Sirona Says

Bad things to say at a job interview by MockTheWeek comedians [video]

I came across this funny video over the weekend. It is from the BBC programme Mock The Week, and I guess could be described as satirical comedy on the edge!
This is a bunch of comedians and their ideas of bad things to say at an interview. Some answers not to be listened to by politically correct HR people :) The 2nd and 4th responses really had me smiling!!

 

What is your favourite?

If you like reading this blog, then click on the orange RSS icon here and get the latest Sirona Says posts delivered to your RSS reader or your inbox the moment they come out.

Social media privacy goes both ways in the interview process!

 

The thorny subject of social media privacy and online candidate checking raised its head a few weeks ago (again), when I had a discussion (well you can call it that!) with an HR Manager who was niaive at best.

I don't need to go into a lengthy discussion about this, as it is to flaming obvious! I was explaining to this HR Manager some of the advice I give to job seekers when trying to get an advantage in the recruiting process. Nothing overly clever, just some basic stuff like:

• Search for the interviewer on LinkedIn and read their profile
• X-Ray search them if can't access full LinkedIn profile, so they get full background
• Google them (obviously!)
• Do a search on www.pipl.com for more links
• Do a Twitter and Facebook search as well
• Basically, find as much information as you can about the interviewer

Shall we say this HR Manager was not best pleased? I got accused of being a trouble maker and a bad influence on candidates!!!

My answer (direct quote); "Stop being a prat and take your head out from where the sun doesn't shine!"

I continued....."Are you telling me that you don't ever do an online search (of any kind) for candidate either during selection or pre/post an interview?" [loaded question as I already knew the answer was yes! ]

The pregnant pause is always a good close..........

On admittance of their use of social media to 'check people out', I just turned the tables on them; "so If it is good enough for you to do your homework on candidates, why isn't it ok for candidates to do their homework on you (the interviewer) using the same social media channels ?"

Suffice to say, the argument (sorry I meant to say discussion) ended soon after that!!

Many people doing the recruiting and interviewing simply forget or don't even consider that candidates can also search their online profiles. It is in fact a superb way of helping in an interview, if you gone to some length to do your homework on the interviewer. Finding commonality is a great way of positively breaking the ice at an interview.

So whichever side of the interviewing table you sit, just bear in mind that the person opposite you may know more about you than you think!

If you like reading this blog, then click on the orange RSS icon here and get the latest Sirona Says posts delivered to your RSS reader or your inbox the moment they come out.

Social recruiting is here to stay, so should we be using candidate video interviewing more? (Multiple contributors to this post)

Last week, I decided to write a blog post on the use of video interviewing in the recruitment process. Rather than just give you my opinion (which you are going to get anyway!), I asked people on LinkedIn and Twitter what they thought - little did I realise the interest it would create!  Here are 18 responses from all over the world to my question:

Social recruiting is here to stay, so should we now be using video interviewing more, and if so,what is the best method to use?

There are some very interesting points raised in this post, and please feel free to agree or disagree with any of the contributers in the comments section at the bottom of the blog post.

First, my answer, and it is fairly simple:

We now live in the 21st century and video technology has moved on leaps and bounds over just the last two years. The proliferation of things like webcams and mobile phone cameras, have given more and more people the confidence to talk into a camera. Surely, now is the time to factor this into the recruitment process somehwere?
I am not advocating using it as a primary selection tool, but maybe as a filtering tool - maybe to take a long list down to a short list of candidates for a face to face interview.

The cost of travel and travel time is getting very expensive, so if we can use technology to help the interview process, then shouldn't we be doing that?

Louise Triance owner of the largest recruiters network in the UK - UK Recruiter gets us started with a bit of an anomaly  - she starts with a no, then a yes, yes, no and a maybe!!
Andy Well, my first thought is that "video interviewing" can't exactly exist. An interview is a two way process and video can only be one way (at a time). However, video conferencing can/does exist and so do video "screening". I'm sure I've written on my own blog about how I think video conferencing is a great way to run interviews for geographically diverse individuals/organisations. I think that things like skype/twitter integration will make this more common and easier to manage. In terms of video screening I'm less sure of how that'll pan out. What are you envisioning? Will jobseekers have to go through a series of questions, by video, to apply for a job?

