I got some decent pushback from my posting last Friday about the recommended number of questions for a hiring interview. Coincidentally, I was teaching a workshop (see HiringTalent.com) and fielded the same sentiment from two attendees as was posted by GBGames on Friday. I know I struck a chord when people disagree.
After observing a ton of hiring interviews, I have created a list of the top things that go wrong in the conversation. Here is a big one:
The interviewer fails to find out important information about the candidate’s experience, skills and behaviors relative to the job profile.
Interesting, since this is the primary purpose of the interview, what causes this failure? Most often, time and again, the interviewer is not prepared to ask the right questions and pursue the details of the candidate’s experience. Manager’s think they can wing it. “Just give me the guy’s resume. I’ll spend a few minutes with him and tell you what I think.”
Quite frankly, I am not interested in the opinion of the interviewer. I am interested in how much hard information was collected that has a direct bearing on the person’s probability for success.
Now, Friday’s pushback has to do with the state of mind of the candidate. When we ask more than 100 questions in an interview, are we creating undue pressure that comes off as “grilling?” More on that tomorrow. -TF
Thanks for addressing my question. B-)
For the record, I wasn’t disagreeing so much as questioning how it works out. It’s like a math problem solution: I understand that it is correct, but I don’t understand how.
If a potential hire is nervous about the number of questions being asked, I imagine that it demonstrates how little confidence he/she may have.
And 100 questions don’t necessarily have to be asked all at once. The interview process can be spread over a few days, right?