RSS Feed Mutual Attraction

6:13 pm | 0 recommendations | 5 comments

Careers: Why Traditional Job Interviews Don't Work

| posted by Shawn Graham

Traditional job interviews are flawed. Instead of evaluating interviewees on the skills and abilities they need to succeed in the job, they focus on softball questions the responses to which interviewees often memorize. As a result, you get canned answers; responses that have been rehearsed over and over again. If you’re looking for actors who can memorize lines, that’s great. But if you want to know if he or she can do the job, you’re going to have to look beyond traditional interviews. In response, corporate recruiters increasingly tell me they prefer to use more of an organic approach that allows the interview to ebb and flow more like a conversation instead of an interrogation.

The first method is what I like to call the “deep dive.” With this technique, your entire interview could revolve around only one or two questions. But, unlike traditional interviews where the candidate will walk you through his or her resume, with the deep dive you ask about key projects, accomplishments, and other information on the resume that might normally get glossed over. For example, you can ask probing questions along each step of the way such as “What was your role?”, “What was the outcome?”, and “What would you do differently?”

The benefits are twofold. First, it requires the candidate to be quick on his or her feet. I don’t know about you, but I think that’s a definite must for almost any position out there from the storeroom to the boardroom. Second, it allows you to drill down on things you might otherwise pass over. More than 70% of the resume walks I’ve seen in my more than 10 years working with clients have involved nothing more than hitting the high points almost word for word from the resume. Why take 2-5 minutes of an interview covering something you could read from the resume yourself?

You can also use this technique on other common interview questions. Instead of asking for a biggest strength or weakness which most interviewees will be expecting and prepared to answer, ask them to list their next biggest strength or weakness, and their next biggest, and their next biggest. That way, you’ll get spontaneous and genuine responses, not scripted sound bites like “My biggest weakness is that sometimes I’m a perfectionist.” Give me a break.

For inspiration for the next technique, I look to a quote from a character named Patches O’Houlihan from one of my favorite movies, Dodgeball who said “If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.” As I mentioned above, if you’re trying to evaluate whether someone can do the job, the best predictor of that is to have them do the job. I know that can be difficult during a 30-60 interview, but simulations can still be very effective.

Similar to case studies used by marketing and consulting firms, simulations ask candidates to address actual challenges they’d face on the job. For example, if you are looking for people to evaluate stocks, ask them to evaluate stocks. If you’re looking for someone to deliver presentations and that’s a significant part of the job, block off some time for a presentation. It can be stressful for the candidate, but there’s no better way to see how they’d do in the job then trial by fire. If an interviewee can succeed with a simulation, chances are they will succeed in the job. I know there are no guarantees, especially when it comes to interviews, but in my option this interview format is a much better predictor of success then traditional behavioral interviews.

If you’re not using one of these techniques, ask yourself whether you could benefit from using one or both of these interview formats. As I know you’ll agree, it’s much better to spend your energy identifying and hiring the right people then it is trying to figure out what to do with the bad hires already onboard.

Shawn Graham is an Associate Director with the MBA Career Management Center at UNC's Kenan-Flagler Business School and author of Courting Your Career: Match Yourself with the Perfect Job (courtingyourcareer.wordpress.com).

Tags: Careers
Sign in or register to comment.

Recent Comments | 5 Total

July 31, 2007 at 5:57pm

Chris
"Instead of asking for a biggest strength or weakness which most interviewees will be expecting and prepared to answer, ask them to list their next biggest strength or weakness, and their next biggest, and their next biggest." I really like this idea of getting at a candidate's strengths while avoiding the canned responses. It's time to *take this back* in some way. I wonder how valuable it might be to ask a candidate what it is they really like to do? When have they felt the strongest and what were they doing when they felt that way? I don't think it would matter what it was or even when it was. But taking someone's own perception of their strength could lead to vital clues that the interviewer can apply. You might also gain insight by asking them what it is they really don't like to do. I know, it sounds so obvious, but so many times I've witnessed the only topic of conversation is the resume - and the resume is not enough. How might "I really love to write letters" or "in my last job I loved showing the new guy around" translate into a valuable skill? Scratch below the surface and you might find you have someone who really excels by connecting with people. Put them into a position based on the skills listed in their resume, instead of these clues, and you're in for total dissatisfaction by everyone. We need to read between the lines more. And I wonder if the best way to do that is to get to know the person outside of the resume?

August 4, 2007 at 4:04am

Steve
Whilst I think that the idea of putting potential candidates through a more demanding interview process is alright, I think the very nature of using interviews is flawed. What about results? Is there a way, anyway, that we could better monitor and 'prove' who are the star employees and who are not? To me, the creation of a better interview technique is similar to creating a better fax machine - useful, but how many people get excited by that anymore? Thoughs?

August 17, 2007 at 9:39am

Edie
I see one flaw in your follow-up questions which relates to "What would you do differently?" diretion. This opens the door to exactly what you're trying to avoid. All of us have read the theory and can speculate on what I "woulda", "shoulda" and "coulda" done. I'm more interested in what was done. I would much rather hear about a specific example where learnings from a not so good outcome were applied with different results. Leave the "speculation" at the door with the "canned answers" please.

August 17, 2007 at 10:35am

Alex DeBernardi
I no longer go through the resume in an interview. It was boring for me and stressful for them. I may focus on a specific position or aspect of a job and do a "deep dive." Most of the people I have interviewed the past two years have plenty of experience, so what I am looking for is soft skills. Recently, I have been holding 3 hour job interviews. Either they do not feel like 3 hours when they become an engaging conversation or I cut them short when it is clear to me that there is no depth to get to. In that sort of interview I get a sense of the interviewee and what she can bring to the job, more than I have ever been able to do with a full day of one hour interviews with 6-8 interviewers.

September 6, 2007 at 4:59pm

Alyson
As a candidate, nothing irks me more than when a prospective employer asks me to walk him/her through my resume. Did they read it? Do they want to know why I left each job? If so, just ask me targeted questions. I try to steer the direction of the interview into the "deep dive" part by listing specific projects that I am proud of on my resume. That way, they can ask me about those specific projects. It doesn't work all the time, but it's an easy way for me to redirect the conversation, if I'm given the opportunity.