Most hypothetical questions begin by asking “What would you do if …” followed by some kind of situation such as “you had to make a big decision?” Hypothetical questions are problematic because the answers they inspire are usually idealized. You’ll probably get a lot of responses that sound like something a high performer would do, but those answers will rarely reflect reality. Despite what we each might like to believe about ourselves, there’s a huge gap between our hypothetical selves and our real selves.
For instance, let’s say I selected some random people off the street and asked “What would you do if you saw a complete stranger being assaulted in a public place?” I can guarantee that virtually every person I asked would give one of two possible answers: “I’d rush right in to help” or “I’d immediately call 911.” Isn’t that how you would respond?
Both responses sound great, like true high performers. These responses, though, are nothing more than conjecture, a notion or supposition of what those people think they would do in that situation. However, put those same folks in the real-life position of witnessing a public assault, and there’s no telling what they might do. Some of them might actually freeze with fear. Or maybe, in an effort to protect their lives, others would run away from the scene and then call the police. The bottom line is
that it’s dangerous to try and predict what people will do in reality by asking them about a hypothetical situation.
There was a news story a while back about a Kansas woman who was stabbed during the robbery of a convenience store.
The entire incident was caught on the store’s surveillance cameras. The stabbing was brutal, but that’s not why the story made national headlines. Footage from the camera showed five patrons stepping over the woman’s prone and bleeding body to exit; not one of them stopped or did anything to help. One of them even paused to take a picture of her with a cell phone. It was only after all the witnesses had left the store that someone called the police. The woman later died at the hospital.
There were numerous online comments made in response to this event, and a lot of them included statements of public outrage—things like “I’d never have walked away.” And yet, all five people in that store that day showed no hesitation in stepping over a dying woman to exit a bad situation. Maybe if at least one of them had stayed behind to help or to call 911, I’d have more faith in hypothetical responses. But they didn’t, and so I don’t, and neither should you.
Another problem with most hypothetical questions is that it’s not difficult to discern what the interviewer wants in response, and thus it’s easy to come up with the correct answer. For example, take the popular hypothetical interview question “How would you deal with personality clashes among team
members?” There are lots of different ways to answer this question, all of which sound intelligent. And they are all responses that would likely be successful—if they were implemented the way they were stated.
For instance, if I were asked the personality clash question, I’d probably shape my answer something like this: “I’ve found that there can be four different root causes of personality clashes among team members, and each one requires a different response. First, there can be clashes when the team doesn’t have a clearly articulated goal that collectively binds and bonds the group. So, this kind of situation requires some work to align
the group with a collective strategy. Second, there might be a long and troubled history between two or more members. In this case, I’d take a different approach,” and so on.
My answer is sufficient to get me through most interviews, but it doesn’t say anything about what I’d do in real life, let alone provide any clues about my attitude. There’s a big difference between knowing the path and walking the path. (Do we really think smokers are somehow oblivious to the health effects of smoking? When I was younger, I knew darn well about the possible consequences, but that didn’t stop me from putting Mr.
Marlboro in my mouth.) The answer I gave reflects the fact that I know how to manage team conflict. But just because I know what to do doesn’t preclude me from having a bad attitude, such as yelling at my team to get its act together because I can’t control my temper. Or simply ignoring the problem and letting it fester and destroy the team because I’m too scared to deal with it, or whatever.
Over the years, I’ve met few leaders who didn’t understand the idea that a toxic personality can destroy a work group. It’s an intuitive and easily understood concept. And yet I’ve met thousands of managers who were afraid to sit down and have some straight talk with those same toxic personalities. The theory is simple and the hypotheticals are easy, but actually handling the situation can be terrifying. And that’s the problem with hypotheticals—they’re testing whether applicants
understand the theory. They fail completely, though, when it comes to assessing whether candidates will actually implement that theory in the real world.
Leadership IQ conducted a study a few years ago called “Why CEOs Get Fired.” My team and I went beyond the typical press release vagaries such as “Bob has decided to step down for personal reasons and we appreciate his years of service” and investigated the true reasons why CEOs get ousted. The study revealed that one of the top reasons CEOs get the boot is a lack of execution—too much talk and not enough action. They know what needs to be done; they just can’t bring themselves to actually do it. Most executives are really smart, but that brainpower doesn’t mean they always take the right actions
(like avoiding petty power plays, or not becoming emotionally blind to failing pet projects or low performing executives).
So the next time you feel tempted to ask a job candidate “What would you do if two angry customers demanded your attention at the same time?” or “If selected for this position, how quickly could you make a significant contribution?” save yourself the time and trouble. Whatever answer you get is going to be a poor predictor of what that person would do in real life.