| September/October
2004
Ten
common interview mistakes
HOW
TO MAKE THE BIG DAY A TREAT INSTEAD OF A TREATMENT
INTERVIEWS
ARE LIKE BLIND DATES: one prays for the best but fears for
the worst.
The job candidate hopes that he or she will find
the perfect next place of employment – bright people working
for a great organization that has its act together and operates
with a powerful sense of purpose and high degree of urgency.
The employer, likewise, hopes to find that rare
individual who walks on water and motivates others to follow.
Yet sometimes, for a variety of reasons, the parties
fail to put their best foot forward, spend a frustrating day
learning little about each other and part company uncertain
about the outcome.
Much has been written about the interviewing mistakes
that candidates make. Less has been written about the other
half of the equation. But, as one byproduct of tens of thousands
of candidate debriefings after their “blind dates” were over,
Sanford Rose Associates has compiled a list of 10 common employer
mistakes, along with some practical suggestions for avoiding
them.
The interview
got postponed – again and again and again. Good recruiters sell urgency
to candidates and promise decisiveness on the part of employers.
That’s because it is difficult to create excitement about
tentative situations. In recent years, however, with productivity
and multi-tasking the order of the day, corporate managers
are overburdened and their schedules in a state of flux. While
it’s thoroughly understandable to them why their daily plans
change from moment to moment, it creates doubts on the part
of the candidate: just how important is the job and how urgent
is the need to fill it? Therefore, try to schedule interviews
for Mondays and Fridays, when people are most likely to be
in town. Build redundancy into the interviewing team, so that
one person’s absence does not kill the day. If a truly vital
member (for example, the CEO) bails, schedule a second interview
but don’t cancel the first. Demonstrate urgency and control.
The candidate
wasn’t made to feel at home. She
arrived at the airport after dark, hailed a taxi to the hotel,
dined alone, took another cab next morning to the interview,
received a less than warm welcome (“Do you have an appointment?”)
at the reception desk, was eventually escorted to HR, from
there proceeded to several interviews and finally was deposited
back in the lobby, where she had to ask the receptionist to
call another cab. How
little effort it would have required to meet her at the airport,
take her to dinner, pick her up the next morning, have all
concerned expecting her arrival, etc., etc. – thus turning
what otherwise would have been a lousy first impression of
the employer into a positive one.
Members
of the interview team didn’t know their roles. There is little necessity
to have five, six or maybe even seven
people meet sequentially with the candidate – each one asking
the same questions. (Rest assured that candidates the world
over are prepared to give a sincere, spontaneous-sounding
response when queried about their greatest need for improvement.)
If politics require the opinions of scads of participants,
assign each person a role and vary the time they will spend
with the interviewee. One could be asked to verify technical
expertise, another to explain the interface between marketing
and R&D, and so on. Sanford Rose Associates believes strongly
in scheduling one long interview (in which the hiring manager
and an HR professional delve deeply into the candidate’s past
accomplishments and how he or she made each happen), followed
by a series of brief courtesy interviews. Another approach
is the group panel, particularly appropriate for individuals
who will be required to think on their feet.
Critical
information was not obtained. This is another unintended consequence of poor
planning. No one was asked to probe the candidate’s international
experience, so no one did.
There was
no system in place to evaluate the candidate objectively. “OK, we’ve interviewed
the candidate at length. Now what?”
In the absence of an objective rating system and/or a common
understanding of who will make the decision (vs. who was along
for the ride), it can be difficult to agree on an outcome.
The candidate was pretty good, but somebody wondered if he
looked too young to go before the Board of Directors. Or,
the candidate was a financial whiz, but her navy suit and
white blouse were a cliché. Human Resources, working in concert
with the hiring manager, can develop a “what counts” list
of key performance and personal characteristics required to
do the job. Such a list can help alleviate the nagging doubt
that someone better is lurking just around the corner and
reduce anxiety about being blamed for making a “wrong” decision.
No one sold
the job, the organization or the community. In the corporate mating
dance, it takes two to tango. It is expected that the candidate
will show great enthusiasm in selling the employer on his
or her capabilities for the job. But, alas, there is another
side to the coin: what is the employer doing to make the candidate
fall in love? Members of the interview team might well be
instructed to lace their conversations with a few compelling
stories as to how the outfit beat a competitor, launched six
new products in two years, paid for an employee’s advanced
degree, etc. And a story about a recent concert or sporting
event might help reassure the candidate that the local community
is not a cultural or sports-and-entertainment backwater.
Actions did not agree with words. Some things get said because
they are true, while others get said because they ought to
be true. If the job is “absolutely critical to the future
of our company,” be prepared to make an up-or-down decision
within a few days – not sometime in the next several months,
whenever the interview team can be reconvened and corporate
can be asked to review the offer. Similarly, buzzwords such
as “teamwork” and “collaboration” may be best left unsaid
if a visitor is likely to observe a lot of people sitting
behind closed doors. Management by wandering around requires
wandering managers.
Money became
an object.
Unless the employer intends to make an offer and receive an
acceptance before the day is out, there is no need by
either party to discuss compensation.
Poorly coached candidates raise the subject in the mistaken
belief they can up the ante, while misguided employers sense
an opportunity to save a few dollars – turning what could
have been a successful marriage into a failed romance. That
is why the negotiable elements of an offer (such as pay and
perks) are best handled by an outside search consultant, who
can carefully determine the upper and lower limits of an offer
that will stick.
The candidate
left with unanswered questions. The reverse of the unstructured interview
is the over-structured one. Unless the candidate’s assertiveness
is being tested, encourage him or her
to ask questions and turn what otherwise runs the risk of
becoming a one-way interrogation into a conversation. In fact,
the quality of those questions provides some of the sharpest
insights into a candidate’s preparation for the visit, intellectual
curiosity and interest in the position. Beware of the person
with no questions to ask.
Next steps
were not spelled out. No one likes to be left dangling, uncertain as
to what will happen and when. At the end of the day, explain
what the next steps will be (a hiring decision, a second round
of interviews or whatever) and commit to a date by which the
candidate will hear from you or your search firm. Vagueness
communicates deviousness or indecision – neither of which
supports the image you want to create (and deserve) of being
a great place to work.
|
