The Day of an Interview
Overcoming Interview Inertia, Creating Interview Momentum
Everywhere you look there is advice about how to interview. There is advice from how to dress–to what to say or not to say–to how to follow up. The large majority of the advice is worthwhile, but there is a point in the process that I don’t see given much attention. I wanted to share some advice on what to do the day of an interview. How can a candidate can overcome Interview Inertiaand then create and maintain Interview Momentum?
Guest or Host?
Think about how differently you act in these two similar situations. The first, imagine you are a guest at a dinner party where there are many other guests. You know about 3-5 people in the busy room. Even the most outgoing people would tend to gravitate to the few familiar faces they already know. Perhaps you would too.
The second, imagine yourself now hosting a dinner party with many guests. The majority of the guests you know, but there are also a large number of people you haven’t yet met. As the host of the dinner party, you are going to be more inclined to be social, jovial, and welcoming.
Even in these similar situations, the same person may dawn two different personalities. My advice is to present the dinner-party-host version of yourself on an interview.
Now, the dinner-party-host version of yourself isn’t just turned on with a flip of a switch. We need to warm up and build up to that heightened level. Some will need more runway than others. An interviewing pitfall is going into an interview without creating enough social momentum.
Here are some ideas about how to create Interview Momentum:
- Sing or whistle while you’re getting ready that morning.
- Strike up a conversation with a stranger.
- Ask engaging questions to the car service driver.
- Make small talk with the receptionist while you’re waiting.
- Go out of your way to be thoughtful to a stranger.
- Smile as much as possible.
By doing the above things or acting in accord with the outlined ideas, you’ll get the ball rolling…you’ll overcome interview inertia.
When the manager comes into the lobby to greet you, they will instantly recognize your positive energy. This bodes well for a well-received first impression. The energy that was created in the first part of the day will give you lasting momentum through the interview.
Candidates who fail to build momentum leading up to the interview may feel that they have too much interview inertia to overcome the second they meet the manager. Savvy interviewers have social momentum already generated, and they are hitting their interviewing stride from the very beginning.
I hope this information is unique and helpful as you look to create and maintain Interview Momentum. I’d welcome your thoughts about the topic as well.
TheMSLRecruiter Blog: That Job is Still Open?!?
The Cost of Going Back to Square One
People develop opinions about companies in a few ways. Sometimes their opinion is developed through being a customer or a vendor. Other times it is based on the advertising messages they see or hear word of mouth. I want to discuss another way perceptions about companies are developed and that is through being a candidate for employment.
When a candidate is being recruited to a company, there are three ways advertising messages get communicated. One vehicle for this marketing message is through the phone lines of a recruiter. The second one comes from other people the candidate knows who may have more information about the company. The third advertising message that shapes a candidate’s perception of the company is what they experience for themselves during the recruiting process–whether as a candidate or prospective candidate.
As an executive recruiter, I get to see many companies handle hiring in many different ways. There is one common misstep that most companies take that sends a negative ripple through the candidate pool. The ripple occurs when a company conducts a search, gets to the end, and then decides to keep looking. Yes, the ole “back to square one” is potentially causing a wave of misinformation to candidates and prospective candidates. Let me explain…
When a company goes “back to square one,” they run the risk of the candidate pool concluding three negative assumptions as they say, “That job is still open?”:
Attract: When a company goes “back to square one,” they lose the allure of scarcity and appearance of opportunity. Imagine you’re a candidate being readdressed by the same recruiter about the same opening as a month ago. Would you assume that the company is having trouble attracting people? Could you see yourself thinking, “If others don’t want this, why should I?”
Afford: Perhaps the candidate doesn’t think that the company is having trouble attracting people. Instead, what if they start thinking the company can’t secure the winning candidate financially? Typically when a company is “back to square one,” they have offered the job to someone and been turned down. Candidates aren’t oblivious to this. What I’ve found is that candidates aren’t attracted to what they feel someone else has turned down regardless of the reason. Even if this too is a false assumption, going “back to square one” allows the hypothesis to hatch that there is some deficiency in the company or the company’s offering.
Agree: Companies that attract the best candidates are ones that show cohesiveness and sound decision making in the interview process. When organizations have to restart a search, candidates may think that the company has trouble making decisions or agreeing internally. In this scenario, I’ve heard candidates say, “They must not know what they want.”
