Actually, I don't believe that at all but it makes a good Headline. Or at least, it did in the Independent last week (http://ow.ly/fmsO30nJCxi). The story came about after a young graduate, Olivia Bland had a pretty appalling interview in which she felt that she'd had been grilled and intimidated during an interview - with a company boss (http://ow.ly/3Xkr30nJCz2). To summarise, Olivia was actually then offered the job but chose to decline having been well and truly put off by such character assassination during the interview. She then tweeted her story and of course, it went viral.
I've long suspected, well, actually, I've always known that the best candidates do not always interview well. I also know that many employers do not have good interview techniques and procedures. I tend to take quite a 'laissez faire' approach to this. After all, I know my clients and I know my candidates. As much as I can, I will prepare candidates in advance of an interview so that they know the likely style, format and type of interview that they can expect. A poor interviewer does not always mean a poor employer so it is important to differentiate the two.
The article was spot on where it highlighted that often the shiny interviewees who talk a great talk during an interview.....are often the least good hires. And you know, I'm not dissing them (those who I call the Shiny Shoe Brigade - my Dad used to call them Piss Artists), I do think it's the role of the interviewer to draw out the important skills and behaviour traits to find out whether the candidate is the right one for the role. I also think that if that interviewer is impressed by such things/people then they are quite possibly right for each other. There is somewhere for everyone.
One of the most common pieces of feedback or reasons for not securing a role is 'fit'. Often indefinable which can make it frustrating for both the candidate and myself. BUT, it's my job to be able to predict 'fit' - as much as I can based on my entirely non scientific instinct. Having thought about this news story, I think that as a candidate, you have to find out as much as you can about the organisation and whatever you can about the person interviewing you prior to your interview. I often bang on to people about only going to the 'right' interviews and only applying for the 'right' jobs. Ultimately that reduces the chances of interview failure significantly. If you then prepare for that interview, you have the best possible chance of success. In my experience, interviewers fall into a small number of categories.
The Formal.
There are the clients who focus on the traditional competency interview questions. Mostly this is the larger Corporates who have HR teams who earn their own salary based on complicated psychometric testing and point scoring. One could say that this is, at least, 'fair' - interview answers are scored on skills, experience and ability to do the job. I do know lots of big businesses who do this well, really well. But done poorly, it's very frustrating - as in 'computer says no' frustrating.
The Owner Manager
Quite common in marketing & advertising, where there are lots of boutique agencies who are independently owned. These business owners can quite commonly not be accomplished interviewers. They can run a business yes, but they're not always 'people focused' - sounds like a dichotomy! Often they just want to make a hire, and quickly. You'll find that the interview is very short and whilst you're anticipating a second interview, you get a job offer. This can feel too fast....However, the boss just wants to get someone in the role. To be fair, these people are busy and they themselves are relying on gut instinct too. They tend to believe that you can do the job you say you can do, they trust the CV to tell them about your skills and ability. Then it's a case of whether they like you. To be honest, they probably know in the first 5 minutes if you 'fit'. As a candidate, you're wanting them to 'sell' the opportunity to you....but it's quite transactional, they assume you want the job! This can work very well, low fuss and high speed recruitment.
The Ego
Typically someone in a senior role in a larger advertising agency, but not a partner or an owner. Someone who doesn't have formal interview training themselves but they like to think they know how to get past the gloss and see the real person. Usually quite an unconstructed interview, but these interviewers are the most likely to have read the '100 best interview questions' book. They like to throw in the odd random 'Googlesque' question. Or ask you what you'd do if you won the lottery or what your friends would say about you in the pub. In my experience, these interviewers are fair but they like to get their own 'ego' out there during the interview. Typically during the interview, they'll do 90% of the talking.
The Genuine. How an interview should be. An interviewer who listens and asks questions specific to the role, the requirements and your responses. Someone who respects that you have taken time out to interview and to research and prepare prior to that interview. Someone who is prepared to put in a bit of time (usually an hour) to find out if you are right for the job. Someone who, even if they think after 10 minutes that they're not sure....they will continue to process to get a full and fair view of the interviewee. These people do exist! In fact, they're pretty common.
I don't know any employers who 'grill' interviewees like the chap in the Olivia Bland case. Perhaps she did just get him on a bad day....(being generous here). It doesn't make sense to make someone struggle so much during an interview, if you really want them to work for you. In careers such as the army, I expect the interview process to be arduous and tough - and so do the interviewees. The interview process is surely specific to the role that is being applied for. My advice is that if possible (and it should be if you are going through a recruiter) is to gain all the insight you can on the person/people interviewing you and the structure and format of what you are likely to experience in the interview process. Forewarned is Forearmed. And don't forget that an interview works both ways, if you don't like how it goes, you can decline. Do your homework, do your research and be your most genuine self.
