Have you ever wondered what impression you give when conducting an employment interview?
As a human resources professional recently in transition, I have had the opportunity to be interviewed by fellow HR executives, CEOs and consultants representing both retained and contingency search firms. I had recently been downsized from a strategic HR VP position when my firm was purchased by another.
It has been an eye-opener to me that many of those involved in key human resources searches lack even basic interviewing skills.
A partner of a prestigious search firm began an interview by saying, “I hate interviewing human resources people. They probably think I do a lot of things wrong.” Well, in my case at least, he was right.
After asking probing questions in an aggressive manner, this interviewer suddenly interrupted me to announce the position had been short-listed and would probably be filled by another candidate. Which begs the question, “Why was I called in for an interview?”
A former executive recruiter advised me: “Companies are interested in finding out that you match nicely with the specs. Treat them like a sales prospect.” Or, as a short-listed candidate for a senior HR position described it, “I was treated like a product.”
The sales meeting metaphor is incomplete, but it does provide some guidance. For instance, one key to predicting future on-the-job performance is that the interviewer needs to actually know the candidate specifications. “I need, you know, a thingamajig” will simply not do.
In an interview with the CEO of a large organization, it became simultaneously apparent to each of us that he really had very little idea of what he wanted in his new HR executive. As the interview rolled steadily downhill, he seized upon a concrete question. “Can you write?” he asked. Optimism temporarily renewed, I responded that my experience includes employee communications both in-house and as a consultant. I went on to describe the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches and media. “Good,” he said. “Our HR person is responsible for writing up the notes for our executive meetings.” Ah.
Others have similar experiences of a company’s failure to set setting meaningful specifications for their human resources candidates. A contender for a director position told me about her meeting with a non-HR person whose corporate services portfolio, up until then, had included human resources. The following questions represent most of what he asked her: “What are your office needs? What kind of chair do you require? What kind of computer do you need, lap top or desktop? Do you have typing skills? Are you proficient in Word, Excel? How about PowerPoint? You’re going to report directly to the CEO, do you think you should have a dotted line reporting relationship with anyone in the company?”
Interview technique
A key for interviewers to predict future behaviour is to use techniques that will elicit evidence to compare against the specifications. Some analyses have shown that most interviewing techniques have a predictive value of about 10 per cent, or roughly the same odds as making a hiring decision based solely on reading the resume. Just look through the stack, choose the one that best fits your needs, pick up the phone and make the offer. Simple, efficient and painless.
Some believe that behaviour based interviewing, on the other hand, can have a 55 per cent validity rate. Still, the potential downside of this popular technique is reflected in these comments from a colleague: “For an interview at a leading company, the interviewers read directly off a sheet, prepared by another HR professional. The questions were behavioural-based questions, but they didn’t know what to do with my answers.”
My own best experiences, where I was confident that I was really known by the interviewer, involved a mixture of question types.
It is the tone of the interview process, as much as the technique, that keeps desirable candidates engaged.
The search
Consider how a typical full-blown search proceeds. First, Workopolis or a telephone call from a researcher attracts a candidate. The subsequent selection process begins with 30-minute telephone interview, focused on credential and experience details. Next, a meeting with the search consultant — 60 minutes. The applicant may be asked to complete a written questionnaire containing both hypothetical scenario and behavioural questions — another 60 minutes.
Almost certainly there will be a selection committee interview of 60 to 90 minutes where an applicant may be asked to kick off the meeting with a prepared 15-minute presentation, complete with visuals. The first stage of the remaining time will involve standardized behaviour-based questions. A second shorter portion will be set aside for less formal questions. At the end, the applicant will be given a few minutes to ask some questions.
The next phase will be a one-on-one chat with the hiring manager, possibly including handshake visits to other management, potential subordinates, and the boss’ boss. Finally, the telephone call with a job offer. Some organizations, and reputable search firms, will telephone all candidates to let them know the results. Whew.
Candidate relations
To retain good candidates to the end of what they may well see as an obstacle course, an ordinary level of interviewing skill, at minimum, makes good business sense.
One HR generalist described a positive experience he had this way: “A senior consultant in a contingency fee firm provided a positive impression of a potential employer. The interview focused on the key responsibilities of the position. The consultant understood the needs of her client and provided an accurate overview of the key accountabilities of the position, organizational climate, management style and growth potential.” Partly as a result of his treatment, he was happy to accept a job offer.
I have met CEOs with a vision that includes the contribution of their employees but who don’t always know what to ask for from human resources to achieve that goal. I have spoken with search consultants I now could easily recommend, both as a candidate and as an employer. One created an atmosphere of trust and respect that allowed me to forget all about treating our interview meeting as a sales call. Another provided me with insights about balancing respect for the candidate and thoroughness on behalf of the client.
A networking meeting with a senior human resources executive gave me a perspective on my own career pattern that I would otherwise not have had. And, I have been interviewed, pretty skillfully, by somebody who wore red running shoes.
In speaking with other human resources professionals about their own work search experiences, I was struck by the consistency with which the horror stories were remembered first. The good example stories came later. My personal experience, on the other side of the interviewing desk, reminded me of the importance of good candidate relations practices as well as good selection technique.
