I sometimes wonder if it is a rule to be as unapproachable as possible when conducting an interview as if appearing as a criminal judge was listed in the recommendations on what it takes to be a great job interviewer. As you may imagine, my open and friendly nature is not always well-received in these types of situations. Especially in comparison to those who look like they blame you for even having to conduct an interview in the first place.
I have often left interviews baffled, thinking "What was that about?" while feeling only relief that it was over. If smiling during the process was illegal, I would certainly be broke from all the citations I would have received up until this point. Maybe people have come to equate a positive demeanor with a lack of skill or ability? The jury in my head is still out on that. Either way, I have more interviews than not in which deflation and dread are the common emotions that linger after the whole experience.
Maybe others don't notice or take into account social demeanor as much as I do. Throughout the interview process, I have multiple tabs open in my mind that I must continually weed out so that I can solely focus on what is being said. Not that I lack the ability to focus, but I am one who seems to naturally gather data on multiple levels. Having an awareness that is above average in interpersonal dynamics, such as automatic analysis of facial expressions, tone, acute gestures, and body language is as loud to me as the words that are spoken. Combine that with the intuitive information that floats my way and well, let's just say answering the question is not the only thing I am in the process of doing.
I not only am analyzing how to answer the question, but I am also thinking about how I am expected to answer the question, whether they prefer the superficial response, the interest or lack thereof lingering in the room, the direct and indirect responses to my answers, and whether or not I want to even work with a team who appear miserable and bored AF as some of my past interviewers have. Of course, none of my mental activity is revealed on the surface, but the automated analysis that occurs beneath their scrutiny has rarely created a pleasant interview experience.
I once interviewed as a civilian teacher who was hired to lead a voluntary environmental safety team for the local police department in the past. During an interview, if a question was not well-worded or confusing, I naturally ask for elaboration to clarify. When I did so for this position, the stoic officer in charge said, "Ma'am we aren't allowed to elaborate on questions." My face fell and of course, my palms began to sweat even more than they already were. What the hell? Was this a test? "Um...okay," I stammered while my head began racing with ideas of the lack of valid answers their questions risked drawing from the candidate. I barely maintained focus after that and the tabs of analysis invaded my thoughts. How do you answer a question when you are unsure of what is being asked? I guess I will just give multiple examples and maybe I'll give the answer they are looking for. I realize they are a serious group, but what does not elaborating have to do with that? Perhaps they are associating it with having an advantage over other candidates, but shouldn't they want someone who thinks to ask? I made it through the interview with their approval of my hire, but left feeling disappointed and questioning whether I would fit in. Of course, when the lie detector part of the hire came up, I was so nervous and overthought every question so I am certain I failed it. Yes, they still use those despite empirical evidence that they are inaccurate. I just told them I wasn't the right person in the end. Of course, I wrote off the whole thing as maybe that type of behavior was expected of the police department. However, it isn't the only place I've journeyed through interview hell.
I joined a zoom interview for a position to teach disadvantaged children in an alternative school with six interviewers who barely made eye contact the entire time.
I remembered I didn't know how to respond, except to stare at myself on the screen instead. One woman was the only one who appeared to be listening to my responses. The team took turns reading the list of questions in a tone that could have put even the most anxious to sleep. One never even looked up as he clickity-clacked away at the keyboard even when it was his turn to read. I was so thrown off by their entire demeanor, I didn’t even care that I bombed the interview. I had never been happier to exit a zoom meeting. It wasn't the first time I had seen the stark difference in demeanor between myself and others upon seeing my face on camera in professional meetings, leaving me feeling like the odd one out more than once.
These faces are the ones that look back at me whether I give the expected response or something more creative. Robotic responses, robotic expressions...I don't get it. Any can go online and learn responses to all the surface questions asked in an interview. Some candidates even make up jobs and degrees that exactly match the job requirements just because they learn that it is the only way you will get the job in today's society. How well you sell yourself accounts for everything it seems no matter if it is authentic or not. This, of course, is not encouraging for those who value genuine experience or skill over presentation or for those who are not as talented at speaking as they are at doing. It's also an analytical introverted nightmare.
The fact that candidates feel pressured to perform a surface way to secure a job says a lot about the characteristics of a company, most being unfavorable. Maybe I am just too old to kiss ass or people please despite being naturally nurturing. I think I'll pass on giving the same sales pitch-perfect answers despite my capability to research and memorize the "right" responses. It seems that I do not have the motivation to play that kind of game. Many would argue, who cares? Just do what they want to get the job. Nah, see. I think it is time that authenticity is valued a little more than it is and I am quite tired of constantly having to sell out to conform.
If I can't gain external approval just by being myself in an interview even when intelligent and high-achieving—by being one who is authentic and inviting rather than robotic—then I don't think I care much if I get the interview stamp of acceptance. Especially, if it lowers me to a standard of behavior that I am uncomfortable with. Compromise is a part of life, but sometimes you just gotta stop allowing circumstances to hold you to a lesser version than who you are meant to be. My behavior is cooperative and respectful, no matter if I am not fond of the interview process used. However, unlike when I was younger, I feel it is just as much the company's responsibility during an interview to make me want to work for them as it is for them to want to hire me. That being said, there aren't many interviewers that seem to share that same opinion.