I've long suspected, well, actually, I've always known that the best candidates do not always interview well. I also know that many employers do not have good interview techniques and procedures. I tend to take quite a 'laissez faire' approach to this. After all, I know my clients and I know my candidates. As much as I can, I will prepare candidates in advance of an interview so that they know the likely style, format and type of interview that they can expect. A poor interviewer does not always mean a poor employer so it is important to differentiate the two.
The article was spot on where it highlighted that often the shiny interviewees who talk a great talk during an interview.....are often the least good hires. And you know, I'm not dissing them (those who I call the Shiny Shoe Brigade - my Dad used to call them Piss Artists), I do think it's the role of the interviewer to draw out the important skills and behaviour traits to find out whether the candidate is the right one for the role. I also think that if that interviewer is impressed by such things/people then they are quite possibly right for each other. There is somewhere for everyone.
One of the most common pieces of feedback or reasons for not securing a role is 'fit'. Often indefinable which can make it frustrating for both the candidate and myself. BUT, it's my job to be able to predict 'fit' - as much as I can based on my entirely non scientific instinct. Having thought about this news story, I think that as a candidate, you have to find out as much as you can about the organisation and whatever you can about the person interviewing you prior to your interview. I often bang on to people about only going to the 'right' interviews and only applying for the 'right' jobs. Ultimately that reduces the chances of interview failure significantly. If you then prepare for that interview, you have the best possible chance of success. In my experience, interviewers fall into a small number of categories.
The Formal.
There are the clients who focus on the traditional competency interview questions. Mostly this is the larger Corporates who have HR teams who earn their own salary based on complicated psychometric testing and point scoring. One could say that this is, at least, 'fair' - interview answers are scored on skills, experience and ability to do the job. I do know lots of big businesses who do this well, really well. But done poorly, it's very frustrating - as in 'computer says no' frustrating.
The Owner Manager
Quite common in marketing & advertising, where there are lots of boutique agencies who are independently owned. These business owners can quite commonly not be accomplished interviewers. They can run a business yes, but they're not always 'people focused' - sounds like a dichotomy! Often they just want to make a hire, and quickly. You'll find that the interview is very short and whilst you're anticipating a second interview, you get a job offer. This can feel too fast....However, the boss just wants to get someone in the role. To be fair, these people are busy and they themselves are relying on gut instinct too. They tend to believe that you can do the job you say you can do, they trust the CV to tell them about your skills and ability. Then it's a case of whether they like you. To be honest, they probably know in the first 5 minutes if you 'fit'. As a candidate, you're wanting them to 'sell' the opportunity to you....but it's quite transactional, they assume you want the job! This can work very well, low fuss and high speed recruitment.
The Ego
Typically someone in a senior role in a larger advertising agency, but not a partner or an owner. Someone who doesn't have formal interview training themselves but they like to think they know how to get past the gloss and see the real person. Usually quite an unconstructed interview, but these interviewers are the most likely to have read the '100 best interview questions' book. They like to throw in the odd random 'Googlesque' question. Or ask you what you'd do if you won the lottery or what your friends would say about you in the pub. In my experience, these interviewers are fair but they like to get their own 'ego' out there during the interview. Typically during the interview, they'll do 90% of the talking.
The Genuine. How an interview should be. An interviewer who listens and asks questions specific to the role, the requirements and your responses. Someone who respects that you have taken time out to interview and to research and prepare prior to that interview. Someone who is prepared to put in a bit of time (usually an hour) to find out if you are right for the job. Someone who, even if they think after 10 minutes that they're not sure....they will continue to process to get a full and fair view of the interviewee. These people do exist! In fact, they're pretty common.
I don't know any employers who 'grill' interviewees like the chap in the Olivia Bland case. Perhaps she did just get him on a bad day....(being generous here). It doesn't make sense to make someone struggle so much during an interview, if you really want them to work for you. In careers such as the army, I expect the interview process to be arduous and tough - and so do the interviewees. The interview process is surely specific to the role that is being applied for. My advice is that if possible (and it should be if you are going through a recruiter) is to gain all the insight you can on the person/people interviewing you and the structure and format of what you are likely to experience in the interview process. Forewarned is Forearmed. And don't forget that an interview works both ways, if you don't like how it goes, you can decline. Do your homework, do your research and be your most genuine self.