| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: mbManage: How to Conduct an Interview |
Topic: mbManage: How to Conduct an Interview
| Author | Message |
| Rebecca_mb | Posted – 3/6/2007 9:10:01 AM | show profile | email poster So, what did you think of mbManage, our new AvantGuild feature (free for the first 10 days) exploring workplace issues for media professionals? Are there other issues you'd like to see mbManage tackle in the future? Share your feedback here! ------ ** Rebecca L. Fox Managing editor, service and features mediabistro.com |
| mailbag | Posted – 3/7/2007 9:39:30 PM | show profile | email poster Too much is obvious Is it my imagination or do these MB topics (advertised with board graphic) seem to be very slow to get going? Ok, so here is what I thought of the feature: "How to hire 101" and I was hoping for "How to hire PHD" level. Perhaps my interviewing style is just different - and that is okay. I would not, nor have I, ever asked someone "why should I hire you?" It, along with any similar question, is truly pointless and a waste of time. Can I be antagonistic during an interview? Yes, and if they can't handle that, they won't enjoy working for me anyway. I would never pretend to be someone I am not during an interview. I disagree to a point with "keep the conversation going." Of course you have to get the main points out of the way, but that should already have been done during the phone interview. I use silence to my advantage. I know the candidate is sweating - I know s/he talks because they are nervous - so let them ramble....you'd be surprised what you can learn when they try to fill space. I think it is more important (from experience) to find out if the candidate is trustworthy. Some folks are very good at pretending to be the perfect match and I have been easy prey for that game in the past. So, my goal is to make sure they are not playing the game of dubious perfection. I also disagree with "staying on topic." Shooting the breeze for 30 minutes may make/break a candidate more than 20 questions ever could. It depends of course. I've hired someone who was not the top candidate simply because our 45-minute non-work related conversation was enlightening. We had something in common, we shared a passion. If you are going to work closely with someone for more hours than you spend with your spouse each week - I think it is better to get on with him or her personally. A general interview may not detect compatibility. "Almost all the media professionals we spoke to for this piece ask prospective hires the same question: What do you read?" Interesting question -- I've never asked it. I have asked - what websites do you visit. (And yes, I check out the ones I haven't heard of before - after the interview. lol.) "But, don't forget the others you met with, the people who merited face time but didn't get the job. It's important to make those calls -- or at least send an email -- letting those whom you met with know their status relative to the position, so you don't leave anyone hanging." That final point she made is "kind" and sound advice. |
| Marie | Posted – 3/8/2007 12:02:33 AM | show profile The stay on topic advice applies more to the candidate than the interviewer. I guess a savvy interviewer should get the candidate to ramble to find out more what the person is like. So the candidate should stay on topic. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 3/8/2007 12:58:24 AM | show profile It struck me as a pretty generic piece, which I stopped reading a 1/3 of the way through. --So, what did you think of mbManage, our new AvantGuild feature (free for the first 10 days) exploring workplace issues for media professionals? Are there other issues you'd like to see mbManage tackle in the future? Share your feedback here!-- |
| Lotus665 | Posted – 3/8/2007 12:32:39 PM | show profile I found it extremely generic; I could have made it up myself off the top of my head. Sorry, but that's my feeling. One thing that has driven me batty as an interviewee is an interviewer who has no plan, no list of questions, nothing, just wings it. They usually start with "tell me about yourself" and then ask if I have any questions. Or they go on forever describing the company and the job without asking me hardly anything, when in fact they should be asking me what *I* know about it and why I think I'd make a good fit-- a good candidate will have done her homework, and such a question can show preparedness. |
| caitlinkelly | Posted – 3/8/2007 2:28:08 PM | show profile I'd like to see something more rigorous. Suzy Welch recently wrote a powerful column about making lousy hires and how it happens. I'd like to read about the three worst hires you made -- how they slipped through the cracks -- and how to avoid making another one. I'd like to learn more about what, if any, training hiring managers (outside HR) are ever given to help them ask thoughtful questions and made good choices. |
| questomodo | Posted – 3/8/2007 2:31:56 PM | show profile I thought it was generic too, but based on my experience I think a lot of interviewers need that type of basic advice, unfortunately. |