How did my job search end? I decided to become a human resources consultant, offering interim HR services to busy organizations and companies that lack sufficient HR resources.
Bob Boulton is based in Toronto. He can be reached at
[email protected].
It has been an eye-opener to me that many of those involved in key human resources searches lack even basic interviewing skills.
A partner of a prestigious search firm began an interview by saying, “I hate interviewing human resources people. They probably think I do a lot of things wrong.” Well, in my case at least, he was right.
After asking probing questions in an aggressive manner, this interviewer suddenly interrupted me to announce the position had been short-listed and would probably be filled by another candidate. Which begs the question, “Why was I called in for an interview?”
A former executive recruiter advised me: “Companies are interested in finding out that you match nicely with the specs. Treat them like a sales prospect.” Or, as a short-listed candidate for a senior HR position described it, “I was treated like a product.”
The sales meeting metaphor is incomplete, but it does provide some guidance. For instance, one key to predicting future on-the-job performance is that the interviewer needs to actually know the candidate specifications. “I need, you know, a thingamajig” will simply not do.
In an interview with the CEO of a large organization, it became simultaneously apparent to each of us that he really had very little idea of what he wanted in his new HR executive. As the interview rolled steadily downhill, he seized upon a concrete question. “Can you write?” he asked. Optimism temporarily renewed, I responded that my experience includes employee communications both in-house and as a consultant. I went on to describe the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches and media. “Good,” he said. “Our HR person is responsible for writing up the notes for our executive meetings.” Ah.
Others have similar experiences of a company’s failure to set setting meaningful specifications for their human resources candidates. A contender for a director position told me about her meeting with a non-HR person whose corporate services portfolio, up until then, had included human resources. The following questions represent most of what he asked her: “What are your office needs? What kind of chair do you require? What kind of computer do you need, lap top or desktop? Do you have typing skills? Are you proficient in Word, Excel? How about PowerPoint? You’re going to report directly to the CEO, do you think you should have a dotted line reporting relationship with anyone in the company?”
Interview technique
A key for interviewers to predict future behaviour is to use techniques that will elicit evidence to compare against the specifications. Some analyses have shown that most interviewing techniques have a predictive value of about 10 per cent, or roughly the same odds as making a hiring decision based solely on reading the resume. Just look through the stack, choose the one that best fits your needs, pick up the phone and make the offer. Simple, efficient and painless.
Some believe that behaviour based interviewing, on the other hand, can have a 55 per cent validity rate. Still, the potential downside of this popular technique is reflected in these comments from a colleague: “For an interview at a leading company, the interviewers read directly off a sheet, prepared by another HR professional. The questions were behavioural-based questions, but they didn’t know what to do with my answers.”
My own best experiences, where I was confident that I was really known by the interviewer, involved a mixture of question types.
It is the tone of the interview process, as much as the technique, that keeps desirable candidates engaged.
The search
Consider how a typical full-blown search proceeds. First, Workopolis or a telephone call from a researcher attracts a candidate. The subsequent selection process begins with 30-minute telephone interview, focused on credential and experience details. Next, a meeting with the search consultant — 60 minutes. The applicant may be asked to complete a written questionnaire containing both hypothetical scenario and behavioural questions — another 60 minutes.
Almost certainly there will be a selection committee interview of 60 to 90 minutes where an applicant may be asked to kick off the meeting with a prepared 15-minute presentation, complete with visuals. The first stage of the remaining time will involve standardized behaviour-based questions. A second shorter portion will be set aside for less formal questions. At the end, the applicant will be given a few minutes to ask some questions.
The next phase will be a one-on-one chat with the hiring manager, possibly including handshake visits to other management, potential subordinates, and the boss’ boss. Finally, the telephone call with a job offer. Some organizations, and reputable search firms, will telephone all candidates to let them know the results. Whew.
Candidate relations
To retain good candidates to the end of what they may well see as an obstacle course, an ordinary level of interviewing skill, at minimum, makes good business sense.
One HR generalist described a positive experience he had this way: “A senior consultant in a contingency fee firm provided a positive impression of a potential employer. The interview focused on the key responsibilities of the position. The consultant understood the needs of her client and provided an accurate overview of the key accountabilities of the position, organizational climate, management style and growth potential.” Partly as a result of his treatment, he was happy to accept a job offer.
I have met CEOs with a vision that includes the contribution of their employees but who don’t always know what to ask for from human resources to achieve that goal. I have spoken with search consultants I now could easily recommend, both as a candidate and as an employer. One created an atmosphere of trust and respect that allowed me to forget all about treating our interview meeting as a sales call. Another provided me with insights about balancing respect for the candidate and thoroughness on behalf of the client.
A networking meeting with a senior human resources executive gave me a perspective on my own career pattern that I would otherwise not have had. And, I have been interviewed, pretty skillfully, by somebody who wore red running shoes.
In speaking with other human resources professionals about their own work search experiences, I was struck by the consistency with which the horror stories were remembered first. The good example stories came later. My personal experience, on the other side of the interviewing desk, reminded me of the importance of good candidate relations practices as well as good selection technique.
How did my job search end? I decided to become a human resources consultant, offering interim HR services to busy organizations and companies that lack sufficient HR resources.
Bob Boulton is based in Toronto. He can be reached at
[email protected].
