Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work (29 page)

220

S N A K E S I N S U I T S

• Did the candidate exhibit good judgment in the career moves he or she made?

• Did the candidate grow in his or her job and take on more responsibilities over time or merely do the same thing repeatedly?

• Did the candidate demonstrate leadership, integrity, effective communications, teamwork, and persuasion skills (among others)?

One common mistake interviewers make is to concentrate only on the overt answers and their own impressions and to not delve into the underlying competencies, motivations, and work values of the candidate. The reason for this is understandable: it takes a tremendous amount of work to craft questions designed to elicit competency-based responses, and a lot of experience conducting interviews to be able to interpret them correctly. In large companies, where structured interviews are the norm, the HR staff typically prepares a list of questions based on the information contained in the job description about responsibilities, competencies, standards, and so forth. A good job description leads to useful questions, while a hastily prepared job description leads to vague or poor questions.

These questions are then distributed among the interviewers (assuming multiple interviews). Interviewers are then taught how to pose the questions in order to elicit the most useful information. Good listening skills and note taking by the interviewer are critical, as multiple candidates and the passing of time tend to cloud recollection of specific responses, and may lead to reliance on recalled impressions or gut feelings, which may be faulty

The next phase involves providing information about the job and company to the candidate. Research has shown that the more candidates know about the day-to-day ins and outs of a job, the better able they are to decide for themselves whether there will be a good match between their aspirations and expectations and what the job has to offer. A candidate who opts out of a job because of information
Enemy at the Gates

221

learned during an interview saves both parties time and energy that could be better spent in other pursuits. A common mistake made by interviewers, though, is to get so caught up in their description of the job and their department that interview time flies by and subsequent questioning does not take place. Some interviewers, unfortunately, like to hear themselves speak, and candidates are naturally reluctant to interrupt. Therefore, it is prudent to put this discussion toward the end of the interview, and definitely avoid starting with it. The interviewer’s goal should always be to get answers to every question that may come up about the candidate once he leaves. This may be a tall order, but it is a worthy objective of any interview.

During the course of an interview, there may be some bits of information revealed or comments made that just do not sit right with the interviewer. There may be areas of performance and experience that were not sufficiently addressed because the interviewer did not ask or did not explore more carefully, or because they were glossed over by the candidate. For example, when a candidate states: “My team won the company award for bringing the project in under budget and ahead of schedule,” the interviewer may wonder:

• Was the candidate the leader of the team, or did he or she fill in when the boss was away?

• Was the candidate an active (nonleader) participant or merely the recorder of the meeting minutes?

• Did the candidate use this team experience to demonstrate leadership, despite not having the actual title?

• Did the company recognize the candidate’s performance by assigning another project with more responsibility?

Details like these may not have been addressed during the initial line of questioning, or may come to mind based on subsequent information provided by the candidate. The follow-up on concerns phase is the time to pursue details that do not jive or that conflict. Inconsistencies may be the result of hasty answering or the result of
222

S N A K E S I N S U I T S

distortion, exaggeration, or possibly invention. During this phase, the interviewer drills down even further into the details of the candidate’s past in search of the critical information needed to understand what the candidate’s experience really entailed. It is also a time to clarify inconsistencies, to get a read on his or her true motivations, and to answer the question: What did the candidate really do on the job, and is it important for the position we need to fill?

A typical question asked during this phase of the interview might be, “I’d like to go back to your description of the project team you were on. What was the specific role you were assigned?” [The candidate answers.] “What was your relationship like with . . .” and so forth. This line of questioning is sometimes difficult for less experienced interviewers because they lack the verbal skills or tact to ask specific questions without offending the candidate, or they do not like to confront others in general. Yet pointed questions may be the only way to satisfy the concerns of the interviewer, and perfectly clear answers should be the only way for the candidate to maintain his or her candidacy. Again, answers can be analyzed on many levels, providing more information about competencies, motivations, and values.

We might note here that a formal clinical assessment of psychopathy such as with the PCL: SV cannot be conducted without access to corroborating information before the interview. This allows the interviewer to question and resolve inconsistencies that occur within the interview and between the interview and other “hard”

sources of information. This may mean simply pointing out the inconsistency and asking the candidate to “help me out here.” Or, it may require systematic probes and judicious challenges. In any case, the interviewer must recognize that everyone engages in some form of impression management, but psychopaths are masters at it.

Finally, a positive close to the interview is important in order to maintain good rapport with the candidate. Candidates will often ask what the next steps in the hiring process are, and the interviewer should have an answer that is appropriate to the situation.

Enemy at the Gates

223

r e ta i n c o n t r o l o f t h e i n t e rv i e w One of the problems that researchers who interview psychopaths face is losing control of the interview. Psychopaths avoid answering direct questions, but rather introduce topics into the conversation that are interesting to the interviewer. Before you know it, you are the one being interviewed and your plan is derailed. You lose sight of what the interview was about in the first place.

Psychopaths often perform exceedingly well during an interview.