| DHernandez | Posted – 3/10/2007 1:34:22 PM | show profile Maybe someone who has never interviewed anybody and doesn't know where to start can get something out of the article. I found it to be superficial and simplistic. Sorry! There's just so much more, and more in depth, to identifying the right candidate to hire. If you continue the feature -- and if it's for newcomers to management, as I suspect -- some topics might be finding good candidates (including minorities, because there are loads of resources for this), improving employee performance (performance evals, PIPs, etc.), planning an annual budget, and rewarding employee performance when decent raises aren't available. |
| Upward Bound | Posted – 3/10/2007 2:33:47 PM | show profile The other posters said all I have to say. |
| mehean | Posted – 3/11/2007 11:31:24 AM | show profile | email poster Being an HR and communications professional, I agree, it was a bit too generic. What I find when I'm trying to "counsel" my editors and staff on how to interview, is that they know the basics (haven't we all been on interviews before) that were covered in this article, but don't quite know how to spot red flags in a conversation, etc. Most of the hiring process, as we all know, is based on personality, presentability, and interaction. It is these skills and learning how to identify the true person/employee behind the interview mask, that is becoming increasingly important with so many candidates who appear qualified on paper. |
| caitlinkelly | Posted – 3/12/2007 9:56:38 AM | show profile I'd be curious to hear from belinda and others who have made many hires what percentage of applicants prove (on reference checks or post-hire) in fact unqualified...i.e. lying or inflating their experience? Do hiring managers assume every candidate is de facto going to be untruthful? Or is a poor fit more a question of poorly explained/defined cultural norms within your company and making sure there is a fit with even the technically best-qualified candidate? Few interviews seem conducted with any sort of organization or depth; it's assumed, with a certain level of experience, awards and clips, there is not much to discuss, even if there is. It seems they like you, or they don't, while personal social chemistry is no guarantee of an ethical employee who meets your many other criteria. belinda, what did you offer your best employees beyond raises? |
| Unemployed-gal | Posted – 3/27/2007 9:53:09 AM | show profile As an interviewee, I'd add something to the list. Once you've screened someone through to the interview stage, take a minute to read through their resume. You don't have to go over it with a fine-toothed comb, but it does help to avoid wasting time by asking stupid questions. For example, at two interviews in the past three weeks, I've been asked, "so why are you looking to leave your current job," when it says clearly on my resume that the job in question is an internship. Also, I've been asked where my college was located, when that information is on the resume as well. I've actually had an interviewer tell me straight up front that she didn't read my resume before I came in the room, and spent the whole interview reading it, never once looking up to make eye contact. And while I'm on the subject of eye contact, I can't stress the importance of it. I can't tell you how many times I've had interviewers who don't make eye contact, and it's kind of unsettling. |
| redheadedone | Posted – 3/27/2007 10:40:07 AM | show profile I'm curious to what mehwan means by "red flag' during an interview... can a "red flag" be more of a subjective than objective item? Or does mehean mean something along the lines of, oh, in between the summer of my freshman and sophomore year, I gace my mother 40 whacks and when I saw what I had done, I gave my father 41." mehean Posted ? 3/11/2007 11:31:24 AM | show profile | email poster Being an HR and communications professional, I agree, it was a bit too generic. What I find when I'm trying to "counsel" my editors and staff on how to interview, is that they know the basics (haven't we all been on interviews before) that were covered in this article, but don't quite know how to spot red flags in a conversation, etc. Most of the hiring process, as we all know, is based on personality, presentability, and interaction. It is these skills and learning how to identify the true person/employee behind the interview mask, that is becoming increasingly important with so many candidates who appear qualified on paper. |
| foodlit | Posted – 3/27/2007 12:53:23 PM | show profile A 'red flag' is anything that doesn't add up. A statement that should get your attention so that you probe more deeply, but that an inexperienced interviewer might not catch. It could be anything from hesitation over why they left the last job, or saying something that contradicts what's on the resume. You'd be amazed how many candidates have to look at their resume to answer questions! You should never need to refer to your resume, you should know what's on there cold. :) Pam |
| mehean | Posted – 3/27/2007 1:36:28 PM | show profile | email poster Thanks Pam... exactly what I meant by red flag... anything that just doesn't seem right. Body language can sometimes be a giveaway, but also explanations for leaving past positions, job duties (when asked about a specific duty/program and the candidate not being able to articulate basic terminology, etc). |
