"Interviewing" by John Pizey (circa
1990)
Recently I have had reason to sit in on a number of interviews, purely as an observer. These interviews were carried out in live situations and my role was to coach the interviewers at the appropriate time. I was, to be frank, somewhat horrified at the poor standard and the glaring errors that were made. This article is therefore based on that experience and also adds some other hopefully useful pointers.
Before proceeding any further I am sure that if you asked any one of my colleagues they would tell you that using interviews alone to select the right candidate is only marginally more accurate than judging candidates by handwriting or the stars. They would add that in a survey of tests recently published, the validity of interviews came out at +0.16. Incidentally the scale generally used to measure validity is from +1 (the perfect positive result) to -1 (the perfect negative result).
Many organisations unfortunately still use the selection interview and other forms of interview as their only means of making what they consider to be valid judgements about other people. As far as selection and certain other interviews go my colleagues would however add they do become more valid and purposeful provided that they are backed up by other forms of assessment more objective in their construction. In addition we cannot escape from the fact that interviews in every kind of business are still the easiest and most flexible form of communication between one human being and another.
Bearing the above in mind there-fore there seems some point in making all our interviews that much more professional or at least reviewing our current beliefs and procedures. What did I observe in my recent experience?
Observation 1
Mr X used his secretary to ceremoniously bring candidates to his office and announce their names. He remained throughout on his side of his enormous impressive desk and sat the candidate down facing him across the said desk.
Observation 2
Mr Y sat his candidates down having merely exchanged names and then promptly went into a lengthy and somewhat embarrassing silence whilst he seemingly studied their CVs. The interview then commenced with alarming suddenness.
Observation 3
Mr Z consistently made lengthy statements about how he did something, expected it to be done or how he felt about something. At the end of this series of startling views and mind boggling procedures he would end by saying, 'And what is your reaction to that?" or "How do you feel about that?" and sometimes "Does that bother you?"
Observation 4
Mr Y maintained a set determination to conduct the interview in the way he had planned it or perhaps always did it. The same elaborate questions came out for every candidate. Every candidate did his best to deal with his interpretation of these questions. The result of this was that every interview overran its allotted time and was concluded with the words "We seem to have run out of time, but just before you go is there anything you would like to ask me?"
Observation 5
Mr Z upon my asking him his impression of candidates replied after prolonged thought that he questioned this man's judgement, that man's dynamism and a particularly unfortunate candidate's loyalty. When I asked him for the facts to support these statements he said that he had gleaned them from the CV! I could not help wondering what the interview was for?
Observation 6
Mr X was regularly interrupted at least once during each of the three interviews I attended that afternoon. On two occasions he had, thank goodness, relatively short but somewhat peremptory telephone conversations. On the third occasion he asked not to be interrupted.
The above is not taken from John Cleese or whoever's training film. It actually happened! Many books, papers, films and training courses have been written on interviewing. In view of this I do not propose to elaborate on the above observations but some brief pointers on aspects other than those brought out above may assist us to examine our own styles.
Recently I have had reason to sit in on a number of interviews, purely as an observer. These interviews were carried out in live situations and my role was to coach the interviewers at the appropriate time. I was, to be frank, somewhat horrified at the poor standard and the glaring errors that were made. This article is therefore based on that experience and also adds some other hopefully useful pointers.
Before proceeding any further I am sure that if you asked any one of my colleagues they would tell you that using interviews alone to select the right candidate is only marginally more accurate than judging candidates by handwriting or the stars. They would add that in a survey of tests recently published, the validity of interviews came out at +0.16. Incidentally the scale generally used to measure validity is from +1 (the perfect positive result) to -1 (the perfect negative result).
Many organisations unfortunately still use the selection interview and other forms of interview as their only means of making what they consider to be valid judgements about other people. As far as selection and certain other interviews go my colleagues would however add they do become more valid and purposeful provided that they are backed up by other forms of assessment more objective in their construction. In addition we cannot escape from the fact that interviews in every kind of business are still the easiest and most flexible form of communication between one human being and another.
Bearing the above in mind there-fore there seems some point in making all our interviews that much more professional or at least reviewing our current beliefs and procedures. What did I observe in my recent experience?
Observation 1
Mr X used his secretary to ceremoniously bring candidates to his office and announce their names. He remained throughout on his side of his enormous impressive desk and sat the candidate down facing him across the said desk.
Observation 2
Mr Y sat his candidates down having merely exchanged names and then promptly went into a lengthy and somewhat embarrassing silence whilst he seemingly studied their CVs. The interview then commenced with alarming suddenness.
Observation 3
Mr Z consistently made lengthy statements about how he did something, expected it to be done or how he felt about something. At the end of this series of startling views and mind boggling procedures he would end by saying, 'And what is your reaction to that?" or "How do you feel about that?" and sometimes "Does that bother you?"
Observation 4
Mr Y maintained a set determination to conduct the interview in the way he had planned it or perhaps always did it. The same elaborate questions came out for every candidate. Every candidate did his best to deal with his interpretation of these questions. The result of this was that every interview overran its allotted time and was concluded with the words "We seem to have run out of time, but just before you go is there anything you would like to ask me?"
Observation 5
Mr Z upon my asking him his impression of candidates replied after prolonged thought that he questioned this man's judgement, that man's dynamism and a particularly unfortunate candidate's loyalty. When I asked him for the facts to support these statements he said that he had gleaned them from the CV! I could not help wondering what the interview was for?
Observation 6
Mr X was regularly interrupted at least once during each of the three interviews I attended that afternoon. On two occasions he had, thank goodness, relatively short but somewhat peremptory telephone conversations. On the third occasion he asked not to be interrupted.
The above is not taken from John Cleese or whoever's training film. It actually happened! Many books, papers, films and training courses have been written on interviewing. In view of this I do not propose to elaborate on the above observations but some brief pointers on aspects other than those brought out above may assist us to examine our own styles.
- Develop the art of good listening. This means concentrating on what the candidate is saying and conveying your interest by gestures and expressions.
- Short term memory is unreliable, so take notes. Keep them brief and try not to jot them down at the wrong moment when you may give an unintentionally good or bad impression to the candidate.
- Remember the Scout motto; "Be Prepared". The main structure of the interview should follow an overall plan. The candidate should be aware of this plan; the substance must be varied according to the CV and most importantly must again be varied because of the candidates statements or replies to your questions.
- The questions you ask are the key to the effectiveness of the interview. Remember however that it is not an interrogation, so avoid multiple questions, trick questions, vague questions and leading questions. Where possible use open questions rather than ones demanding a Yes or No answer.
- The candidate must do most of the talking.
- End the interview in the same friendly manner with which it should have started. Let each candidate know what will be happening next and when