Dimitar Stoyanov from the innovative video platform company Inovaz  takes a differing opinion from Louise:
This is a really interesting topic that we'll be hearing much more about in the very near future. It is a topic that I myself have a very strong opinion on and have written quite extensively about on my blog (dedicated to online video interviewing). Unlike Louise Triance, I think "video interviewing" can and does exist (in fact we have just finished developing a fully automated web-based video interviewing platform).
I do however agree with her that thus far interviewing has indeed been a "two way" process, but also think recent technological developments in webcam technology and cloud computing have now enabled us to gradually start shifting to a "one way" interviewing process. I think whether you call this "one way video interviewing" or "video screening" is secondary.

What really matters is that it completely eliminates the logistical burden of setting up video conferences (a major issue particularly when there are large time differences involved) and saves you a lot of time and money.

Mark Williams the man they call @Mr_Linkedin, because he is a great LinkedIn trainer  has obviously been living in a cocoon for the last few years, because he wasn't aware of it actually happening!! That aside, he makes some very valid points indeed:
I have not come across video interviewing before (as opposed to video conferencing or skype etc) but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea. Apart from the time difference advantages mentioned above I think it could give an interesting perspective on a candidates qualities. I am making some assumptions here;
1) The questions are flashed up on a screen and the candidate is not able to prepare
2) The candidate is not able to edit the results Assuming the above 2 points are correct I think it could be quite exciting and even give a different result to a face to face interview.

I don't like panel interviews as they create an intimidating atmosphere for the candidate but the problem with one on one interviews is that so much of the outcome can be influenced by the interviewer/ interviewee chemistry and the interviewers attitude (or mood) on the day as well as their own individual prejudices (often simple things such as the quality of their handshake, colour of their shoes etc). These things are less likley to count when several people are able to individually review the video interview. It is human nature that sometimes when we meet someone we just don't 'hit it off' but is this an objective appraisal of the candidates qualities and when they sense this, does it affect their performance? - I wonder whether video interviews may help to reduce this impact. As is always the case with things of this nature, you really cant judge it until you try it but the concept seems very promising to me.


Gareth Jones is the leader of the HR recruitment company - Courtney HR  - and let's be fair, there were two certainties with gareth's reply - first he would quote the 90's, and secondly he would disagree with me.......and he didn't let me down....ha ha ha:
Hi Andy topical one this! Ok, as you would expect, i'm going to say something about the 90's! lol, no really. Back in the late 90's i came across a company called TalkingCV. I think the brand still exists but it got sold etc. At the time they planned to put booths in service stations for people to drop in and respond to pre-structured questions. I tried it myself and it was kinds weird but interesting. The problem was reach as the tech wasn't good enough really and the internet/web wasn't mature enough.

I think this kind of thing is inevitable now though given the growth in 'easy video'. Not sure it will be replacing main stream interviewing wholesale but i think there would be many applications in terms of screening for grads say or indeed for any role where either volumes or the issues of distance were an issue.
What i'm not sure about is the legalities - we live in litigious times and i can imagine people might start crying fowl on the basis that they have been discriminated against because of the way they look etc. dunno, just a hunch! "One way interviewing" doesn't sound very social does it?!

