More on the 2-way of the interview process...

Colin Shaw provides additional food for thought that builds on what I was discussing in my "Are you an effective interviewer?" entry.

Read Colin's post, 10 'Due Diligence' Tests.

When collaboration fails, re-evaluate your approach

Let me relate a story of learning how to be a better leader by anticipating the audience. This is a story about an attempt to collaborate that resulted in failure.

I recently engaged two of my senior leaders in a discussion intended to identify a colleague or organization most likely to lead our firm to compliance for an evolving external requirement. It didn't go as planned and I can't even regard it as resulting in even marginal success given the intent. But I learned something important.

The leaders were Jean and Bob and I organized a 30 minute session during their busy schedules. In hindsight this was not long enough given my approach.

I introduced the need and got about 60 seconds into describing the situation. This was about as long as Bob could hold himself back from taking control and trying to drive the conversation from 40k feet to 4 feet - to a level where he could understand the most granular of facts and contemplate their implications. Here is where I started to fail. I followed him down to 4 feet, out of respect to his seniority and a genuine belief that I could get us ascending again. I also setup this meeting specifically intent on dispelling Bob's perception of me as a recluse. Truth be told I shun his involvement in most things as I'm often left disappointed and left feeling micro-managed. He knows this because I've told him and it contributes to his "shortness" with me.

I did not want a definitive answer. I just needed to confirm my direction and hopefully gain insights to the need that are hidden from me at my level.

However every attempt I made to try and get back to the high-level conceptual problem to fully explain it and seek feedback was met with resistance. Jean, despite her best intent didn't offer to help me get there either.

To use a simple analogy I was the shark that beached itself in pursuit of an illusive prey. I thought I could snatch that small fish in my jaw before hitting the shore. I couldn't and kept swimming after it. Now floundering on the shore, no meal in my stomach, with no way to get back into the water.

We exited the short meeting and I couldn't help but try and contemplate what went wrong for the remainder of the day. It wasn't until I stopped blaming Bob and Jean and started to reflect on my behavior that I was able to resolve it with something constructive.

I recognized I need to do several things next time:

1. I can't expect Bob to embrace my way of thinking so I have to do a far better job of mentally preparing for Bob's style of management. What this means specifically is to consider the future topic and the extent to which Bob is going to drive the discussion in a less than useful direction.
2. Did Jean really understand what I expected to get from the 30 minute conversation? Probably not. I should illicit support ahead of time from colleagues such as Jean. I actually did this, but not to the point of ensuring Jean would support keeping the conversation at the appropriate level and focused on uncovering insights hidden from me.
3. I should consider giving Bob what he needs to process the topic ahead of the conversation. Sure, he wants facts because that's how he operates and makes decisions. I expected his inputs to be directional and on a conceptual level but he wasn't prepared to comfortably discuss the need in that context. If I feed him content ahead of time, there might be less resistance to keep the conversation at the level I need.

I'm going to try this next time and report back as to my success or failure. If I again fail we can re-examine the approach once again.

Are you an effective interviewer?

Are you an effective interviewer? Are you?

Don't be too quick to answer in the affirmative. However this post is really meant to help the potential candidate.

Why is it important to be aware of the style and subsequent effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the interviewer?

I believe you can actually determine if you're going to get a fair chance at receiving an offer based on the interviewers style, in particular that of the hiring manager. But there is a far greater implication - that of the inexperience and/or dysfunction of the hiring manager or leaders of the organization and your ability to evaluate their organization.


As you progress though the interview is he waffling? Does she seem uncomfortable? Are they unsure of their line of questions? Are they just having a somewhat related polite conversation and not really trying to explore your persona and experiences?

I've experienced all of these in recent years. An interview is as much an opportunity for you to determine if you are a good fit for the organization as it is for the organization to affirm the same of you. This is what I want you to take away from this post. You should be evaluating them as well and if the discussion isn't proving productive take opportunity to redirect.

Granted not all people are good at interviewing prospective candidates. I've been surprised by the apparent lack of effectiveness by some senior executives. One conversation with a senior director of HR comes to mind. This person was uncomfortable, wasn't prepared and never gave me an opportunity to really tell my story. Regrettable really because HR, for better or worse, has significant influence over the candidate selection process in many organizations.

On the positive side, I've concluded interviews where I came away feeling energized and enthusiastic about the hiring manager, the opportunity and the organization. I was able to tell my story and also explore the possibilities and potential of the role as I was evaluating the interviewer.

No matter how sweet the prospective role may seem you should be evaluating the interviewers constantly. Ask yourself if the questions they are asking are giving you an opportunity to tell your story and how you can impact the organization. Are their questions directed at peeling the onion that is your collective experiences and talents?

If they aren't you should have pause for concern. If you believe you want the role and would be a good fit you should have an idea of how to redirect and channel the discussion to one that favors you - to one that will leave them with a clear understanding of who you are and what you will bring.

Don't be fooled by the relative ease of the conversation. If it's not directed at discovering you, then the interviewer is going to be left with making judgements about you and your fit for the role that are beyond your ability to influence.
 
I would hope you are also asking yourself the important question - is this organization right for me? if I'm the one who is clearly better at extracting and communicating value and experience, will I be able to learn and grow in the new role?

Conversely, if you truly want the role after redirecting the apparent dysfunction, you'll be doing the hiring manager a favor. You may also be giving yourself an advantage over other candidates.

How can you tell post-interview process if you've been the victim of ineffective interviews?

Easy!

Reflect on the conversations. Did you get to tell your compelling stories? Were you able to answer questions with illustrative examples of how you persevered and triumphed over adversity? Were you able to engage the interviewer or hiring manager in discussion on the scope of the role and future opportunities? If not, you might have wasted your time.

Ask for feedback and an explanation of why you didn't get the offer? It's important to be sensitive in your approach. After all, a hiring manager doesn't want to be put on the defensive regarding their decision. If they do you're not likely to get any valuable feedback. If you are polite and genuinely interested in your delivery of the question and the hiring manager ignores you or refuses to comment, that in my mind is a pretty clear sign that you've just been unfairly reviewed.

Granted most HR professionals and managers understand they are in no way obliged to provide feedback. Another point in your favor however. If they don't give feedback out of respect for you as a professional, perhaps you don't want to be working for such a person or organization in the long run.