As a balancing statement, I’m not saying that companies should make a hiring decision just to avoid these three assumptions. Hiring the wrong person can be quite costly. Sometimes going “back to square one” can’t be avoided and wasn’t brought about by any of the above reasons. What I would advise against is allowing a chronic behavior to develop. There is a cost for duplicating efforts, and as outlined, it may be costing companies in ways that don’t show up on balance sheets.
TheMSLRecruiter Blog: Revealing Interview Questions
Interviewers ask questions to reveal those necessary details about a candidate that drive a hiring decision.This article provides seven questions that will reveal the hard-to-find information about a candidate’s soft skills, which is vital in hiring.These questions don’t stand alone, though.Each of them needs follow-up questions such as: “Why do you say that?”, “Help me understand what you mean?”, or “Tell me more about that?’.The reason these questions are powerful is that there is no “right” answer and really no way to prepare for them.In your next interview, ask one or all of these, and see what is revealed to you.
- If you were interviewing for my job, what would you be planning to implement right away?This question is more revealing than you probably think. When listening to the answer, you will find out if this person is a cultural fit for the company. You’ll learn if they will be able to buy-in to the direction of the company or team. Also, you might be surprised on how much information you gain that you can actually implement as you develop future strategies. This person might go from a candidate you’re considering hiring to an employee you begin grooming for a bigger role in the company.
- Based on all the managers you’ve had, what advice would you give me about management?Try this on your kids first, and ask about teachers instead of managers. The first thing they will tell you is what a teacher should not do…like assign homework. The same is true with a candidate, where their first thought is generally what not to do, and this will quickly reveal whether they would thrive in your company culture. Who knows, you might pick up a tip about management too. Most importantly, you’ll have revealed in a snapshot the type of manager the candidate does and doesn’t like. With that information, you can assess how well they would fit within the organization and your management style.
- What things do you accomplish in the morning before work?Okay, this question is not about personal hygiene, so we are not looking for what they do to get ready for work. This questions is about what a person does to get ready to be great at work. The reason I like this question is that it reveals what a person does to set up success. You might learn that the person reads the Bible every day. Maybe the person is a disciplined runner or works out every morning. Perhaps you’ll find out that the person reads industry news or current events. What if you find out they wake up 30 minutes before work? Regardless of the response, you’ve now been revealed their personal priorities.
- If you had an unexpected one-hour lay-over and all you had with you was your phone, how would you use your phone to occupy your time?What a person does with unexpected extra time is crucial to evaluating them as an employee, especially if they are given a great deal of autonomy. When you throw in the phone component, what you really need to learn about them is revealed. Are they going to answer emails, read an on-line book, call a customer, peruse social media, or play a game? Maybe they won’t use the phone at all. Perhaps they will put the phone in their pocket and strike up a conversation with a stranger. Regardless, this scenario truly reveals much about their personality style and work ethic.
- If today was a free day without any work or family responsibilities what would you do?This is similar to Question 4, but it removes the element of responsibility. Knowing what a person would do with a completely free day is revealing in many ways. Maybe they would spend it alone. Maybe they would read inside or do outdoor recreation. Maybe they’ll sleep or watch a movie. Perhaps the person would chose to be with their family even with responsibility taken away. This question will help you learn about what is truly important and what motivates them. This is not likely to help you make a hiring decision, but if you do chose to hire them, it will help you better manage them.
- When you resign from your current position, what is going to be the hardest for them to replace?This is a better question than asking about a person’s strengths because it infuses a real context. You’ll find out about what they do best. You’ll also get a glimpse of their emotional intelligence. The logical follow-up question to this is to ask, “How do you think your employer will react to you resigning?” This will reveal the relationship the person has with their manager, which will likely be the relationship you’ll have with the candidate down the road. Also, you will get further insight to why they are looking for a new position and whether they would consider a counter-offer. All of this is great information to have revealed before offer time.
- What is something interesting that you have recently learned?When I ask this question, I am looking for them to light up. I want to see what impassions them. The logical follow up question is to have them teach it to you. By doing so, you can see how well organized their thoughts are, how well they can covey potentially complex ideas, and how well they truly understood the new information. The ability to learn and teach others is invaluable in any market. Having revealed to you whether the candidate you’re interviewing can learn new things thoroughly is vital.
