nick18_in
Nikhil Gadodia
To be a good interviewer, it is not necessary to be a psychologist. However, you do need psychological skills. Mostly, to be a good interviewer, you have to be high in self-awareness. If you are self-aware, you will be able to read in others what you have learned to read in yourself. Observe contact reaction as the subject walks into your office or the interviewing space. Not a word has been spoken, but, from my perspective as a psychologist, the interview has already begun once the candidate opens the door.
Remember that seventy percent of all communciation is nonverbal. A male candidate walks in and says, "I beg your pardon." Cautious, probing, a bit unsure, or just deferential. Another male candidate bursts in with an enthusiastic "Good morning!" Different data; not at all the same type of individual. Write down what you observe. Later, you will have a chance to interpret your notes, and you may find these points very revealing.
Do not hasten to put the candidate at ease. This is a mistake that many interviewers-including the most seasoned ones-constantly commit. The mental and emotional state of candidates as they enter into the interviewing process is important data. It can tell you a lot about how they relate to new people, how they handle themselves in introductions, what their own self-concept is, and so forth. Of course, after a minute or so, if nervousness persists on the part of the candidate, then you can use some techniques to put the person at ease (such as offering coffee, or moving from behind your desk and taking a chair next to the candidate). You do want the person to be as much at ease as possible for the bulk of the interview.
Develop a set of questions and ask the same questions of each candidate. If you want to distinguish one person from another, you have to get a range of responses. The way to do this is to ask the exact same questions of each candidate, and then compare their answers. If you say to one candidate, "Tell me about your career," and to another, "My, it looks like you've had quite a career so far!," you are compromising the process. You are asking a very neutral question in the first instance, and outwardly providing encouragement in the second instance. When it comes time to interpret the data from these interviews, you will already have things askew, and will be comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't work. Start with stereotypical interview questions, but be aware that your purpose in doing so is to make the subject to be comfortable. Then take off from there and go deeper. I may ask, "What do you think is the best approach to supervision?" Now, that is a stereotypical question. The subject will say something like, "To empower people." A stereotypical answer. Then, I'll say, "Well, describe a workplace situation where you are the supervisor and tell me, in specific terms, how you would go about empowering your people." This forces them out of the stereotype. Now they have to put real meat on their answer; they can't dodge or hide. Many mediocre interviewers keep the conversation at the level of sterotypes. If you do that, you're not getting a reading on the real person. Doing a whole interview in stereotypes gets you nowhere. It's all just shallow data. Your objective is to get the subject talking, in as much of a discursive, narrative fashion as possible. This is when people are most themselves, and when they are least able to rattle off their prepared answers and shield themselves from your attempt to probe their weak spots. If you ask, "Can you handle tight supervision?," it's too easy for them to say, "Sure, no problem," even if they're lying through their teeth. The truth about the subject is much more likely to emerge if you ask, "Describe for me the type of supervision you prefer to work under."
Sample all relevant areas of the candidate's life. Here are the life categories in which I go fishing for data about each candidate:
* Work * Education * Health * Social life * Childhood * Family * Personality I begin with work history because, A) this is exactly what the candidate expects, and B) it helps put the candidate at ease to begin with a discussion of work. In each cateogory, however, start the candidate talking about something he knows like the back of his hand. Go from the impersonal (What's your feeling about pressure?) to the personal (Why did you apparently have a falling out with your last boss?). Go from the familiar (Tell me about the neighborhood where you grew up) to the unfamiliar (How would you feel in a year's time if we wanted to transfer you to Dallas?). Go from the intellect (What's your feeling about working in teams?) to the emotions (How do you react when somebody tells you one of your prize ideas is full of holes?).
Take notes on or tape record the interview. I have a notebook on my lap when the subject walks in. As we begin our conversation, I immediately, but discreetly, begin taking notes. After a few minutes, they stop paying attention to my notetaking. Tape recording is fine, too, so long as you ask them, "Do you mind if we tape record this? I'm afraid otherwise I might miss something important that might be to your advantage." Of course, if some highly personal matter comes up-say a candidate's marriage is falling apart- I'll just stop making notes. That you won't forget, and you can note it down later if you want. Without good notes or transcripts, however, you will come up very short of data, and your analysis of the candidates will reflect this shortage.
Maintain a steady presence from one interview to the next. The interviewer must hold himself steady as a barometer against which all the various candidates will be measured. Do not, that is, behave one way toward one candidate, and an entirely different way toward another. If you are warm and effusive, be that way with everybody you interview. If you like to hold yourself somewhat in reserve and simply be professionally polite, hold that posture steady throughout the entire concourse of candidates. To unduly influence one candidate toward a negative, or defensive, reaction, and another candidate toward a positive reaction is, again, to compromise your interview data.
Consider the interview a real-life or on-the-job process. Too many interviewers manage their interviews as if what happens between them and a candidate during the session is somehow detached from actual workplace experience. It is not, and should not be considered so. In effect, the ideal way to look upon an interview is as a laboratory to sample projected workplace behavior by the candidates. Within the bounds of necessary time limits, you as the interviewer should set up interactions and experiments that will represent possible scenarios on the job. On the very simplest level, for instance, if you observe that a candidate cannot maintain good eye contact with you, you may assume that he or she will also not do so with a customer. Beyond that, you can bring to the fore actual workplace dilemmas and challenge the candidate to come up with solutions
Note the emotional flavor of the interview.
