Auditions - puzzles or mysteries?
Malcolm Gladwell speaks of two interesting ways to look at a problem: it can either be a puzzle or a mystery.
A puzzle is solving a problem with not enough information. We have to find more information to determine a course of action.
A mystery is solving a problem with too much information. We have to make sense of the vast information we have to determine a course of action.
I thought it would be intriguing to consider these two kinds of problems in the context of auditions and how we hire.
Are auditions puzzles or mysteries for those making decisions? Do we have not enough information or too much information?
Well, I think auditions are both.
***
When auditions are puzzles (don't have enough information)
This is most applicable to blind auditions and early rounds where we purposely limit the information we have access to. In these circumstances, the information we value usually consists of artistic ability (the playing), status symbols (schools, teachers, awards found in resumes), and references/reviews (commentary from industry sources).
We often think that is enough information. But do we ever wonder if those are the most effective pieces of information? If we think of auditions as puzzles, what other information could prove to be helpful - in addition to or in place of those listed above?
Without touching the blind aspect of auditions, we could start with gathering other information about who they are as human beings: what drives them, their values, what they care about, their aspirations and how the job can help them achieve those goals.
Sometimes we don't ask these questions at all, and if we do, it is usually at a later round. Might this suggest that this kind of information is secondary and less important? What if we included them within the vital group of information (among ability, status symbols and references/reviews)? How might these prove to be helpful?
It could help us evaluate alignment of purpose between the organization and the individual. It could help us determine a fit between what they want from the job and what we are able to offer them. It also helps simply make the candidates feel like someone cares about them as humans - and we often underestimate the power of that feeling.
Next, we can also collect more specific information about what it is like to work alongside them. One way we can do this is to require a reference from a colleague or a subordinate (in the case of a leader). A lot of us already do this, but could it be more specific? Imagine something along the lines of an online personality quiz where the reference may answer a set of questions designed to reveal the desired data. The set of questions could be extracted from something that already exists within an organization, such as performance evaluations. For example, check out this list of 13 questions that Google uses to evaluate their leaders.
What might we gain from seeking this information? We can learn more about how candidates work in a team, their collaboration/leadership style, how they deal with conflict, etc.
It's worth considering whether that information would be helpful and the impact it would have on our living our values and ensuring sustainability in the hiring outcome.
***
When auditions are mysteries (have too much information)
This is relevant for something like conductor auditions in the final stages where we do our best to collect as much data as possible. In addition to the basic information of ability, status, and references, we also gather (consciously and subconsciously) information about personality, charisma, appearance, confidence, and the content of their conversations. Everything is fair game and important. And we usually think that more is better.
While more can certainly be better, it is only better if we are good at solving the mystery of excess information - by determining how we value the many pieces of data. This article presents how Gladwell advocates for our "being more disciplined about ranking data in terms of its value." Here's an excerpt from the article:
"'One of the biggest mistakes businesses make is treating all data equally... We have to start ranking data in terms of its value,' said Malcolm Gladwell in our interview. 'The intuitive human move is to treat all data points as roughly equal. The hardest thing to do is to be more calibrated in how we assess the importance of bits [of data].'"
With an abundance of data, we often find ourselves pulled in various directions. And when we're on a committee, we pull each other in even more directions. What if all it takes to move us forward is to agree on a ranking of the data? Might a conversation on the ranking of the data reveal more about our values and what we're looking for?
For example, a conductor search that places value on charisma above that of ability might yield a very different result than a search that places value on ability above that of charisma. What about valuing status over ability? Ability over status? Either way works, as long as it is intentional. It is helpful to know - before we embark on solving the mystery - what the terms are. Without those guideposts, we would be lost.
***
Puzzle and Mystery
So auditions could be seen both as a puzzle and a mystery depending on the circumstances and how much information we have or limit ourselves to.
We can solve the puzzles by collecting more information that is valuable (for us). We can solve the mysteries by determining which information is more important and helpful than others (for us), and which information, if devalued and discarded, would help us see clearer.
Also, we have to be aware that when we solve the puzzles by gathering more information, those puzzles may turn into mysteries.
And regardless of whether it is a puzzle or a mystery, the most important questions are:
How are we ranking and valuing the data we have?
What information do we value that is currently missing? How could we gather that data?
For organizations, collecting the appropriate data and considering how we rank them will pay dividends to ensure we have the most effective, sustainable job searches that align with who we are and what we value.
Plus, we need to maintain the integrity of actually examining all the data in the way we proclaim to do so. If we're going to ask for the information we seek, we better look at it - even if it takes hard, honest detective work to do so.
Sign up to receive an email with each new post.
Visit my YouTube channel for all blog videos and my artistic work.