I hope these questions are new and implementable ideas on how to ask more revealing questions about soft skills. I would enjoy learning any revealing questions that you have in your repertoire, as these are some of mine. Plus, I would appreciate your thoughts on if you think these would bring your hiring process any value.
TheMSLRecruiter Blog: Reverse Rejection
As an executive recruiter, I have a very interesting vantage point from which to observe an interview processes. I intimately see both sides and the emotions each experiences. I’ve noticed something that is consistent in candidate behavior, and I wanted to share it with those who are in a position to hire.
As time passes after an interview and there is no feedback given, candidates develop a defense mechanism that I call Reverse Rejection. When the interviewing momentum stalls, the candidates start thinking of all the reasons that they don’t want the job. In anticipation of being rejected, the candidate starts unconsciously rejecting the company. Here are a couple scenarios of when I have seen Reverse Rejection:
At the Beginning of the Process: When a recruited candidate gives a recruiter permission to share their resume, which they just invested a few hours in updating, they expect a quick turn-around. Except for extreme cases, most everyone gets to their emails in 24-48 hours. I usually see candidates getting antsy and wanting to know where things stand after 72 hours have passed. If they call the recruiter after three days and there is no feedback from the company, I see them starting to back off from the excitement they had initially. They ask themselves, “If they aren’t interested, why am I?”
Often times, a person’s only perception about a company is generated while interviewing. In many ways, a recruited candidate can gauge how organized a company or a manager is by how quickly they react to seeing their resume. Also, candidates get a sense of the speed of business at a company through their experience in the interview process. When there isn’t a quick turn-around, I see candidates starting to develop negative feelings about the company, and start talking themselves out of being interested.
At the End of the Process: Well-prepared and well-intentioned candidates go into final interviews with the highest of hopes. They’ve spent many personal hours making sure they represent themselves in an accurate and professional way. The interview goes smoothly, yet at the end of the interview they learn they’ll hear back in two weeks. The candidate hears “two weeks,” understands “two weeks,” but they are unprepared to emotionally handle waiting “two weeks.” Again, as we hit the 72 hour mark after the interview, candidates start getting hungry for some form of feedback. When the recruiter and candidate hear nothing but radio silence from the company, I notice candidates starting to compensate for their lack of power.
Of course, I’m a recruiter, not a psychotherapist. I can easily see, though, when companies don’t deliver timely feedback to candidates, they begin to feel powerless. When that sinking feeling of powerlessness sets in, I then see candidates compensate for this feeling by grasping for power. The only way they can balance the scales is to start rejecting the company before the company rejects them.
Why It Matters: There are three reasons why it matters. The first reason is great companies know that candidates are people – not applicants. Great companies realize that these people gave much of themselves throughout the process and deserve timely feedback. The second reason is that the best companies understand that some people’s only perception of their company was created by interviewing with them. That perception, whether it be positive or negative, is going to be shared. Regardless of whether the candidate gets the job or not, the premier companies make sure the experience is pleasant. Timely feedback is a major contributor to candidates having a positive take away feeling, even if they don’t get the job. The third reason is that the companies who have the best talent have it because they won it. The top companies aren’t trying to close candidates who have been mentally rejecting them for over a week. Time allows talent to wiggle off the hook by letting doubt and competitors to creep into the picture. A steadily moving interview process with timely feedback attracts the best talent. Not only does it attract the A-players, it wins the A-players.
I hope this information helps ensure that your interview process is attracting and landing top talent. Furthermore, I hope this article helps your company avoid the potential for Reverse Rejection. If you have any questions about this topic from a recruiter’s perspective, contact me any time.
TheMSLRecruiter Blog: The Cost of Negotiating
As an executive recruiter, I’ve been able to observe the many different ways candidates handle receiving job offers. As different as everyone’s reactions may be, I’ve recognized that deep down most candidates feel they should at least try to negotiate. I sense that most people want to avoid feeling like they left money on the table, and they feel that if they don’t try to get more money, they are foolish in some way. I wanted to share what I’ve learned about negotiations because I don’t want anyone to potentially lose more than they have the opportunity to gain. Yes, in regards to a job offer, there could be a very steep cost to negotiating.
