Cultural Pitfalls During Interviews

You may have been through dozens of interviews back in your home country, but you get a sense in your gut that interviews in your newly adopted country might be slightly different.

We are here to tell you that your gut is likely correct.

The Short Of It

• Different countries lean towards different structures when it comes to interviews. Some prefer one-on-one while others prefers group or panel interviews. Some requires only one or two rounds of interviews while others go up to half a dozen.

• Video interviews are growing in popularity but is not the perfect solution yet.

• Australia has strong anti-discrimination laws which extends to the conduct of interviews and the protection of job applicants.

• However, cultural differences still has an impact. Studies have shown certain employers from certain countries prefer enthusiasm over composure.

• Misalignment between cultural expectation between the interviewer and interviewee might lead to a lose-lose situation for both.

• Power Distance Index provides a theory that might explain why certain candidates choose to behave in a way that conveys enthusiasm or composure.

• Adapting does not mean giving up on your identity or denying your culture. It's accretion and not displacement.

The Long Of It

Differences in structure

For example, one-on-one interviews are fairly prominent in Latin European countries (France, Italy, Spain, Greece). However, in countries such as Australia, UK, Ireland and Netherlands, panel or group interviews are more common.

In Latin European countries, interviews usually go for 3 or more rounds, while in Australia, UK, Ireland, Netherlands, they tend to be limited to 2 or less (unless you are applying for roles in large companies like Macquarie Group or Google, where it can go up to 6 rounds or more!).

There is also a growing trend, led by Western countries in the usage of AI or Asynchronous Video Interview ("AVI") tools as an initial screening tool. Supporters of these technology heaps praises on the volume it can process, the accuracy of its assessment and the benefits it brings by removing human biases. However, given how new these technologies are, they are still subject to tonnes of criticism. Some have questioned the apparent lack of transparency in their algorithm and pseudo science involved in the computer's assessment of candidate's facial movements and tone of voice. Others feel the lack of immediate human feedback in an people to people interview makes the whole process cold, and potentially not useful to assess interpersonal skills as most workplaces still requires their employees to work with each other.

“So, Are You Planning to Start a Family Soon?” and Other Discriminatory Practices

The various laws and legislations governing workplaces also differs quite significantly from country to country, as does its enforcements.

Australia is widely recognised to have fairly strong anti-discrimination laws. MIPEX (Migrant Integration Policy Index) in 2020 rated Australia at "Slightly Favourable" on the Anti-Discrimination metric.

At a federal level, there are at least 6 Acts that aims to prevent discrimination in the county, including the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and Fair Work Act 2009. These laws, plus the individual state and territories’ own legislation, means any direct or overt discrimination based on race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability and others, are not allowed even during an interview. That means an employer or an agent of the employer i.e., the interviewer cannot legally ask questions like “Are you getting married soon?” or “Who did you vote for in the last election?”.

So, We've Fixed Discrimination?

Unfortunately no. There are still the occasional report of interviewers trying to circumvent these laws by asking seemingly innocuous questions, like “What do you do on your free time?” on the pretext of building rapport, but is intended to find out whether an applicant has children or some other form of carer responsibilities and commitment.

And despite various legislations and cultural training conducted in many companies, discrimination, especially due to unconscious bias, is still an existing issue faced by many migrant job seekers. This can still be detrimental to job applicants even if the interviewer is someone trained in avoiding unconscious biases.

To explain this, psychologist suggest that there is a dual process model when a person has to react to a perceived stereotype. They call this dual process Type 1 (automatic) and Type 2 (controlled) processes, or the reflexive/ruled-based processes.

Let’s use the example of an interviewer, Sarah, interviewing a job applicant called John, who is from another country. Through either education or accumulated experience, Sarah has certain perceived notion of John based purely on his nationality. This is known as her Type 1, reflexive process and is often intuitive and does not require much cognitive processing. Thankfully, Sarah is an experienced interviewer and she move into the Type 2 controlled process, a conscious activity to push aside her initial bias and analyse and judge John’s suitability for the role based purely on the quality of his responses and his non-verbal behaviours.

Now, this should mean that John has been treated fairly and not discriminated against based purely on factors beyond his control, right?

Not so fast. Say, Sarah then interviewed Thomas, someone who had grown up in the same neighbourhood as she did, and has the same educational background as her. She doesn’t have the same initial negative bias towards Thomas as she did towards John, and so her Type 1 reflexive process was all that she required. Let’s assume that the quality of Thomas’ responses was slightly poorer compared to John’s.