Graham Ruddick is a digital marketing consultant and has experienced this from both sides - as a candidate and an interviewer - some great insight:
Andy, I have used video interviewing in both directions, both as interviewer and interviewee. My conclusions were pretty similar after each. In both cases one party was in the UK and the other in the US and on both occasions we were using pretty high grade corporate VC equipment (although what was high grade equipment 3 years ago is probably pretty humdrum today). The technology is important because it profoundly shaped the experience and the perceived value.
So the good points:
It's pretty obvious that in two interviews we saved two cross pond flights (and a great deal of time). The opportunity to 'see' someone allows us to be more confident in our opinions of that person (please note I'm not suggesting that those opinions are necessarily more accurate - that's a different thing altogether). We were able to cover a lot of ground in a way that, perhaps, a telephone would not allow. When we did meet face to face we were much better prepared for whom we met - possibly making the second interview more effective.
Bad points:
Even with the top grade technology the lag made completely natural speech impossible. The interviews just did not have the cadence of a real conversation. Indeed in both there was far more interrupting and overtalk than would normally be considered polite and there is a real demand that both parties have to ignore these limitations for it to be effective. It seemed to me that the opinions formed were risky, the environment is, and feels, artificial (if an interview ever feels natural) and I think you have to be be quite sensitive both as interviewer and interviewee not to let this colour your perceptions. The irony is, of course, that in both cases we did feel the need to meet. I think it is safe to say that the video interview felt incomplete for both parties on both occasions. In the end I wasn't convinced. I felt that the limitations of the visual technology meant that the interview was no more accurate/useful than a telephone call. It did feed different things into the process but I think both parties have to be quite experienced in the use of video to make it a true replacement for face to face.

Mario Gedicke  from the video resume company Mayomann  has a vested interest, but to be fair makes a veru valuable point  and because he referenced my favourite smartphone - Blackberry - I won't ask why the company is named after a sandwich filler ! :-)
You are starting a great topic and I am glad to see that it creates a buzz in regards to Video interviewing, Video conferencing or in general Video Employment. The internet becomes more and more accessible to everyone and even the government helps jobseekers to reach out through the internet and providing free internet excess. 
Video will be the next social recruiting revolution as the IPhone and Blackberry have revolutionized the mobile world. If you interview a person in your office or using a web cam and engaging with the applicant that way, it does not matter, you still follow your script. However, the process becomes faster, because the applicant has the interview from his home and you in your office. Both parties are comfortable in there own environment and therefor more relaxed and to nervous. It probably gives the applicant more encouragement.
Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and many other social media sites take away the barrier.

Todays world looks different than it has a few years ago. And in a few years the world will look different again.  Cameras, webcams & phones are ready to make videos and it is certain that HR will include that medium into the recruiting process. Once it access the HR world, regulations will come in place, standards will be found to ensure occurrence as it has over the past few decades. 

New rules will apply and standards will be set. The world is now ready to include this way of recruiting or hiring with internet being so accessible.


Phil Haslehurst is the Marketing Director from the digital recruitment agency Propellondon . He makes a valued point with regards to candidate "feel":
As specialists in the digital industry, it’s very important to us that we’re on top of the latest uses of technology in recruitment. After all, our clients are all deeply passionate about new technology themselves.  Video interviewing is something that we’ve just started to trial as part of our overall recruitment process. All of our consultants meet their candidates face to face as standard practise – it’s the only way to truly engage with their requirements, and to assess their match with our client’s needs.

Video interviewing could never replace this method in terms of reliably getting a good “feel” for a candidates chemistry with our client. However, we hope that used in conjunction with our profiling, and a strong CV,  video interviewing will give our clients yet more information with which to make the right choice when it comes to hiring.


Bill Fischer (@billfischer) is the co-founder of Twitjobsearch and a big reason why this post was written in the first place, after my recent post on his Skype innovation:
Our company has made some investment in building tools to facilitate video interviews because we believe that the benefits to recruiters and jobseekers are so compelling that it will be adopted as a standard part of the recruitment process.  That being said, we allow candidates to create video profiles and recently launched an "apply via Skype" feature that makes it possible to set up a video interview with a single click, and yet these services are still more talked about than used. It's unclear to us, what will be the catalyst that pushes the use of video interviews to the mainstream. 

