Best Interview Technique You Never Use
The more questions you ask, the more you learn about a job candidate, right? Wrong. Here's a better strategy.
Eventually, almost every interview turns into a question-and-answer session. You ask a question. The candidate answers as you check a mental tick-box (good answer? bad answer?).
You quickly go to the next question and the next question and the next question, because you only have so much time and there's a lot of ground to cover because you want to evaluate the candidate thoroughly. The more questions you ask, the more you will learn about the candidate.
Or not.
Sometimes, instead of asking questions, the best interviewing technique is to listen slowly.
In Change-Friendly Leadership, management coachRodger Dean Duncan describes how he learned about listening slowly from PBS NewsHour anchor Jim Lehrer:
Duncan: He urged me to ask a good question, listen attentively to the answer, and then count silently to five before asking another question. At first that suggestion seemed silly. I argued that five seconds would seem like an eternity to wait after someone responds to a question. Then it occurred to me: Of course it would seem like an eternity, because our natural tendency is to fill a void with sound, usually that of our own voice.
Lehrer: If you resist the temptation to respond too quickly to the answer, you'll discover something almost magical. The other person will either expand on what he's already said or he'll go in a different direction. Either way, he's expanding his response, and you get a clear view into his head and heart.
Duncan: Giving other people sufficient psychological breathing room seemed to work wonders. When I bridled my natural impatience to get on with it, they seemed more willing to disclose, explore, and even be a bit vulnerable. When I treated the interview more as a conversation with a purpose than as a sterile interrogation, the tone of the exchange softened. It was now just two people talking...
Listening slowly can turn a Q&A session into more of a conversation. Try listening slowly in your next interviews. (Not after every question, of course: Pausing for five seconds after a strictly factual answer will leave you both feeling really awkward.)
Just pick a few questions that give candidates room for self-analysis or introspection, and after the initial answer, pause. They'll fill the space: with an additional example, a more detailed explanation, a completely different perspective on the question.
Once you give candidates a silent hole to fill, they'll fill it, often in unexpected and surprising ways. A shy candidate may fill the silence by sharing positive information she wouldn't have otherwise shared. A candidate who came prepared with "perfect" answers to typical interview questions may fill the silence with not-so-positive information he never intended to disclose.
And all candidates will open up and speak more freely when they realize you're not just asking questions--you're listening.
Read more:
5 Questions Great Job Candidates Ask
One Thing Every Great Entrepreneur Does
Jeff Haden learned much of what he knows about business and technology as he worked his way up in the manufacturing industry. Everything else he picks up from ghostwriting books for some of the smartest leaders he knows in business.@jeff_haden
======
/ Manimal Law·December4,2012at7:28amThis is both a good technique and a terrible one. In my current position, on a full time basis I interview candidates for clients over the phone. A long pause can be the start of what can end up being a novel of information provided by these candidates. If they are young and you do a pause, they are telling themselves that you require more information and are waiting for them to continue. If they are mature and a vet in interviews, then they will generally ask if that is enough information. I am required to tell them with subtle "thank you for that" wording to inform them they have given me enough. When it comes to face to face, this could be a very awkward situation where you need to control what is being said, a bad candidate will go on a rant while a good one will simply know that if there is a pause then that’s how it will be.
If you are, for example reading this and wondering what it takes to complete a successful interview with an interviewer, I would suggest be confident in yourself and your answers. If there is a pause like this, then you can stand proud knowing that you have said what you needed to say. To summarise, this is an effective technique for both people - the candidate shows confidence and control in his or her answers but also the interviewer can show control in the interview to who is in charge, but also review the candidate’s traits and personality.
Very interesting article though, just don't take it too seriously!!
/ Sumi Allen·September30,2012at11:28pm
I'm not understanding the recent protocol in establishing "soft skills" and it's subjectivity in it's entirety. I understand that HR reps wants to do their job right like any other employee. And of course applicants want to fudge the answers for that edge.
"We are looking for someone who is a motivated self-starter with strong organizational and multi-tasking skills."
" Must have excellent attention to detail and be able to produce deliverables accurately and on schedule. Must be a self-starter who thrives on learning and welcomes challenges. Excellent communication skills (written/verbal) required."
And this is why I brought it up. I had two different interviews within the same company for two different positions. And my technique was criticized in two totally different ways, subjectively by the two different groups.
And it came down to one aspect. Personality. Not mine. But the hiring manager's/team's personality.
One thought I was too nervous/shy during the interview. They were the aggressive top performers dealing with numbers.
The other thought I was too eager? He was a quieter introvert.
It's actually quite scary when you do not know what to expect.
Some people actually want to like you, others. Well, I had one interview with a guy who wanted to play Donald Trump in that show "You're Fired". Another interrogated me and asked me if I would leave the "dead end position" when the economy got better. She asked that question 3 years ago.
But what the heck are you supposed to expect when you read job ads that ALL have the same cliche'd phrases? Would it not be easier to cut the responses by allowing HR to be more specific in the subjective qualities? Especially if it's that important to the hiring managers?
"Great communicator". "Great communication skills". "communicating between Senior Executives and Vice Presidents". "Must be able to use Microsoft Word"..
Maybe a better way to express expectations would be to say, "Professional demeanor...".
"Executive Professional" or "professional" is not synonymous with grabbing a suit from Charlotte Russe (instead of Ann Taylor) and spelling "professional" correctly. Some firms are all black, or they adhere strictly to a corporate dress guideline. What about grammar?
From my humble experience, those who can correspond professionally are those with at least an associates degree. It seems like hard skills should be the selling point. Not a nervous break. One time I actually fell ill towards the end of the interview and may have appeared nervous due to that reason alone. It was really bad timing, but it just happened. The interviewer got her thank you letter. But sometimes people read way too much into nothing.
What are the hiring managers looking for specifically? When I go into interviews, unfortunately sometimes the ad is the only information I have about the open position. We're batting curves and we don't know where the net is before the ball goes into foul. I've been hired on by managers who wanted me to get the job and they threw me straight pitches. I can deliver jokes, lines, get people to open up.
I've seen "personality" win the job, but the good personality was only the result of insight and expertise (talent/strength) in that role and what he was able to do for that firm. I sat outside during his interview, there was no silence. The hiring manager had every detail checkmarked during that conversation because she really wanted someone great for that position.
But then again, after spending money on transit/parking/etc. it appears that some interviewers even made up their mind (incl. internal candidates) before you walk in the door (and were expected to interview outside candidates for HR protocol purposes- yes this should be illegal btw.).
If that candidate even shows up to the interview, groomed, professional, polished... they should all be given a clear first base advantage. Incentive motives open people up like no other. People want to get to those bases.
Interviewing is getting the goods out of the prospect, this requires basic communication skills.