I had a boss in the past who told fellow co-workers that he didn't want to hire someone for a tech position because they said "um" while pondering interview answers. Um, isn't that sometimes natural? In his opinion, as he had learned from studying sales presentation techniques, their behavior made them look less impressive. My thought response was just because one isn't good at public speaking (which wasn't required for the position) didn't mean they didn't possess more than adequate skills for the job. Indeed, it was more about surface impressions than it was about knowing how to do a job well. Why are all these surface rules more important than actual skill? Is there no desire for originality? Any awkwardness, at least for me, demonstrates that someone is being real rather than rehearsed. My boss eventually admitted that he gave the advantage to candidates who he considered attractive or were polished on the outside over those who had the most skill. I responded that maybe that was one of the reasons he couldn't keep someone in that position.
Despite all my preparations and rehearsal for interviewers, some never ask the questions hiring trainers promise will get you the job if you practice the response to. I've had some not even ask me who I was and others who've never even looked at my resume. I've had rude interviewers who did not even try to hide their irritation for me. One director even disrupted the flow of questioning to search for a reason to justify why I wouldn't fit. She shuffled my resume with a sigh and said, "I don't see where you have ever worked in the corporate environment." I paused. "I have." I proceeded to state which positions were corporate all the while wondering if she had expected me to write THIS IS A CORPORATION in big letters by each. Even if the flow of questioning went well, some have told me though I gave a perfect interview, they labeled me as too good for them in the end. The truth is that if you appear too perfect and say everything right, management might feel threatened. I've also been told that I should pretend I'm less intelligent than I am so I don't intimidate others. So often I find that gaining a position is about how well they gauge your conformity or just simply how much they like you. If you trigger ego issues or insecurities within others, it is rarely disregarded in exchange for level of skill. Regardless, I ironically have found that when I give examples of high-performance skills, the frowns within the shark tank deepen on some faces rather than the opposite no matter how I alter the presentation of said skills. So much of it, despite what interview trainers claim, is out of your control.
Here's a thought. How about we just talk for a couple of minutes to start? Maybe give a quick overview of the personalities of those on the team along with a couple of strengths, just for the purposes of relaxing the candidate? Maybe mentioned that you prefer genuine responses rather than rehearsed because you are authentically interested in who the candidate is. I wouldn't even be opposed to having an unofficial interview during a 4 to 5 happy hour over a glass of wine before the original interview is conducted. Yeah, okay. I know that's a reach but the lack of curiosity in who you are interviewing is just strange to me. If I am genuinely interested in what a candidate has to say, then I am naturally engaging them in conversation. Being sensitive to the emotions of others, when I was a participant in past hiring committees, I knew when to alter the approach or elaborate on some of the insight being provided during interviews based on expressions alone (meaning I could detect when interviewees were confused or needed more info). I realized an easy-going approach and genuine interest were often all it took to put candidates at ease, leading them to make eye contact with me more than the others in the group. They also gave more thorough answers with a little prompting, which is what I assume is desired when attempting to find the best fit for any team. It is obvious to me that a candidate can elaborate a little better when they aren't feeling like they're under interrogation.
Where do you see yourself in five years…why do you want to work at this company…why should we hire you…how do you deal with conflict…what is your educational objective…? Though I am not a fan of surface questions, I recognize some are essential of course. But, perhaps asking something beyond the generic—something more tailored to the skills and education listed on a resume may help to spark a little more interest and insight. However, it seems as if most committees are afraid to veer from the "list." I have only experienced one interview where I was asked questions about my education or a specific job and how it connected with the job I was interviewing for. Asking questions designed to draw parallels between relevant job experience and the job one is applying for can lead to unique behavioral insight that memorization of the right response could not provide. Some questions fail to even relate to information on a resume that many candidates often spend so much time constructing. I've wasted hours on interview prep and building my resume simply to be dismissed because I didn't work with the specific software of a company, despite the fact that I had extensive experience with similar software. It still amazes me that many don't understand that most software performing the same job tasks operate in such similar ways that if you have successfully worked one or more, you will likely understand the one they use too. Indeed, the features may be set up in the design differently, but it still does the same thing! Contrary to popular corporate belief, there is such a thing as transferable skills.
Don't get me wrong, I support researching ways to improve strategy and any elements of communication, as it is one of my educational focuses. Perhaps I've just yet to experience a good interview team. However, given that it often takes robotic answers to get past robotic screening in many positions just for a chance to get seen is at best repressing as well as depressing. I'm on the brink of just spilling the beans like Bridget Jones finally did though I don't share her reason for needing a new job. 😂😂
Providing perfect interview responses is not always an accurate reflection of how valuable of an asset a specific employee will be, just as an imperfect interview fails to represent how well a candidate will do the job. However, the interview experience can certainly increase or decrease one's motivation for exerting their best effort in convincing a group of strangers of career worthiness. At the least, perhaps the team could exert an effort to make a candidate feel more welcomed in respect for their efforts at presentation. Regardless, any means taken to improve the hiring process may be the difference in finding the right fit versus a temporary space filler that only leads to having to repeat the workday flow interruption to complete the interview again at a later date.
Comments