Virtual Interviews: I

Since this pandemic arrived, much has changed about how we work. We're aware of some of the changes, but we're not yet aware of all. As time passes, and we encounter those less-common situations that don't arise every day, we'll gradually become aware of more changes. One of those less-common situations is what we call the interview. We use interviews in sociological research and investigations of all kinds, but the workplace context in which interviews come to mind most readily is perhaps the hiring process. What has changed about interviews in this pandemic is that more of them are now video interviews, also known as virtual interviews.

If you're considering candidates for a new position, for a recently vacated position, or for a position about to be vacated, or if you're a candidate yourself, it's helpful to understand the special properties of the kind of virtual interviews used in the hiring process. In the hiring process, four factors distinguish the virtual interview from the face-to-face interview. They are the home field advantage; the attendance list; video presence; and staging, lighting and makeup.

In this Part I, I focus on the home field advantage. In what follows, I'll use the term interviewer to refer to the representative of the hiring organization, and the term candidate to refer to the person seeking or considering the position.

Home field advantage

In sports, the term Because the essence of a job interview is
disclosure, perceptions of psychological
safety strongly determine the behavior
of both interviewer and candidatehome field advantage describes, for a specific match, the advantage enjoyed by the team that uses as its home facility the facility where the match in question is being held. The home field advantage phenomenon is real. In sports, five factors contribute to home field advantage: the behavior of the fans; the familiarity of the home team with the facility, the community, and the region; the rigors of travel; referee bias in patterns of decision making by officials; and territoriality in the form of elevated passions for defending the home territory.

Because there are no fans, media coverage, or referees in job interviews, the home field advantage in the context of job interviews clearly cannot involve fan behavior, biased referees, or territoriality. But there are analogs to the effects the rigors of travel and familiarity with the venue. One phenomenon that might underlie both of these factors is psychological safety.

Psychological safety

In a given social context, the degree of psychological safety is the prevalence of the perception that taking interpersonal risks is beneficial, or at worst benign. [Edmondson 2014] Speaking up, making suggestions, or disclosing preferences or aversions are examples of taking interpersonal risks.

Because the essence of a job interview is disclosure, perceptions of psychological safety strongly determine the behavior of both interviewer and candidate. Using the lens of psychological safety is helpful for understanding how virtual interviews differ from face-to-face interviews.

Consider face-to-face interviews first. In face-to-face interviews, the interviewer is "playing" on a "home field." Compared to the candidate, the interviewer is more familiar with the facility and the organization. Indeed, many face-to-face interviews are conducted in the interviewer's own office. And the candidate is more likely to have traveled away from home to be present at the interview.

For virtual interviews, by contrast, both parties are at their home fields. In terms of their environments, then, the home field advantage the face-to-face interviewer enjoys is significantly compromised. And it's therefore reasonable to suppose that with respect to their senses of psychological safety the interviewer and candidate are more likely to be in similar frames of mind.

Oddly, to the extent that there is a home field advantage in video interviews, there can also be home field disadvantages for the candidate. For face-to-face interviews, the candidate is likely dressed for the interview, which takes place in a business setting. But for video interviews, by comparison, the candidate might not be as well dressed. Some candidates exploit the camera's limitations. For example, a man might wear a suit jacket, dress shirt, and necktie, but sweat pants instead of suit pants. Only the candidate is aware of this, of course. But it might affect the candidate's approach to the situation. I know of no research that confirms this speculation, but I would not be surprised to learn that such an effect is measurable.

A similar speculation applies to the candidate's setting. The candidate's setting for a video interview might not be as businesslike as would be the setting for a face-to-face interview. Even if the spare bedroom is staged appropriately (more on this next time), the spare bedroom is still a spare bedroom. These differences in atmosphere might affect the candidate's demeanor in ways disadvantageous to the candidate.

Last words

The sense of psychological safety, and therefore the home field advantage, provides advantages to the interviewer for face-to-face interviews. The advantage to the interviewer probably extends also to the virtual interview, but it is attenuated somewhat. Candidates can gain some advantage by choosing a very businesslike setting for the interview, and by dressing as if for a face-to-face interview.

Many employers now recognize that video conferencing skill is an important competence for most knowledge workers. Candidates can gain still more advantage by recognizing that a virtual interview provides an opportunity to demonstrate superior video conferencing skill. Thinking of the interview as an audition can help clarify that particular objective of the exercise.

Next time I'll examine other attributes of the virtual interview, including the attendance list, video presence, and technical matters.   Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

First Aid for Painful Meetings

The foundation of any team meeting is its agenda. A crisply focused agenda can make the difference between a long, painful affair and finishing early. If you're the meeting organizer, develop and manage the agenda for maximum effectiveness.

Guidelines for Sharing "Resources"

Often, team members belong to several different teams. The leaders of teams whose members have divided responsibilities must sometimes contend with each other for the efforts and energies of the people they share. Here are some suggestions for sharing people effectively.

Ethical Debate at Work: II

Outcomes of debates at work sometimes favor one party, not only at the expense of the other or others, but also at the expense of the organization. Here's Part II of a set of guidelines for steering debates toward wise outcomes.

Risk Creep: I

Risk creep is a term that describes the insidious and unrecognized increase in risk that occurs despite our every effort to mitigate risk or avoid it altogether. What are the dominant sources of risk creep?

The Goal Is Not the Path

Sometimes, when reaching a goal is more difficult than we thought at first, instead of searching for another way to get there, we adjust the goal. There are alternatives.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 3: Additive bias…or Not: II

Additive bias is a cognitive bias that many believe contributes to bloat of commercial products. When we change products to make them more capable, additive bias might not play a role, because economic considerations sometimes favor additive approaches. Available here and by RSS on July 3.

And on July 10: On Delegating Accountability: I

As the saying goes, "You can't delegate your own accountability." Despite wide knowledge of this aphorism, people try it from time to time, especially when overcome by the temptation of a high-risk decision. What can you delegate, and how can you do it? Available here and by RSS on July 10.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info