Keeping yourself steady as a measuring instrument, you will observe that different candidates will nonetheless bring to the interview into a type of emotional atmosphere. Some interviews will feel warm and open to you; others may feel cold and closed. This should be-if you are not compromising your own emotional posture from one candidate to another-an indication of the kind of atmosphere a subject will help to generate in the workplace. Do not err on the side of being afraid of asking penetrating questions. I like to compare an interview to a visit to a doctor's office for a thorough examination. In our culture, it is understood that both men and women will disrobe for such an exam, and expose their naked body to the physician. Doctors need not ask permission to see you naked (and if they did start asking permission, it would make us even more nervous). Similarly, interviewers, by the nature of their job, are expected to ask probing questions. We don't have to apologize for saying to a candidate, "Tell me about the atmosphere in your home life." What I usually do toward the outset of an interview is say something like, "Now, in the course of this interview I am going to ask you questions that may be personal in nature. If you think something is too personal for you to answer, just say so, and I'll move on to something else." Having said that, I find that I can ask candidates almost anything, and they will respond fairly candidly. The truth is, almost every question in the interviewing process is invasive. So the way you ask the question will, in part, determine whether or not your candidates give you open and honest reponses. Be professional, be courteous, and demonstrate a genuine interest in the person you are interviewing. This is the way to build trust, and trust is critical to success in gaining insight into each candidate.
Be aware that the toughest challenge in the interview process is interpreting the data. It is trite but true that the best data are of no use at all if they are not properly interpreted. Many interviewers, unfortunately, see the discussion process as the most important aspect of interviewing. In reality, the true meaning of the interview will only emerge with skillful interpretation of the data you have gathered. If, at the outset, the interviewer has an inadequate notion of the data to be gathered, the interview process is not likely to produce the data from which an accurate projection can be made of the candidate's performance on the job. Still another problem may be that the interview has not generated a sufficiently deep sampling of a candidate's personality. It is also possible to produce an overabundance of data that is not relevant to job performance. A major challenge is sifting out from all the notes of an interview those points that really bear on how the candidate will do his or her work. Proper interpretation of data involves matching a given candidate with a given job in such a way that a company has a high degree of assurance that the tasks assigned to that job will be carried out well, and that the person who occupies that slot will mesh well with others in a given company culture. It is often necessary to re-interview candidates in order to generate data that was not produced during the initial interview before a final decision can be made as to which of the prospects for the job will truly work out best.
Dr. James N. Farr
Remember that seventy percent of all communciation is nonverbal. A male candidate walks in and says, "I beg your pardon." Cautious, probing, a bit unsure, or just deferential. Another male candidate bursts in with an enthusiastic "Good morning!" Different data; not at all the same type of individual. Write down what you observe. Later, you will have a chance to interpret your notes, and you may find these points very revealing.
Do not hasten to put the candidate at ease. This is a mistake that many interviewers-including the most seasoned ones-constantly commit. The mental and emotional state of candidates as they enter into the interviewing process is important data. It can tell you a lot about how they relate to new people, how they handle themselves in introductions, what their own self-concept is, and so forth. Of course, after a minute or so, if nervousness persists on the part of the candidate, then you can use some techniques to put the person at ease (such as offering coffee, or moving from behind your desk and taking a chair next to the candidate). You do want the person to be as much at ease as possible for the bulk of the interview.
Develop a set of questions and ask the same questions of each candidate. If you want to distinguish one person from another, you have to get a range of responses. The way to do this is to ask the exact same questions of each candidate, and then compare their answers. If you say to one candidate, "Tell me about your career," and to another, "My, it looks like you've had quite a career so far!," you are compromising the process. You are asking a very neutral question in the first instance, and outwardly providing encouragement in the second instance. When it comes time to interpret the data from these interviews, you will already have things askew, and will be comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't work. Start with stereotypical interview questions, but be aware that your purpose in doing so is to make the subject to be comfortable. Then take off from there and go deeper. I may ask, "What do you think is the best approach to supervision?" Now, that is a stereotypical question. The subject will say something like, "To empower people." A stereotypical answer. Then, I'll say, "Well, describe a workplace situation where you are the supervisor and tell me, in specific terms, how you would go about empowering your people." This forces them out of the stereotype. Now they have to put real meat on their answer; they can't dodge or hide. Many mediocre interviewers keep the conversation at the level of sterotypes. If you do that, you're not getting a reading on the real person. Doing a whole interview in stereotypes gets you nowhere. It's all just shallow data. Your objective is to get the subject talking, in as much of a discursive, narrative fashion as possible. This is when people are most themselves, and when they are least able to rattle off their prepared answers and shield themselves from your attempt to probe their weak spots. If you ask, "Can you handle tight supervision?," it's too easy for them to say, "Sure, no problem," even if they're lying through their teeth. The truth about the subject is much more likely to emerge if you ask, "Describe for me the type of supervision you prefer to work under."