From looking at Twitter updates, we're seeing lots of candidates Tweeting about a job interview via Skype and with over 500 million users worldwide, we expect to see more of this.  So increasing VOIP adoption is part of the equation.  In phone surveys with HR professionals and job seekers, since most first interviews do not lead to jobs, that these in person meetings eat up a considerable amount of time/money to the recruitment process and a video interview could easily replace these first screening interviews.

A realization of time saving and reduction in travel expense could push more adoption of video interviews.  Since most of the time savings accrue to the job seekers, we think that much of the push to have video interviews needs to come from them.  In this market, job seekers are still not in great demand, but as hiring increases, our guess is that we will start to see more video interviews as part of the recruitment process.

Bill Wynn is the Managing Director of the recruitment company  Project Resource Ltd, is obviously hoping that video interviewing will go mainstream:
We have yet to see video interviewing being used by any employers we supply, namely in the construction, civil engineering or infrastructure industries.  However, I can see how creative job seekers and especially those in advertising, marketing, IT may use such a medium, but will people working in construction, civil engineering, accountancy, public sector, etc. really want to embrace or use such a method?  I suppose only time will tell. This undoubtedly will become more prevalent amongst generation y, but will it really take hold, I am not sure.  Here is the issue, people like to meet other people, see them face-to-face, see the white of the eyes, before they make an important decision to hire.
With You Tube being the second most used search engine there is a case for everyone to have a career profile, but not everyone wants the spot light, some of this technology is not embraced by all, traditional methods will prevail in many employers.  However, speaking as an employer for my business I like to see creative thinking, I like to believe I am open to new ideas, so I am intrigued to find out how the future recruitment landscape will evolve.


Mandy Barder is from the digital and social media agency  The 4 Mores  has raised, what I thought more people do - presentation:
I think video interviewing could throw up some real controversies and it will certainly change the way in which people apply for jobs and present themselves. The pace and the reactivity will increase and people will have to be even more prepared to sell themselves at the click of a button..potentially. Having a candidate being able to give an instant, visual pitch of themselves should appeal to employers and recruiters because it means they can speed up the recruiting process greatly. The way Skype is built into TwitJobSearch is a really efficient and clear way for candidates to engage with employers and recruiters, so I think Skype is the way to go with this. It just means candidates will have to adapt their job searching habits online to the immediate expectation of being ready to sell themselves in the flesh (sort of!).
And recruiters will have to start considering video as a valuable tool to engage with their candidates and clients. It's a two-way process. 

Ian Franklin is the CEO from the recruitment firm GloRec Ltd and is already experienced in using video interviewing, so has a valid point:  
 I regularly do interviews using Skype and ooVoo! Many of the assignments my business manages are international and based on the proviso that my overseas clients and candidates have access to a webcam and Skype or ooVoo, then it can be more cost effective to do interviews in that way....as well as, of course, less time consuming. My Consultants and I also record each and every interview so that we can reproduce it for our client if as and when required, subject to approval be the interviewee.
We do occasionally undertake the same type of interview for candidates in the UK and Ireland, especially when urgency is a requirement - this often happens with Interim Management.


Mike Taylor owns the consultancy Webbasedrecruitment.com and is a big user and advocate of video's:
Andy I think video interviewing has a place but it will vary in its usage depending on the industry you are recruiting for. Its a bit like social media at the moment, with some companies really embracing social media in recuitment and other companies not exactly sure how it can work for them? It certainly has benefits at the intial interview stage where applicants are a long distance away, or even in a different country. However, the technology is getting far easier (and cheaper) to use and I feel sure that as a result there will be an uptake in the usage of video interviewing in the next 12 - 24 months.


