During the early days of the pandemic, I picked up a biography of the inventor Thomas Edison by Edmund Morris. By all accounts, Edison was a genius and prolific inventor with over 1,000 patents to his name. He is credited with the invention of the phonograph, the motion picture camera, and most famously, an early version of the electric light bulb.
Edison was once asked by a reporter how it felt to have failed 1,000 times when trying to invent the light bulb, and he is said to have replied, "I didn't fail 1,000 times, I just found 1,000 ways how not to build a light bulb." There are so many different versions of this quote, that I suspect that's not exactly what he said. Regardless, his persistence and resilience are without question and ultimately were foundational to his prolific success as an inventor. Here are a few additional quotes:
"Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time."
"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up."
"When you have exhausted all possibilities, remember this - you haven't."
"Negative results are just what I want. They’re just as valuable to me as positive results. I can never find the thing that does the job best until I find the ones that don’t."
There's no question that Edison was a man who was far ahead of his time. He is also known for applying the scientific principles of management and organizational behavior to the process of invention. Edison established his laboratory in Menlo Park, New Jersey in 1876, and while he is credited with most of the inventions produced there, the team of scientists and engineers that he directed performed most of the work.
I recently learned about another of Edison's innovations in a Medium post by Andrew Martin. He had a unique way of interviewing potential job candidates for his Menlo Park laboratory (which reminds me a lot of the way that Google famously interviews potential employees). Consistent with his tendency to micromanage everything at Menlo Park, Edison insisted on being personally involved with choosing every member of his staff. He reportedly would ask job candidates to eat a bowl of soup in front of him!
I know what you are thinking. No, candidates didn't show up at Menlo Park, sit in front of Edison in his office, and have a bowl of soup placed in front of them. Rather, they were invited out for dinner as part of the interview, and Edison would order a bowl of soup for the candidate (note that going out to dinner is a frequent part of every job interview, particularly after the initial screening interview).
Edison would closely observe whether the candidate added salt and pepper to their soup before first tasting it. He immediately rejected the individuals who seasoned their soup before tasting it! He reasoned that these individuals relied too much on assumptions. Martin explained further, "Edison immediately rejected the premature seasoners, as he reasoned he didn't want employees who relied on assumptions. In his opinion, those who were content to abide by preconceived notions had no place in his business, because the absence of curiosity and willingness to ask questions were antithetical to innovation."
Apparently, Edison also liked to ask candidates (during the dinner conversation) random trivia questions, such as where prunes came from, what was felt, and who invented printing. These questions were his informal way of assessing the individual's intelligence and creativity.
Again, Edison's interview technique reminds me a lot of how Google approaches interviews. While a bit bizarre, Edison's technique is pure genius. The overwhelming evidence suggests that interviews, at least as they are typically conducted, are pretty much useless! Even so-called behavioral-based interviewing techniques aren't as effective as most people think (see this Inc post by Adam Grant). Most studies suggest that the best way to identify the best person for a job is to actually have that individual perform the job. For a lot of reasons, the "on the job" test is not very practical (however, medical schools and residency training programs have started using the multiple mini interview technique, which frequently includes some kind of skills assessment using simulation).
The important point here, and my take-home message, is that (1) unstructured interviews are useless, (2) structured interviews are better than unstructured ones, but still not quite as helpful, and (3) more research needs to be performed on the best ways to identify talented individuals who are an appropriate fit for a particular position in an organization. I suspect that we will continue to see more research in this area, which is desperately needed. For now, perhaps we should take a cue from the "Wizard of Menlo Park" and require everyone to eat soup!
No comments:
Post a Comment