Sample all relevant areas of the candidate's life. Here are the life categories in which I go fishing for data about each candidate:
* Work * Education * Health * Social life * Childhood * Family * Personality I begin with work history because, A) this is exactly what the candidate expects, and B) it helps put the candidate at ease to begin with a discussion of work. In each cateogory, however, start the candidate talking about something he knows like the back of his hand. Go from the impersonal (What's your feeling about pressure?) to the personal (Why did you apparently have a falling out with your last boss?). Go from the familiar (Tell me about the neighborhood where you grew up) to the unfamiliar (How would you feel in a year's time if we wanted to transfer you to Dallas?). Go from the intellect (What's your feeling about working in teams?) to the emotions (How do you react when somebody tells you one of your prize ideas is full of holes?).
Take notes on or tape record the interview. I have a notebook on my lap when the subject walks in. As we begin our conversation, I immediately, but discreetly, begin taking notes. After a few minutes, they stop paying attention to my notetaking. Tape recording is fine, too, so long as you ask them, "Do you mind if we tape record this? I'm afraid otherwise I might miss something important that might be to your advantage." Of course, if some highly personal matter comes up-say a candidate's marriage is falling apart- I'll just stop making notes. That you won't forget, and you can note it down later if you want. Without good notes or transcripts, however, you will come up very short of data, and your analysis of the candidates will reflect this shortage.
Maintain a steady presence from one interview to the next. The interviewer must hold himself steady as a barometer against which all the various candidates will be measured. Do not, that is, behave one way toward one candidate, and an entirely different way toward another. If you are warm and effusive, be that way with everybody you interview. If you like to hold yourself somewhat in reserve and simply be professionally polite, hold that posture steady throughout the entire concourse of candidates. To unduly influence one candidate toward a negative, or defensive, reaction, and another candidate toward a positive reaction is, again, to compromise your interview data.
Consider the interview a real-life or on-the-job process. Too many interviewers manage their interviews as if what happens between them and a candidate during the session is somehow detached from actual workplace experience. It is not, and should not be considered so. In effect, the ideal way to look upon an interview is as a laboratory to sample projected workplace behavior by the candidates. Within the bounds of necessary time limits, you as the interviewer should set up interactions and experiments that will represent possible scenarios on the job. On the very simplest level, for instance, if you observe that a candidate cannot maintain good eye contact with you, you may assume that he or she will also not do so with a customer. Beyond that, you can bring to the fore actual workplace dilemmas and challenge the candidate to come up with solutions
Note the emotional flavor of the interview.
Keeping yourself steady as a measuring instrument, you will observe that different candidates will nonetheless bring to the interview into a type of emotional atmosphere. Some interviews will feel warm and open to you; others may feel cold and closed. This should be-if you are not compromising your own emotional posture from one candidate to another-an indication of the kind of atmosphere a subject will help to generate in the workplace. Do not err on the side of being afraid of asking penetrating questions. I like to compare an interview to a visit to a doctor's office for a thorough examination. In our culture, it is understood that both men and women will disrobe for such an exam, and expose their naked body to the physician. Doctors need not ask permission to see you naked (and if they did start asking permission, it would make us even more nervous). Similarly, interviewers, by the nature of their job, are expected to ask probing questions. We don't have to apologize for saying to a candidate, "Tell me about the atmosphere in your home life." What I usually do toward the outset of an interview is say something like, "Now, in the course of this interview I am going to ask you questions that may be personal in nature. If you think something is too personal for you to answer, just say so, and I'll move on to something else." Having said that, I find that I can ask candidates almost anything, and they will respond fairly candidly. The truth is, almost every question in the interviewing process is invasive. So the way you ask the question will, in part, determine whether or not your candidates give you open and honest reponses. Be professional, be courteous, and demonstrate a genuine interest in the person you are interviewing. This is the way to build trust, and trust is critical to success in gaining insight into each candidate.
Be aware that the toughest challenge in the interview process is interpreting the data. It is trite but true that the best data are of no use at all if they are not properly interpreted. Many interviewers, unfortunately, see the discussion process as the most important aspect of interviewing. In reality, the true meaning of the interview will only emerge with skillful interpretation of the data you have gathered. If, at the outset, the interviewer has an inadequate notion of the data to be gathered, the interview process is not likely to produce the data from which an accurate projection can be made of the candidate's performance on the job. Still another problem may be that the interview has not generated a sufficiently deep sampling of a candidate's personality. It is also possible to produce an overabundance of data that is not relevant to job performance. A major challenge is sifting out from all the notes of an interview those points that really bear on how the candidate will do his or her work. Proper interpretation of data involves matching a given candidate with a given job in such a way that a company has a high degree of assurance that the tasks assigned to that job will be carried out well, and that the person who occupies that slot will mesh well with others in a given company culture. It is often necessary to re-interview candidates in order to generate data that was not produced during the initial interview before a final decision can be made as to which of the prospects for the job will truly work out best.
Dr. James N. Farr