Greenfield IT Recruitment Agency look at the question from the recruiters perspective:
Hi Andy, From a recruiters point of view, I hate it, it’s another step forward in de-personalising the recruitment process… but I said that about email in 1994! I personally believe it will have some uptake from the “big brand” employers who have plenty of candidates clambering to apply for roles within their business, the likes of Apple, Google, Accenture and KPMG are likely to embrace this technology as a part of their selection process I have two clients who have used video interviewing.
One is a software firm, they utilise it as a replacement / extension to their online technical testing of developers. They think its great, technical questions that require technical answers. While looking at the face and demeanour of the potential employee as they wax lyrical about C#, Java or something equally exciting. The other is a sales and marketing business; they found some great "presenters" who bombed in the second stage interviews as they failed to engage with the interviewing managers. This firm was quick to bin the video interview as irrelevant to their needs.
So overall I would say that the video interview concept has some legs in the right domain, while others will poo poo it.


Justin Hillier  is the owner of one of the top social recruiting consultancies in Australia - Social Recruiting 360 and has a typical Aussie straight to the point approach:
Many people scoff at the thought of video as an effective tool for recruitment & employee communication, however in the age of Web 2.0 tools and companies competing for Talent, video is one of the key tools in connecting and engaging with a candidate more then most. Utilising video is a great way to enhance or speed up the hiring process.  Maybe the candidate is remotely based, maybe your schedules are not lining up, maybe you want to save time and travel costs.  Whatever the reason using video can add a different dimension to the early stages of the hiring process.  You certainly don't need to do this of course for every
job, but when appropriate why not try it, what do you have to lose.


Adam Gretton from the excellent video content website Careerplayer  obviously reckons that video is a no-brainer. Adam can talk from experience because all the content on their site is career based:
As technology matures, we should embrace it.  Not just for the sake of it - but to enjoy the efficiencies it can afford an organisation. Obviously I'm an advocate of video, being that I now represent CareerPlayer.com. However, there are many aspects to video and many uses - some good, some bad. Ours is for 'broadcast' and 'career information'.
Other uses are for video CVs - not currently a good idea IMHO. Video interviewing is a great idea, for the right situation, and if done well.  It has to be a positive experience for all parties involved so the technology needs to be robust and well tested.  Better than a telephone interview for various reasons. I would have loved this when I did IT recruitment - although probably would have used it to assess client-facing candidates more than techies who sit in dark corners and don't come across well face-to- face anyway!  It has environmental benefits, enabling you to do an initial 'face-to-face interview without having to travel. 
I think we'll see much more of this very soon, and in three years or so we'll find it hard to imagine life without it.

Bill Boorman, the man behind all the TRU conferences naturally provided me with something different - a video interview! So here is the video clip:

Alex Hens  creator and owner of the of the excellent recruitment product HarbourATS . Now ,Alex is not known for his ability to write a precise answer, so while it is a little long (!) he does make some excellent points:
Although I am not a Professional Recruiter, nor someone who has recruited more than perhaps 2 dozen people in my Professional lifetime, I feel I wouldn’t inherently have a problem with doing a video interview – as a Employer or as a prospective applicant. I’m sure there are many ways to skin this particular cat, but two in particular spring to mind – a removed process where the applicant is asked to record their responses to several questions and the recruiter gets to review (and select against) what comes back in their own time, or the other where the interview happens in “real time” across a two way link. So let me give my opinion on both.

Firstly the “remote” recording of answers. As an ATS provider ourselves we’re waiting for a client to give us the need to work with one of the established providers of this technology to set this up and see how it goes for ourselves. We know it can be done quite neatly within the recruitment process (as much as any remote psychometric or skills based testing that we may be more used to), and I can see that it might be novel and quirky for the candidate whilst potentially saving a lot of time, and probably some cost, for the recruiter.
But I can’t help having reservations about how well the majority of candidates would take to it – real Joe Public. I’m not sure there are that many people that love seeing themselves on screen (or are we to believe we’re all becoming YouTube egomaniacs) – hell I wince seeing myself in that tiny window if I videocall on skype. So whilst that said I’d personally give it a go, I just don’t know whether something that could make some people feel even more uncomfortable than an interview would actually be all that well received in terms of the Employer Brand. But whilst I know there’s a pretty compelling case for time and cost savings I think in general mainstream HR will have their usual risk and change averse impact on this and so it’ll be a few years away before we get to see the kind of volume of user studies that will show anything close to categoric.