They experience little social anxiety and discomfort during interpersonal encounters that most would find daunting. This allows them to weave convincing tales of professional experience, integrity, and competence, and to use an array of technical terms and jargon with such confidence and panache that even the experts are fooled. The astute interviewer might be able to determine whether or not these tales reflect more than a superficial knowledge of the topic. Even so, the task will not be an easy one. When a psychopath is challenged on any detail during an interview, he or she will simply shift gears, subtly change the topic, and generally weave an altered tale so believable that even an interviewer who knows the individual is lying might have doubts. The psychopath’s goal is to convince HR interviewers and the hiring manager that he has the ideal background, experience, and motivation to fill the job, and that he is bright and very likable.

The candidate can be so convincing that the psychopathic fiction, “I am the ideal employee,” may be readily accepted by the interviewer.

Once the hiring manager is convinced, he or she will champion the applicant’s candidacy, and there may be little that can be done to prevent it. An obvious solution to the misleading résumé problem is to verify its contents, but this step is often delayed until after the interview. Psychopaths and other candidates who distort their résumés capitalize on this fact.

When dealing with any job candidate the interviewer must keep in mind who is in control of the interview. The goal of any interview is to gather facts, verify them, and make an informed
224

S N A K E S I N S U I T S

choice. The following suggestions or guidelines are based on interviewing best practices, and are useful when interviewing all types of candidates.

s t i c k t o t h e p l a n

Armed with questions designed to get a reasonably accurate picture of the candidate’s knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes, the interviewer should make sure that all the questions are answered to his or her satisfaction. The more information gleaned from the interview, the better the final decision making. Psychopaths as well as other clever interviewees will attempt to shift the interview to a friendly conversation about themselves and, if the interviewer is predisposed, a discussion of the interviewer. While this may leave the impression that the candidate is a good conversationalist and generally open and friendly, it misses the point of the hiring interview, which is to get the facts. Better to stick to the plan and get as much information about the candidate as possible in the time allotted.

a s k f o r w o r k s a m p l e s It is customary in the arts and entertainment field for job candidates to show up with examples of their work in the form of a portfolio, which may include photos for models, movies for visual media professionals, and articles for journalists. This allows the hiring manager to see the actual product of each candidate’s efforts and judge its quality, style, and appropriateness to the open position. In the case of business job candidates, the hiring manager should ask to see examples of actual reports written, presentations made, and projects completed. These, of course, should have any identifying or confidential information blanked out, but the great bulk of the work can be read and judged. If a candidate cannot provide copies, ask that they be brought to any subsequent meeting for review on site, should there be a follow-up meeting.

While we would not be surprised if an enterprising psychopath created a phony report or found one on the Internet just to satisfy a
Enemy at the Gates

225

potential hiring company, the effort may be more than most psychopaths are willing to invest. Should you suspect that the portfolio is falsified or not the work product of the candidate, the only way to uncover this may be to drill into details behind the actual report as you question the candidate. But this approach assumes that the hiring manager has the technical expertise to do so, and, if not, may best be left to a technical interviewer on staff.

f o c u s o n a c t i o n a n d b e h av i o r Most interviewees speak vaguely about their past without providing sufficient detail about what they really did. Others exaggerate their contributions, giving themselves the appearance of being more important to the outcome than they actually were. A full answer should include a statement of some goal to be achieved or problem that had to be solved, followed by a review of the actual things the candidates did, whether directly or tangentially, to address the goal, and, finally, the outcome of their efforts, including what impact their efforts had on the results.

c l a r i f y d e ta i l s

When faced with responses that do not provide sufficient details, the interviewer must go back during follow-up questioning to flesh out the complete picture. The interview should redirect candidates to specific areas of interest as much as possible, especially about broad concepts like leadership. “Who, what, when, where, and why” types of follow-up questions can help get to the truth behind the experience being described.

Supporting roles are quite important, and the job being filled may require this sort of background and experience, but supporting roles are different from supervisory and management roles (which often involve the command and control of events, actions, and outcomes).

The interviewer should be clear on the level of authority the candidate claimed to have had, and then pursue a line of questioning aimed at finding out just how much influence, decision making, and
226

S N A K E S I N S U I T S

freedom to act the candidate actually exerted on his or her past jobs.

There can be many reasons for the candidate to continue to provide vague answers, including nervousness, forgetfulness, or the fact that he or she is exaggerating. The interviewer should keep this in mind while pressing for details.

l o o k f o r a p p r o p r i at e f e e l i n g s One of the hallmarks of a psychopath is the inability to express a full range of normal emotions. For example, when telling a story that would normally elicit visible emotional reactions in most people, psychopaths often come across as cold and shallow, or as B-grade actors.

Psychopaths do not understand what others mean by their “feelings,”

yet they will attempt to mimic them on demand. This often leads to superficial expressions or even exaggerations of emotion inappropriate to the event being described. There are many cases of psychopathic criminals describing the most heinous crimes in a matter-of-fact conversation, to the consternation of interviewers—but they may also claim to feel remorse or experience religious enlightenment to the parole board considering their early release. The most stunning examples of the “emotional disconnect” between feelings and actions are when serial killers describe their crimes. (See sidebar, page 228)
They Just Don’t Get It: 2

Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka videotaped their torture and rape of several young women, whom they later killed. As part of a “battered wife syndrome” plea bargain, Homolka testified against Bernardo and received a twelve-year sentence. He received a sentence of twenty-five years before eligibility for parole. When Bernardo was asked at his trial why he had kept the tapes, he replied, “I couldn’t bring myself to throw (them) out because this was the last memory of these girls.”