Anyone with knowledge of game theory?

[+ purplekow]

I am on a committee which is to interview four candidates for a job that they are all equally qualified to fill.  I have a favored candidate and I convinced the chairman of the committee to interview in reverse alphabetical order rather than alphabetical order.  This moved my candidate's interview position from first to last.  I felt that by doing so, I increased her chances of success.  My thinking is that by the time the fourth candidate is interviewed, she will only have to outshine one candidate,  Each member of the committee would have likely picked their favorite from the first three and though it may be a different candidate for each member of the committee, she would only have to outshine that one candidate.  In discussing this with a friend, they are of the opinion that it does not matter as she still needs to be the best candidate.  

I think that when it comes down to it, it will always be between her and one other candidate per decider whereas in any other interview position you will be compared to two or three candidates head to head and must outshine each one, one at a time.   

So game theorists, who is right on this?  Is going last an advantage or not?

 

[keefer]

interesting question -- googled and poked through a few articles;  the pattern I'm detecting is there are many variables involved, including type of role, duration of interview process (period between first and last candidate), if the committee truly understands the role/subject they are trying to fill, as well as a host of other biases.   I suspect this is why executive recruiters cull a large field of candidates down to three - so the decision makers can see a limited number of candidates on the same day.   here's an interesting article on interview order biases:    https://www.higheredjobs.com/Articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=662

 

[Guest]

How “Dangerous Liaisons” of you!

But it interesting that you feel gamesmanship is necessary given that they all are equally qualified.  I would have expected that one would be ambivalent to a choice among equal candidates.  Have you assessed your basis of bias in favor of her?

[+ WilliamM]

Ask them how well they do in job interviews. Really.

[+ purplekow]

17 hours ago, BnaC said:

How “Dangerous Liaisons” of you!

But it interesting that you feel gamesmanship is necessary given that they all are equally qualified.  I would have expected that one would be ambivalent to a choice among equal candidates.  Have you assessed your basis of bias in favor of her?

They are equally qualified on initial evaluation by the committee as a whole.  I have worked with all four for at least 10 years.  I am confident that the one I favor is capable of doing a better job than the others.  She is also the only non white and only female candidate with a an all white male committee.  She also has the most important position right now and would need to be replaced which will likely work against her as it would be easier to take one of the others who have positions which are more readily filled.  In fact, at the first search committee meeting one of the members said flat out, why do we have to interview her, we should just let her stay where she is, without the qualifying rhetoric about being difficult to replace. 

[+ FreshFluff]

On 6/17/2021 at 11:15 PM, purplekow said:

I am on a committee which is to interview four candidates for a job that they are all equally qualified to fill.  I have a favored candidate and I convinced the chairman of the committee to interview in reverse alphabetical order rather than alphabetical order.  This moved my candidate's interview position from first to last.  I felt that by doing so, I increased her chances of success.  My thinking is that by the time the fourth candidate is interviewed, she will only have to outshine one candidate,  Each member of the committee would have likely picked their favorite from the first three and though it may be a different candidate for each member of the committee, she would only have to outshine that one candidate.  In discussing this with a friend, they are of the opinion that it does not matter as she still needs to be the best candidate.  

I think that when it comes down to it, it will always be between her and one other candidate per decider whereas in any other interview position you will be compared to two or three candidates head to head and must outshine each one, one at a time.   

So game theorists, who is right on this?  Is going last an advantage or not?

 

Not a game theorist, but as someone else said, there a lot of literature on order effects. I think one big factor at play is whether the committee coalesces around a single candidate before #4 shows up. Your candidate may actually be better off if they can’t agree amd she’s the compromise pick. Also, are we assuming that the committee will definitely hire? If there’s no agreement, the committee often choose to wait rather than go with a compromise pick. 

Beyond game theory, people tend to remember events at the end of something the best. That may help her. 

[mike carey]

5 hours ago, purplekow said:

She is also the only non white and only female candidate with a an all white male committee.

The points in this sentence are interesting. When I was last in the workforce here, about 15 years ago, having a single-sex selection committee was not permitted, at least in public sector employment.

[+ purplekow]

9 hours ago, FreshFluff said:

Not a game theorist, but as someone else said, there a lot of literature on order effects. I think one big factor at play is whether the committee coalesces around a single candidate before #4 shows up. Your candidate may actually be better off if they can’t agree amd she’s the compromise pick. Also, are we assuming that the committee will definitely hire? If there’s no agreement, the committee often choose to wait rather than go with a compromise pick. 

Beyond game theory, people tend to remember events at the end of something the best. That may help her. 

From What I have read, there are arguments for first interviewed and last interviewed defending on a variety of factors.  These interviews are being done for one hour, one day a week over four weeks.  As the four candidates are known to most of the committee, there may well be favorites based on prior relationships.  Any little advantage may not overcome that.  The one advantage the person going last might have is based on the question panel.  The committee has decided that all four candidates will be asked the same 11 questions with an opening statement and a closing statement.  The person going last may learn what questions are being asked as these things have a way of leaking out.   I think the format should be changed to allow a candidate to be questioned based on their individual strengths and weaknesses.  That was deemed unfair by the committee as a whole in a close vote.   