Secondly you have the “real time” interview across a two way link. For small companies and Recruitment Consultants I think this could quite quickly become quite something quite normal. Why waste your time (candidate) and my time (recruiter) on a first interview that could be going nowhere fast when we can hook up on the web and be done in half an hour. Now someone would have to give me info on how many webcams there are in the wider populace before we can guesstimate how quickly that may happen, and an important step will be for all entry level computers, screens and phones to come with them installed as default, but at the current rate of progress maybe that’s just around the virtual corner.

However for big companies, those who will force this up the recruiting process acceptance table (or not), the problem I’d foresee is one of audit trails and the associated arse covering that provides (unfortunately much needed in these sad litigious days). I’m sure the capability is there to record interviews very easily, which could then in turn be associated to a candidates profile in the ATS, but many clients I work with are still on IE6. To enable every recruiter to have private (or mobile) internet access with a webcam and video call record facility just isn’t something I can see the IT director signing off so readily. Oh – and I was also being a little disingenuous about the ability of most established ATS’ - there’s generally nothing that’s particularly “simple” and in my previous experience you’d have to get additional budget for them to change their legacy codebase to allow it happen in an ish-kinda-sorta way.

So in summary – yes, I think we should be open to it, but I can see a lot of barriers that will be slung, or indeed just remain, in the way, which is a shame for pioneers in the field. However technology advancement will eventually filter through despite the best efforts of corporate IT and “suddenly” make it something that people just got use to as much as many people are getting used to skyping their parents the other side of the country/world on Sunday afternoon to stick the grandkiddies in front of the webcam to grin for as many minutes as a chocolate treat (or threat of violence) will keep them there for.

So there you go - a straight forward subject - or so it seems generated much debate, and I am sure that it will continue in the comments section below.

A big thank you to all the people that took the time to send me their opinion, I think you will all agree it is a pretty comprehensive view on video interviewing!!

If you like reading this blog, then click on the orange RSS icon here and get the latest Sirona Says posts delivered to your RSS reader or your inbox the moment they come out.

Funny Dilbert videos on Evil HR, Job interviews and employee downsizing

Post election we all need a little amusement, so here are a few of Dilbert classic short cartoons, with some (accurate, I think!) points being made with regards to HR, a job interview and employee downsizing strategy.

Enjoy....

1. Dilbert: Soul-O-Meter and Catbert, Evil H.R. Director video 

2. Dilbert: Job Interview and Employee downsizing "strategy" video

If you like reading this blog, then click on the orange RSS icon here and get the latest Sirona Says posts delivered to your RSS reader or your inbox the moment they come out.

I bet you can't answer all these!! Is this the most comprehensive list of interview questions you have seen?

I was going through one of my old websites yesterday, and I came across this extensive (if I say so myself) list of interview questions I had on the website. They are aimed at both companies looking for interview help, and for candidates looking for some help to get through interviews.

So you reckon you can answer an interview question or two? Or are you interviewing people this week, and are a little short on interview question inspiration?

If either is the case, then have fun with this long list - there are over 125 interview questions here!

Achievement
Tell me about a time when you went beyond the call of duty.
Tell me about accomplishments of which you are the most proud.
What challenging experiences have you had?
What do you consider to be your most important accomplishment and why?
What is the most difficult task you have undertaken?
What is the most stimulating thing you are looking for in a job?
What were your most memorable accomplishments with your last employer?
What was your greatest disappointment?

Motivations
How important is recognition to you?
How important is responsibility to you?
What makes you put forth your greatest effort?
What motivates you in accomplishing difficult tasks?
What has your last employer done that motivated you to work harder?
What challenges are you looking for in a job?
What motivates you to be successful in your job?
How important are promotions and advancement to you?