In this hypothetical scenario, even though Sarah had smartly checked her own impulses by adopting a controlled approach when she was interviewing John, there is still a risk that she might unfairly favour Thomas over John.

One reason for this is the need to use a Type 2 controlled response requires far more cognitive resources compared to Type 1. As such, there is a risk that Sarah might feel more frustrated from the interview with John as she is already required to perform other resource consuming tasks like asking questions, taking notes, and active listening. Such feelings of frustration might act against the interest of John. Sometimes, it may even be easier cognitively, for interviewers to merely justify and rationalise their Type 1 responses, i.e., their initial bias, instead of using their Type 2 process to modulate.

Cultural Differences

Structure of interviews and the legislations surrounding it aside, an important factor to consider when interviewing in a different country is the possibility of cultural differences.

There is no denying that cultural differences permeate many parts of our lives in a multicultural country. This is true especially when it comes to job interviews. Rather than denying its existence or argue over its prevalence, it would be more worthwhile for job applicants, especially those from foreign countries, to be aware of the potential risks that it may pose, and adopt strategies to be able to overcome biases if it does arise.

Numerous studies on how cultural differences impacts job interviews have been conducted in recent years.

Enthusiasm vs Composure

One such study in 2018 by researchers from Stanford University found that American employers are more likely than their Hong Kong counterparts to hire excited and demonstrably enthusiastic candidates (high arousal positive state – HAP), over others deemed more composed and relaxed (low arousal positive state – LAP). A separate experiment conducted in the same study found that American job applicants were likewise more likely to want to convey excitement in their application and interview process, compared to the Hong Kong applicants. This means that, with all other factors such as qualification and experience being equal, it is likely that an employer would be more likely to engage a candidate who shares the same cultural fit as the employer, compared to a candidate who doesn’t.

While many of these studies focuses on samples from our cousins across the ponds, many Australian recruiters, hiring managers and job applicants have shared anecdotes that corroborate the findings above. In fact, local Australian recruiters would often counsel applicants to be more excited and enthusiastic during the job application process.

What Might Be Driving These Differences?

Back in the 70s, a prominent Dutch psychologist Geert Hofstede conducted a Power-Distance study spanning multiple countries.

Power distance refers to the relationship between authority and subordinate individuals that depends on how the latter react to the former. The Power Distance Index (PDI) is a tool used to measure the acceptance of power established between the individuals with the most power and those with the least. Theoretically, people from low PDI societies are more open to challenge and question authority and is more confident in voicing opinions despite the presence of others in position of power, while those from high PDI societies are more likely to follow a hierarchy and high-ranking individuals are respected and revered.

As you can see from the above, countries like Australia and the UK have some of the lowest PDIs while countries like Philippines, China and India have some of the highest PDIs. Compare that with the high growth of skilled migrants from the latter countries into Australia over the last 10 years (see chart below) and it is clear that there is a risk of misalignment or expectation gap.

These misalignments might manifest itself when a job applicant from a high PDI culture believes it is to their advantage to maintain a respectful and calm demeanour during an interview, while the interviewer, someone in a position of authority in this scenario and is likely from a low PDI culture i.e., Australia or the UK, might unfortunately deem their demeanour as submissiveness or lack of enthusiasm.

What Can a Smart Job Applicant Do in the Face of Such Challenges?

Knowing is half the battle. The other half is deciding what you are willing to do about it.

Throughout our years overseas in Australia, UK and Singapore, we’ve heard of many reasons why someone is unwilling to adopt a more flexible approach to achieving success in a foreign country. Some refuse to get out of their shell and their comfort zone because they have identified themselves as introverted and finds it inauthentic, or “faking it”, if they were asked to be more sociable and build the courage to be more outspoken. Others find it hard due to language barriers. Some find the different social rules and cues to be confusing and overwhelming.

We at The Second-Class Collective do not believe that it is necessary to deny your culture or your identity just for the sake of a job. However, we recognise that being adaptable without changing the core of who we are, is increasingly seen as a key skill in navigating the changing context of our lives and the world.

We believe that adding a new ability does not necessarily replace an existing one. It’s accretion, not displacement. For example, learning how to speak confidently in public does not mean you are no longer a calm and composed individual who is a great listener.

Skills to adapt can be learned and through practice, practice, practice, one can absolutely overcome some of these cultural challenges that exist in an interview.

ANNOUNCEMENT: The Second Class Collective is holding an online interview preparation workshop on 20 July 2022. RSVP to join the workshop by clicking the button below.

Join Workshop