| redheadedone | Posted – 3/27/2007 2:55:57 PM | show profile is body language a big factor? What if the interviewee is really nervous about being interviewed? What are the physical signs or "tics" that someone should look for? I never thought of body language as something that held up well. For example, it's been said that if someone cross their arms in front of their chest it means that they're holding something off, it could also mean that they're cold. |
| AWC | Posted – 3/27/2007 3:13:41 PM | show profile Re: Red Flags In my experience, many people are reluctant to talk in detail about why they left their past jobs. Often the reasons are somewhat negative (ex. layoffs, bad job situations, life changes, etc.), and they understandably don't want to bring that discussion into an interview situation. So I don't normally consider this a red flag. For me, the there are two big red flags -- first is an inability to discuss their past experience using the terminology and "jargon" of the industry (in my case, magazine publishing). Second, given the collaborative nature of the business, I'm always wary of folks who take too much credit for the finished product. |
| midwestwriter | Posted – 3/27/2007 4:44:14 PM | show profile It seems as though almost everyone of those articles and subsequent forum discussions are just another gratuitous excuse for writers and editors to get back at the people who annoy them. I am starting out in my career; trying to network, interview, etc. and everytime I click on one of the articles I am looking for advice to give me a leg up. Everytime I am dissapointed. Honestly, I look to (and pay) MB for help and advice in my writing career. If I wanted to read pointless ramblings, I'd read one of the millions of blogs people readily promote on the forums...and they are free. |
| DHernandez | Posted – 3/27/2007 7:13:21 PM | show profile I just read caitlin's questions -- the danger of leaving the board to, uh, get some work done!! Let's see ... >>I'd be curious to hear from belinda and others who have made many hires what percentage of applicants prove (on reference checks or post-hire) in fact unqualified...i.e. lying or inflating their experience?<< I did not have any problems with the people I hired myself. I think it's because of the way I hired. Theoretically, everything you mention, caitlin, is checked BEFORE the job is offered. That's because making a bad hire is an expensive mistake affecting more than only the person who was hired and far more complex to remedy than saying "So long, see ya around." >>Do hiring managers assume every candidate is de facto going to be untruthful?<< No, not at all, although discrepancies that surface during the hiring process certainly call for closer scrutiny. And they do surface. >>Or is a poor fit more a question of poorly explained/defined cultural norms within your company and making sure there is a fit with even the technically best-qualified candidate?<< Technical qualifications aren't the entire picture in hiring. You may get an applicant who's at the top of the game as a journalist but a rock-bottom a-hole who's going to screw up your team if you hire her or him. When you hire, you learn enough about the applicant to determine approximately how well the person will mesh with personalities already working on your team, and you also expose the applicant to those personalities, so you can get feedback from your team and so the applicant can judge how good a fit the workplace would be. An abrasive hire can disrupt the quality, productivity and job satisfaction of the entire workplace; so it is better to hire someone with workable weaknesses if the personality fit is better than the person who's a star, or thinks she or he is. >> Few interviews seem conducted with any sort of organization or depth; it's assumed, with a certain level of experience, awards and clips, there is not much to discuss, even if there is. It seems they like you, or they don't, while personal social chemistry is no guarantee of an ethical employee who meets your many other criteria.<< I can't speak to shallow interviews, because I didn't conduct them when making a hire. I can tell you that experience, awards and clips do not mean there's nothing to discuss, and that social chemistry is, to a degree, a necessary criterion. Interviews for newspapers may stretch over the course of several days; I don't know of a case in which anyone was hired in an hour, no matter how stellar their credentials. If you interviewed with me, I would include questions that revealed to me something about character, maturity, decision-making skills, teamwork, introspection, willingness to learn, willingness to compromise and more -- and I would ask for examples of how you handled situations involving these qualities. I would talk with you for much more than an hour; in fact, I probably would slip in my questions as we toured the circulation area and chatted for most of a day. Before every hire, I made one list of technical qualities necessary for the job and another list of personal qualities that would benefit the team as it was constituted at that time. It's easy to find someone who can tell stories from underrepresented communities or who's facil with Quark, not so easy to find the right person for a job. >>belinda, what did you offer your best employees beyond raises?<< I had a whole bag of tricks, all based on making them feel valued and appreciated. Which they were. |
