Navigation
Search
New Comments
Handy Links
Syndication
« Integrity issues at the TSA? | Main | New I-O Networking Site »
The Importance of a Good Shake
On May 8, 2008 by Jamie Madigan
What's the best way to ace an interview? Come prepared with facts and examples of how your qualifications make you a strong fit with the requirements of the position? Nope. Apparently you just need a firm handshake. The kind that says "I have a high composite score on measures of extroversion and emotional stability AND I WILL CRUSH YOU!"
Well, that's the story from this article, which describes some research forthcoming in --of all places-- The Journal of Applied Psychology. The research, conducted by professor Greg Steward at the University of Iowa, describes an experiment where student subjects did mock job interviews and had their handshakes systematically evaluated. Those with beefier grips had higher ratings of their interview performance.
Now, we've all heard or read little bits of advice about how to dress, how to speak, and how to shake hands at an interview, but unless the person is interviewing for the job of Bare-Fisted Walnut Crusher (O*Net Online job code #39-2011.00, look it up), it's a little surprising that handshakes would have a particularly strong effect on objective interview ratings.
In fact, I look forward to reading the study when it comes out in JAP. I'm not sure if this is a case of the author of the article linked above selectively quoting to make a more interesting story, but this bit by the researcher made me arch an eyebrow:
"We probably don't consciously remember a person's handshake or whether it was good or bad," Stewart said. "But the handshake is one of the first nonverbal clues we get about the person's overall personality, and that impression is what we remember."
Of course there's tons of research on interview biases and first impressions, but one would hope that if you wanted to measure someone's personality, you'd choose a better way to go about it. There ARE tests for that kind of thing in wide use. Again, I look forward to learning more about the research design, but what this really points to is the need for more structured interviews that were designed according to well established job analyses so that not only do you have interview content that's job related, but you've got tools and procedures built into the interview process that minimize biases born of handshakes or other silliness. It would be interesting, for example, to study whether or not the degree to which the interview was structured moderated or mediated the handshake/interview performance relationship.
Still, if you want my advice on handshakes, here's how to pull one off that's sure to make an impression: Grasp the other person's hand as hard as you can. If they whimper and maybe bend at the knees, you're doing it right. Lean forward until you make eye contact --as in, your eyeballs actually make contact with the other person. Pump the hand up and down twice, but don't let go. Seriously, don't let go until the interview is over even if it means you have to do the whole thing with your arm stretched out across the table to the other person. If there is a second interviewer, use your free hand to repeat. If there are three or more interviewers, bring a friend.
Let me know how this works out for you. I'm curious to hear.
Existing comments:
Posted by David Morris at May 10, 2008 10:19 AM:
Job interviews are the 'one night stand' of selection methods. People will 'say anything' or 'be anything' they think you want them to hear and say to get the job. What's worse, as highlighted in your post, we're are not very good decision makers. Hey, Ted Bundy was charismatic and well-liked by people who met him. He was also a narcissistic psychopath. I would be money though that he'd 'kill' [pun intended] in the interview. Robert Hogan has either done, or references some interesting research around maximal/typical performance and the fact that narcissistic and sociopathic individuals tend to do very well in the interview. In my opinion, we need to completely overhaul the current recruiting/hiring process. For starters, I think we're too hung up on recruiting metrics such as open/closed reqs, time to fill, time to hire, etc. I also think we make it too easy in most cases for people to get hired. I am currently doing a job analysis on some of our Sales positions (job analysis isn't dead, or is it?) and I had an interesting conversation with one hiring manager. He told me that it takes him several interviews with each person before he really feels comfortable in making a decision. He said the first interview he's just trying to get to know the person and gauge how interested he/she is in the position, and the company. Over the next couple of weeks, through phone calls, emails, and more interviews, he says he's better able to filter out the people who are the 'opportunists' from those who really want the job. I think he might be onto something here. I think HR has done a disservice to organizations by focusing too much on pushing people through the process and putting 'butts in seats'. I think we've been bamboozled by technology. Most of which just allows us to push paper faster and doesn't aid in helping us find the best candidates. I can't help think of the parallel between this and quick credit checks and on-the-spot loans. In a way, we're really talking about similar things here. How much faith can I put in a person to show up to work with a good attitude, do their best, and contribute to the overall effectiveness of the team or organization (or repay the loan). Look where technology has gotten us with credit. I think we may be headed in the same direction with applicant tracking systems.
Post your own comment:
