Should you be thinking fast or slow as a recruiter?

When recruiting, judgment is everything. With limited information, we rely on intuition and skill to weigh dozens of resumes and candidates, hoping to surface the best and brightest before the opportunity slips away.

But are we making these decisions in the most effective way?

According to psychologist Daniel Kahneman, there are two systems of thinking that drive our choices and clearly these have an impact on how we recruit people.

System 1 — Fast or intuitive thinking

This mode of thinking is instinctive and emotional. It is rapid, automatic, and often unconscious. For recruiters, fast thinking includes making quick judgments about candidates based on our first impressions or gut reactions. The average of six seconds we spend on reviewing a resume firmly falls into System 1 type thinking.

System 1 thinking is deeply ingrained in us through evolution and natural selection. It developed to aid human survival, with a focus on fast pattern recognition (that pesky lion by the river), emotional reaction, and heuristic reasoning. But the speed and intuitiveness of System 1 can also lead to biases and flaws we must be aware of, which is why we have the more reflective System 2.

System 2 — Slow or logical thinking

This thinking is deliberate and analytical. It is methodical, effortful, and logical. Slow thinking for recruiters means thoroughly evaluating candidates based on tangible factors like experience, skills, work samples, and structured interview responses. Slow thinking requires time and mental energy. Structured interviews are a great example of System 2 at work.

Most recruiters utilize elements of both fast and slow thinking at different stages of the hiring process but System 2 is clearly more suited to the later stages of recruitment when we have more time to spend on individiual candidates.

Why is System 1 problematic?

Aside from the fact that it has been honed from millenia of evolution to spot dangerous lions rather than great candidates there are several reasons why System 1 or fast intuitive thinking can be problematic when it comes to recruitment and hiring decisions.

• It leads to biases and stereotypes. When making quick judgments about candidates, recruiters may rely on stereotypes, snap assessments, and gut reactions that reflect implicit or unconscious biases regarding factors like gender, ethnicity, age, attractiveness, etc. This can negatively impact diversity and lead to poor hiring choices.
• First impressions are often misleading. The rapid assessments of candidates that System 1 favors are frequently inaccurate or unreliable. Judging a candidate’s skills, abilities, and potential based just on a brief first interaction or cursory look at a resume is likely to lead to bad hiring outcomes.
• It favors confidence over accuracy. When thinking fast, we tend to be overly confident in our intuitive judgments. We believe our instincts and gut feelings reflect the truth, even without logical evidence to support them. In reality, intuition is prone to error and subjectivity.
• It ignores contradictory evidence. System 1 thinking leads us to readily notice and believe information that confirms what we already think, while ignoring data that contradicts our views. This “confirmation bias” causes recruiters to overlook critical information when assessing and interviewing candidates.
• It leads to “anchoring effects.” The first piece of information we receive about a candidate, such as an initial rating or impression, serves as an “anchor” that colors our subsequent judgments. We fail to adequately adjust away from that anchor, even when presented with new information that should change our view.
• The halo/horns effect misleads. When a candidate makes a good first impression, it causes a “halo effect” leading us to see all their attributes as positive. A poor first impression leads to a “horns effect” where we view everything about the candidate negatively.
• Intuition favors “like” over “ability.” System 1 thinking leads us to favor candidates we personally connect with or “like” rather than those who may actually be the most competent or high-potential. Our instincts guide us toward those who feel familiar or similar to us, not necessarily the best person for the job.
• It lacks objective measurement. Fast thinking relies on gut feelings and subjective impressions rather than data, metrics, and factual evidence regarding a candidate’s abilities, knowledge, skills, and potential for success. Without measurement, hiring decisions are more likely to be misguided.

In summary, while System 1 thinking has its benefits when it comes to forming connections or gaining first insights, it should not be relied upon when making recruiting and hiring choices because it can lead to errors.

Intuition must be balanced with objective measurement and factual evidence to optimize decision making. Recruiters need to employ logical and methodical thinking, not just gut reactions.

So what is the solution?

When candidates first apply for a role, it’s easy to make snap judgments about their potential and fit. But these initial impressions are often wrong and prevent great candidates from progressing in the process.

As recruiters, we must be disciplined in how we evaluate and engage with candidates at the “top of the funnel” to avoid early mistakes.

• Recognize and mitigate your biases. Notice if you favor or dismiss candidates based primarily on intuition rather than facts. Work to consider each candidate objectively based on their skills and merits alone.
• Combine your intuition with data. Don’t ignore your gut reactions, but look to gather objective information.
• Question your assumptions. When a candidate doesn’t seem like a “good fit” based on your initial interaction, explore why and look for countervailing facts. The issue may be in your perception, not the candidate. Seek alternative perspectives to challenge your views.
• Consider both cultural fit and competence. Determine if candidates demonstrate potential for high performance and the ability to align with your values. But don’t overvalue “fit” and undervalue skills. Poor hiring choices result when you favor one but not the other.
• Have confidence in your judgments but verify them. Trust your ability to evaluate candidates but validate your impressions through further research and by chatting with others. Revisiting your notes, the candidate’s background, and input from key stakeholders builds accuracy.

What about technology?

Technology is well suited to the System 1 aspects of recruiting that rely on fast, intuitive thinking. Algorithms can quickly screen and filter resumes, identifying candidates that match specified criteria. AI tools can analyze language, word choice, and other attributes to determine culture fit and flag high-potential candidates for further review.

Predictive analytics platforms leverage large datasets to spot correlations and patterns in candidates that lead to successful hires. Chatbots and conversational AI allow candidates and recruiters to engage in an unstructured back-and-forth, sharing information and gauging fit through a natural, intuitive dialogue.

Technology can handle the initial, rapid, automatic parts of the process and help to augment System 1 type thinking. While technology cannot replace human judgment, it enhances our instinctive abilities and frees our time to focus on the more reflective aspects of hiring that demand personal consideration and a human touch as people progress through the later stages of the recruitment funnel.

Technology makes fast thinking faster and frees us for slow thinking. Used together, human and machine get the best of both — rapid insights and reasoned judgment. The most effective recruiters use both instinct and evidence to progress the right candidates.

By combining intuition, technology and data we will get to the best hiring outcomes.

Think fast and slow, not fast or slow.

Shane