set up a sense of safety, and can be offered while still requiring the person to think on their feet, if necessary. And be honest about what the person can expect following their experience – if you know that it’s likely to take a long time to make a decision, or if you truly lack the capacity to offer feedback to unsuccessful candidates, let them know in advance.
-Interrogate your unconscious bias:
I can think of a number of situations where an assessor’s bias has been made very apparent by specific questions, expressions of surprise or rejections based on incorrect assumptions or judgements. I would argue that we all need to develop a practice of interrogating our assumptions about a person based on, for example, their perceived age, gender expression, neurotype/disability, ethnicity, accent or perceived socioeconomic background. This is especially true in recruitment. Having been on both sides of the recruitment process, I’ve found that sometimes we can’t quite pin down the reason when someone is ‘good on paper’ but not quite right. Maybe the chemistry is wrong, maybe it’s not the best ‘culture fit’, maybe we had a specific vision in our mind’s eye that’s difficult to let go. That might be entirely valid - often, our instincts are worth listening to. But being in a position of power means there’s an added responsibility to check out and unpack any assumptions that may be underneath the feeling. I believe that expanding our vision around how a person in a specific role could look, sound and behave has benefits on a level wider than the person, role and organisation. Being able to honestly evaluate what we might have assumed about a person, and on what basis, can help us make more informed, fair decisions. And, speaking as a person who can tick a few ‘protected characteristic’ boxes on the equalities monitoring form, I can tell you that when these biases are front and centre in a recruitment process, we can often tell.
-Provide a safe container:
You may or may not have much control over the physical environment in which you carry out interviews, auditions etc. Ideally, the space would be comfortable, an appropriate size (big enough to maintain a sense of personal space but not unnecessarily large) and set out in a way that suggests welcome, warmth and calm. As a minimum, I’d suggest a psychologically safe-enough space needs to be quiet, free from interruptions and tidy. If there are a number of factors that are not in your control, consider what you can do to mitigate. Can you section off part of a large space to offer a sense of containment? Can you do anything to influence the level of background noise coming from adjacent spaces? If not, it can be even more important to cultivate a sense of safety through your interactions with the candidate and, if something in the space is unavoidably presenting an obvious distraction or barrier, to acknowledge this and perhaps discuss potential ways of minimising the impact. It’s impossible to anticipate the different needs of every person who enters your space, but thinking ahead about how people with accessibility needs or sensory sensitivities might experience it is a useful place to start.
-Be patient:
Experienced assessors are often skilled in putting nervous candidates at ease by being patient, recognising when they have stumbled that they may need a moment to regroup and try again, and even at times offering words of encouragement or reminders to take a breath. Even the most talented and capable people can come unstuck under pressure in a way that may not reflect their ability to perform in the role. Helping someone who is experiencing a ‘freeze’ response to re-regulate doesn’t demonstrate preferential treatment – it’s an acknowledgement that ‘singing for their supper’ (whether literally or figuratively) can be overwhelming sometimes. Demonstrating that you haven’t written someone off when their Autonomic Nervous System has gone into hyper- or hypo-arousal can often help them to regain control and deliver a fantastic performance.
-Let go of survivor’s bias:
In some professions and performing arts contexts, an element of acceptance of unnecessary stress or even ritual humiliation can persist because ‘we all had to go through it’ and it’s ‘character building’. I can think of some particularly egregious examples of this from high stress environments with pronounced hierarchies and heavy emphasis on tradition. I hope that this is a mindset that’s on its way out as we develop a common awareness of the need to support our people’s wellbeing (both because we value them as people and because healthy people perform better). It may be the case that the threshold for what constitutes a humiliating, shaming or unnecessarily exposing situation varies from person to person. But it’s worth considering what purpose a particular aspect of an assessment serves and whether it’s the best way of achieving that aim. Are you planning consciously, or falling into the trap of doing things in a specific way because that’s ‘just how things have always been done’? Do candidates really need to be auditioned and given feedback in front of the entire pool of hopefuls? Is your recruitment process putting extra pressure on those with caring responsibilities, health needs or long hours in their current role by requiring them to carry out unpaid work that will take several hours? Does anyone on your interview panel regard a candidate’s questions about reasonable adjustments, working culture or hours/boundaries as a sign that they are likely to be ‘difficult’ to work with?
Perhaps these ideas seem like basic examples of good practice. Or maybe as you read this, you notice a sense of irritation about the increasing demands made by early career professionals. Maybe there’s a sense of regret that some of these courtesies weren’t extended to you when you were starting out in your career. It might be useful to take a moment to reflect on what has been provoked or inspired in you as you read this. And I’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject – you can contact me here.