| DHernandez | Posted – 3/27/2007 7:29:13 PM | show profile Add to the "red flags" list ... -- The applicant's sole reason for wanting to work in the features department is daytime hours M-F. Dude, you planning to split when we have a celeb die on deadline or a Sunday award show to cover? -- The applicant asks how long a person has to work before they're eligible for COBRA. -- The applicant asks no questions about the job, the department, the publication or the company. |
| basenji | Posted – 3/27/2007 11:30:04 PM | show profile I think the standing feature is a great idea, but there are some legal HR-type issues that interviewers need to be aware of that weren't covered in the article. I guess if this is going to be a regular feature, I'd encourage the writer to make sure legal/HR issues also are factored into the article. In the case of interview questions, there are certain things that can get you into legal hot water that you want to avoid asking a candidate. For example, you should never ask someone about marital status or whether they have children. A person not hired can later come back and argue that potential childcare problems impacted the decision not to hire. There are other questions that should be avoided too. Here's a good resource: http://humanresources.about.com/od/interviewing/a/interview_quest.htm Also, never ever write on a resume. If the hiring decision ever lands you in court, the comments you write on the person's resume can be used as evidence and can definitely work against you. When I was interviewing, I used a standard set of behavioral interviewing questions (with some variation based on a candidate's specific experience). In some cases, I hired someone with less experience because they had the right attitude and type of work ethic that fit better into the company culture. I've interviewed candidates with great qualifications who had an attitude or didn't seem like they'd be a good fit with the rest of the staff, and therefore, weren't hired. I'd rather work with someone who has a good attitude and the ability/desire to learn than someone who is abrasive and thinks they're all that and a bag of chips because of their qualifications. It's hard to manage folks like that sometimes. Here are some red flags I encountered when I interviewed candidates: -One woman wouldn't stop talking and spent the majority of the time talking about her divorce, personal problems, etc. -One candidate reeked of mouthwash and overpowering perfume. And underneath the mouthwash, was the definite reek of day-old vodka seeping out of pores. -One candidate wore flip-flops, a mini skirt, and a low-cut shirt to the interview. And then didn't know anything about our company. I guess she spent too much time getting dressed and ran out of time to do a simple google search on our company. Waste of my time. I never hired anyone who walked into an interview without knowing anything about our company. It was an immediate disqualifier. I figured that if they were that lazy they'd probably be even lazier on the job. No thanks. |
| basenji | Posted – 3/27/2007 11:46:05 PM | show profile Forgot to include this in last post regarding behavioral interviewing questions/techniques: http://humanresources.about.com/od/interviewing/a/behavior_interv_2.htm |
| foodlit | Posted – 3/28/2007 9:11:37 AM | show profile I always write on the resume! But, to your point, the key is what goes into a permanent file on the people you interview. A resume can be tossed in the trash if it's a copy, so that's a non issue. What can get you in trouble is any comment made on the resume or application or in your computer database where you track applicants that can be deemed discriminatory. For instance, years ago when I used to interview very junior level right out of college candidates, we'd often write, 'good kid' or something similar...and were told to stop that asap for compliance reasons. Even worse, we used to assign a letter rating the candidate, an A if they were a superstar for instance, or a B+ if they were good but 'rough around the edges' as in not polished enough to go to our top clients. It sounds awful but was very helpful when you are sharing information in an office and someone is considering your candidate for their opening. As you can imagine, that practice came to a screeching halt. Pam |
| basenji | Posted – 3/28/2007 9:23:46 AM | show profile foodlit, yeh those comments in the margins like you're talking about can get you in trouble. But there also are requirements as far as how long you should keep certain documents, including resumes and applications. I have a hardcopy list somewhere that goes down the list of all the documents and how long they should be kept. So throwing away can be risky too! Off the top of my head, I believe you're required to keep resumes and job apps for a year for those candidates who aren't hired for a position. |
| foodlit | Posted – 3/28/2007 10:32:12 AM | show profile Yes, you do have to keep resumes/applications for at least a year I think. What I do though is make a copy of the resume and make notes on that, so if I throw that out, it's no big deal. What I usually do is then incorporate my notes into electronic form....and I'm very careful to be compliant! :) Pam |
