A Reflection From The Other Side Of The Hiring Table
08.02.2005 | Chris Bailey | Focused on Work
After spending a few weeks searching for a new office manager, we’re at interview stage. Last week, we conducted a second round of interviews with candidates. Even though the position will not directly report to me, I requested to be a part of the process at this stage. The three of us on the Management Team decided that since we have a small staff, any hiring decision ought to be made in consultation with the other team director.
Now after being on the interviewee side of the table for the past few months, you’d think that I would have learned a few things. Maybe I did. What I found interesting was that I was very cold with both candidates. Not unfriendly, but definitely at arm’s length. Isn’t that how we’re taught to be in interviews?
I distinctly noticed that they were nervous and was curious to see how they would handle their circumstance. Would they find a groove? Would they find this groove in spite of me and my colleagues? Do I want to make this easy on them or do I want to test their ability to handle stress? Is that the purpose of the interview? Of course it’s not the sole purpose, but the whole experience is a test of the candidate’s interactions and responses to pointed questions.
So why am I less than satisfied with how I performed as an interviewer and the interview process as a whole? Because deep down I know there is a better way. I slipped into a preordained role of "interviewer" keeping to the pattern of what an interview is supposed to be like. Sure it wasn’t completely my interview to conduct (after all, I was invited to this second round). However, as a part of the Management Team, I have the ability to introduce other models of hiring. With this thought, I get to actually take a challenge and transform it into yet another opportunity.
Seems like a lot a rambling with this post. If you’ve made it this far, thanks for being a co-conspirator in at least beginning to rethink the whole hiring process. Let’s have some fun making it up as we go.
6 Responses to “A Reflection From The Other Side Of The Hiring Table”
Leave a Reply
Chris,
What grabbed me about this post is not the idea of rethinking the hiring process but your words, “slipped into a pre-ordained role.” Now…if we can get most people avoiding that most of the time, I suspect that many process that we already have would work just fine. This is the flip side of another notion I am fond of: that technique without artistry drives the life out of the technique. By “artistry” I mean bringing the real self to the job rather than some mystified notion of who we are supposed to be.
Chris,
Is the “pre-ordained role” a result of a faulty paradigm?
In other words, should you strive towards being a better interviewer or should you strive towards being something other than an interviewer. (Examples might be: A hirer, A recruiter, a facilitator of personnel acquistion, etc.)
Should you invent a whole new paradigm?
Qwerty.us
J.H.
How about this: striving towards being a person talking with another person about whether having that other person in the job in question is a good thing for both of you and for everybody else concerned.
I suppose that is a different paradigm than, “We are here to evaluate whether you are good enough for us.”
The best and most productive experiences I’ve had, both as interviewer and interviewee, were those in which the interview was approached as a joint decision-making process even when (clearly) the interviewer will make the decision.
Dick and J.H., my heartfelt thanks for your insights here. Both of you make terrific points. We talk about trying to make the interview a “conversation,” but don’t really change our assumptions and mindsets. We still fall back on those small roles as interrogator (but perhaps with a smile).
I go back to the very title of the post. In my mind, I’m still on the other side of the table. What if the interviewer and interviewee were on the same side? What if it was an actual conversation focused on mutual learning rather than the current process of trying to fit answers into preconceived expectations?
Taking a sidestep, what if our meetings with staff, customers, vendors, etc. were conducted in a similar way? Instead of automatically slipping into these “pre-ordained” positions, we can figuratively and physically sit with them rather than across from them. I bet that would kind of freak them out, but maybe in a good way.
Great stuff here, Chris. It seems like we’re talking about changing some power dynamics here – “to sit WITH” would be an incredible change of perspective. I’d love to hear more about what you’re wanting to develop.
RE: “What if it was an actual conversation focused on mutual learning.”
Dial up the sound of cheering, please!
I’ve had a number of those – on both sides of the table. They have always worked out well, even when I was the applicant (or consultant looking for a gig) and the work went to someone else.