Political Capital: The first idea I would like to share is something called political capital. By the time someone receives an offer, the new company loves them. In other words, their political capital is high, and there is a symbolic bank account with their name on it filled with this political capital. Every day someone takes to accept the offer, withdrawals of political capital are being made from that bank account. The same is true when we go back and ask for more money without easily verifiable reasons. Let’s say a candidate asks to increase the offer because…well, just because they feel like they need to negotiate…they are lighting their political capital on fire. They may gain a few thousand dollars, but it may cost them a fortune in political capital. What candidates don’t see is the company venting to me about their tinge of buyer’s remorse and their second-guessing if the candidate is the right person.
“Are you saying that I should never ask to increase my offer?” No, that is not what I’m saying. Read on.
The Unacceptable Offer: Asking for an unjustifiable increase in the offer is when a candidate begins to bankrupt their political capital. Asking for an increase so that the offer is to a level of acceptability is appropriate, and both people are working toward the same goal. The bigger issue is this: Why did the company extend an unacceptable offer? Candidates should tell their recruiter long before the offer comes to them what will be acceptable or not. Let the recruiter professionally advise, not negotiate with, the company to what they should offer you. This begs the question, should the candidate be negotiating their job offer?
What is a Negotiation?: A negotiation takes place in one-time buying events, where you try to extract as many concessions from them, while also reducing concessions on your side. Does that sound like the right way to start off the relationship with your new employer? A job offer is not a buying situation comparable to buying a house. A job offer is closer to a marriage proposal. When I proposed to my wife, I hoped for a “Yes.” In fact, I hoped for a “Yes, of course!” I would have been shocked by a “Yes, but…” or a “Yes, if…”, and I would have been crushed by a “No.” When a company extends a job offer, they, too, are expecting a “Yes, of course!” The proposal is not time to negotiate the size of the ring.
Solution: As mentioned earlier, the solution is working closely with your recruiter with full transparency about all the moving parts that make up your employment package. Educate your recruiter so they can advise their client. Many low offers are due to the candidate not looking deeply into their employment package ahead of time. Let your recruiter burn up their political capital trying to raise the offer to an acceptable level, and keep the political capital that you’ve earned intact. If the company you want to work for offers you a job for an acceptable amount of money, say “Yes, of course!”
I hope this helps, and I hope I can help you receive your next offer!
TheMSLRecruiter Blog: The Art of the Preface
One luxury I have as an executive recruiter is that I get to interact with some world-class communicators. I have truly benefited by hearing how these exceptional people express their ideas. I’ve noticed that the best communicators have a disarming way of asking tough questions. They have an artful way of prefacing their questions so that you know exactly why they are asking. This translates well into the interview setting, and so I wanted to explain it further.
One of the toughest questions I have to ask anyone is what they are currently earning. Most of the time, I am inquiring within minutes of introducing myself. The next time you are at a dinner party and you meet someone new, within the first five minutes of meeting them ask what they W2’d last year. As you play that scene through in your mind you might be filled with anxiety. I know how you feel, because I have that feeling a few times a day.
To alleviate this anxiety, I have to do an excellent job of prefacing my question before asking it, and this is the way I like to do it, “John, I want to bring to you only the most relevant and career advancing opportunities. I would never want to bring an opportunity to you that was too junior financially and waste both of our time. So, with that said, can you give me some direction about how I should screen out positions for you in regard to money?”
If I ask the question this way, the usual response is, “Well, I certainly don’t want to make less money than I am now, and my base salary is…” Because the preface was utilized in such a way, I didn’t even have to directly ask him what his salary was. Now, let’s make this work in an interview.
Root Question: How will I be evaluated?
If you ask this question, what might be going on in the interviewer’s mind? Perhaps they are thinking that you are running from unreasonable metrics. Maybe they would be thinking that you’ve had trouble meeting expectations before. My suggestion is to preface your questions artfully to avoid any mystery about why you’re posing the question, especially with a hiring manager that tends to read into everything you say.
The Preface: I strive very hard in my current role to exceed expectations. It means a lot to me exceed the goals that are set for me, and so, what does one need to do to meet expectations in your organization—and then how have you seen people exceed expectations?