I am in a position to have a larger than average stake in the outcome, as the person getting the position will be the Chair of my department.  The Committee members are Chairs of other Departments.  I have a non-voting role and I am there to act as a liaison between the Department and the Committee.  I was selected by the Department as a whole to Chairthe Committee that is advising the Selection Committee of the Department's needs and wants  and to report back to the Department concerning the selection process.   Pretty much, I am the middle man in a three person game of Telephone.  .   

[Luv2play]

What an interesting situation you are in. During my professional career, I interviewed, along with two other persons, people that would be working for me. The others were a person above me in the hierarchy and a PR person. We were always able to agree on the best candidate.I don't remember order of interviews being determinative. But we also did the interviews on the same day.

Now in retirement, I have only had one opportunity to participate in a hiring process for an institution that I am chairman of the board. The other two judges were the ones who would supervise the successful candidate, one the director of the institution. Again, the order of interviews did not influence the outcome as we all three were agreed on the successful candidate of the four interviewed. And that person, after 5 years, has justified our judgment of her qualities.

 

[Bargara Leatherboy]

I used to do a lot of recruitment, in a previous role.

 

We always recruited in pairs, and I know that my bias would make an appearance, and i would defeat my bias by focusing on the interview, and making sure that the decision we were making was based on what was good for the company and my focus was always how can we make this candidate successful.

 

I remember one interview here the candidate appeared to be a non starter when he walked in the room, i was interviewing with a colleague and we both pressed him for responses, and asked more probing questions to his inadequate responses.

After the interview we both made extensive notes as to why he was not successful.

 

i know when i moved to the public sector, and a panel had to be gender balanced, and always a third person from another govt department, I remember applying for a promotion, and not getting an interview.  Only one applicant was interviewed, which is so not part of the policy.   Should have interviewed someone who was not going to be any good to justify the promotion of the successful candidate.  Needless to say she was never any good at the job, but amazing how someone can get ahead by brown nosing the boss or maybe giving him blowies under his desk.

 

I would always endeavour to be very fair about how I interviewed , but your plan for your candidate may work, if she can interview well and has the background and experience for the role 

[Guest]

On 6/18/2021 at 10:23 PM, purplekow said:

They are equally qualified on initial evaluation by the committee as a whole.  I have worked with all four for at least 10 years.  I am confident that the one I favor is capable of doing a better job than the others.  She is also the only non white and only female candidate with a an all white male committee.  She also has the most important position right now and would need to be replaced which will likely work against her as it would be easier to take one of the others who have positions which are more readily filled.  In fact, at the first search committee meeting one of the members said flat out, why do we have to interview her, we should just let her stay where she is, without the qualifying rhetoric about being difficult to replace. 

Out of curiosity, how badly does this female candidate want this position? 

Finally, is your support of her deemed a positive or negative consideration for her in the eyes of the other committee members?  Ponder that the injection of multiple factors influences outcomes:

- when you boldly (or by ruse) support a candidate, the committee member’s opinions of you will become a factor in their minds.  It may backfire...

- your support seems to be based on subjective considerations important to you but not to them.  I suspect there’s more than just race and gender at play in your mind...

- her choosing creates an objectively viewed gap somewhere else where she needs to be replaced (at a potential cost whether pecuniary or not).  This has already been raised by a member and I suspect that member may be the yin to yang of your machinations in the process with the goal of avoiding those costs
 

[+ Coolwave35]

When I was part of a hiring committee, often the last person interviewed was our pick. 

[+ purplekow]

10 hours ago, BnaC said:

Out of curiosity, how badly does this female candidate want this position? 

Finally, is your support of her deemed a positive or negative consideration for her in the eyes of the other committee members?  Ponder that the injection of multiple factors influences outcomes:

- when you boldly (or by ruse) support a candidate, the committee member’s opinions of you will become a factor in their minds.  It may backfire...

- your support seems to be based on subjective considerations important to you but not to them.  I suspect there’s more than just race and gender at play in your mind...

- her choosing creates an objectively viewed gap somewhere else where she needs to be replaced (at a potential cost whether pecuniary or not).  This has already been raised by a member and I suspect that member may be the yin to yang of your machinations in the process with the goal of avoiding those costs
 

I fully support her personally but as far as my representation of the Department, I have tried to be representative of their wishes.  I usually preface comments from the Advisory committee with a statement that "the committee brought forth" whereas if I make a statement on my own, I clearly state that to be the fact.  The committee is made of Chairs from other Departments who know full well that I am my Departments representative and that I work daily with one of the candidates.  OF the other three candidates, one I have known for 30 years and the other two for more than 10.  I have worked with all the others and when I speak of them, I do not hesitate to point out positive things they have done.  

I do not believe asking for a different interview order that may or may not aid my candidate is a ruse or a subterfuge.  In the end, I had no more influence on the interview order than others, but I was the only one who brought it up as a consideration.  

And as a paint, I understand that interview order may not be a big factor.  My question really involved whether there was any data to settle the discussion I had with a colleague as to whether it did or did not.  I  think going last is an advantage, but as others have pointed out, going first is at times considered an advantage.