Of course, you might use different language, and that’s fine. The key take away is that there is no mystery about why this person is asking the question. In the end, this person will find out not only how they will be evaluated but how to be a superstar. Also, you have dissolved any chance of them speculating that you are asking for any negative reasons.
Root Question: What is the territory?
If you ask this question, what conclusions might the interviewer be prone to infer? Maybe they will assume that you have travel limitations. A candidate’s questions uncover their concerns or what is important to them. If travel and territory is of major importance, the interviewer is going to want to find out why OR they are going to invent a reason. Why not just share the reason with them?
The Preface: Over the years, I have had the great privilege of getting to work with the top thought leaders in the Southwest Region, and as you can imagine, those relationships are meaningful to me. I know this role is supporting the Southwest, which is exciting, but how does XYZ define the Southwest exactly?
Again, this is just an example. The key thing is that with the preface it is clear that the question is about impact and has nothing to do with travel. Plus, the preface strengthens your candidacy, whereas going without it may weaken it.
These are a couple examples of how prefacing your questions can clear up confusion and avoid the chance of speculation, while strengthening your candidacy. I’ve been saying for a few years now that the better the questions, the better the candidate. The consistent feedback I get on the best interviewers is that they had the best questions. I’m confident that prefacing those questions will make you a stronger candidate instantly.
Is Enough, Enough?
As an executive recruiter, I make a living by filling positions, but I make a difference by helping my clients get better. That is the spirit of this article, because I have found that there is a single word that leads to more companies failing in the area of staffing. It is a simple word that is only two syllables long, but it can mire a company in mediocrity. The word is enough.
Allow me to explain:
We have enough candidates.
I worry when I see companies evaluating their candidate pool quantitatively. Let’s say I’m engaged to find and attract candidates for a company, and I find them three qualified and motivated candidates who fit everything they are seeking on the job description. After repeated phone calls, I get the absolute rock star candidate to call me back. This candidate is better than all the other people I’ve presented, but I end up hearing from my client company, “We have enough candidates.”
The second scenario is that I bring this rock star candidate to a company who already has a candidate pool from another recruiter, and they tell me, “Your candidate sounds excellent, but we already have enough candidates in consideration.” In each scenario, the company ends up hiring the lesser candidate. What is worse, their competitor ends up hiring the rock star candidate.
As a balancing statement, I would stress that a company needs to make a decision so that a vacancy doesn’t persist. My point is to encourage companies to keep evaluating resumes with care up until the point an offer is accepted. It takes very little time to look at a resume to make sure that the decision the company is making is the best possible decision. Someone at the company has enough time to look.
We don’t have enough candidates to make a hiring decision.
Sometimes I can only find one candidate that has everything a company is seeking. Sitting in their building is the dream candidate, but because he is the first or only candidate they’ve interviewed, they can’t hire him. So, they pursue other candidates to get to the quota they’ve set for themselves, but during that time, another company hires the candidate out from under them. Now the company has a couple lesser candidates to choose from, and their competitor has the best candidate available. They lose the candidate because they didn’t move fast enough.
Great companies have the ability to rate candidates, whereas lesser companies have to rank candidates. What that means is the best companies can recognize an A-Player without seeing anyone else. They have an internal benchmark for greatness. Companies who struggle in the area of hiring have to see a few candidates and choose the best they see at the time.
We have enough recruiters on our vendor list.
You would be shocked how infrequently recruiting firms are thoroughly vetted before contractually engaged by a company. Only once did I go through a screening process, where I had to rigorously explain how I was the best possible resource in comparison to competitors. Recruiting services are not a commodity. Not all recruiters possess the same skill sets and abilities to drive results. As an example, look at the sales team at your company—varying levels of success and skill sets, correct? What if you hired the first sales people that came to your company or the ones that would work for the cheapest salary? Do you think you would have the best sales force in the industry? Of course not, but this is exactly how staffing agencies get chosen by most companies. Many companies either choose the first agency that calls them or the cheapest option. My suggestion is to have your company interview recruiters as thoroughly as candidates.
I can think of other examples of how enough can plague a company, but the one that comes to mind is actually a lesson my father taught me. He used to say, “Good enough is never good enough.” I hope this information keeps you at the top, so that this one little word doesn’t begin to worm its way into your company. If you’d like to discuss any of the topics in this article, I’d be happy to make myself available.