Sense of Self
Describe situations in which you are most successful.
How do you define 'success?'
How would you describe your standards of performance?
What are some of the reasons for your success?
What does 'failure' mean to you?
Tell me about your recent successes.
Why are you better than your colleagues/co-workers?

Weaknesses
How could you have improved your progress?
What weaknesses have you overcome when accomplishing difficult tasks?

Behavior
Describe a conflict with an employee and how you handled it.
Describe a (recent) situation in which you had to quickly establish your credibility and gain the confidence of others. What did you do ?
Describe a (recent) situation when you didn't know who you needed to speak with in an organisation to get something done. What did you do ?
Describe a (recent) situation on your last job that you did not handle as well as you might have.
Describe a time when you simplified or clarified a situation by putting your finger on the key issue.
Describe how you work under pressure.
Describe how you would handle rude, difficult or impatient people.
Finish this sentence: Successful managers are the ones who....
Given a situation when you disagree with your supervisor, how would you deal with it?
What role do you take in a group situation? Give examples.
Your supervisor tells you to do something in a way you know is ineffective. What would you do?

Are employers making it too easy for the gen Y'ers attending their interviews?

Since my daughter has come back from Australia a few weeks ago she has been starting to look for a new job. As an absolutely classic gen Y person she didn't really have a specific idea of what type of job she wanted or what type of career path she wanted to go down at the current time. So I helped her to work out a strategy for looking at a number of different jobs across a number of different industries. Fortunately she has received a number of interviews, and as part of the process has received various interview packs prior to attending interviews.

What has amazed me is the level of information that these company's have sent her prior to interview. They have told her what the  interview questions will be, and given her full background information on the company. They've told her exactly what the style and approach of the interviews will be, they have given her interview tips, they have provided website addresses, as well as giving her all the very relevant information such as job descriptions and competencies and maps of how to get the interview. I am not quite sure if there is anything else they can actually give her!

Now as someone that advises companies on how important the candidate experience is, I have to question if the level of information that some of these companies are sending out to jobseekers is right. Should they really be handholding jobseekers to this extent? Are the applicants that are applying for the job is really this poor that they need to be have their hands held right through the process? Or is it a question that gen Y candidates simply haven't got the skills to know what to do at interviews?

Is there really anything wrong with expecting candidates to do research about a job? Surely if they would like to get a job with the company they would be prepared to do some homework? Why wouldn't they?
And do companies really have to tell the applicants exactly everything they are going to do at the interview including giving them the questions they are going to ask? Surely this is counter-productive? Or is it actually a very clever ploy from the employers to test the level of commitment from the applicants?

Just because you provide an applicant with all the information it doesn't mean they'll read it, and I'm guessing that this is the premise behind much of this. I know that there is a much advice for young gen Y jobseekers in the marketplace, and I fully understand that sometimes it is easier to spell everything out to them. But do we really have to spoonfeed this age group to the extent where we are making it so easy for them in the interview process it takes away any initiative?

Maybe it is because of my level of knowledge and experience in recruitment that I look at these applications in a different light. Maybe I am over-thinking this? Maybe it is the previous experiences of the employers that has led them to need to spell things out in a very simple way?

What do you think?

Are employers really having to dumb down application processes for gen Y candidates? Is it just the gen Y candidates that are a problem? Is this a trend across all employers?

It would be great to get your feedback and opinion.

Ten ways for a job seeker to REALLY upset an interviewer!

It is pretty safe to say that you will have attended at least a few interviews in your life so far. They are not always the best experience, but they are there to serve a purpose - to try and help get you a job.

In this current climate there are fewer interviews going around, so it stands to reason that you would want to try and do your best at an interview, wouldn't you? Well, judging by some of the candidates that I have personally interviewed over the years, as well as the many clients interview de-briefs I have listened to, 'doing your best' is a VERY loose term!

If you have sat on the other side of the interview fence, then what I am going to say will make perfect sense to you. You may even be able to condone my 'thinking' on this.....then again maybe not!
As a recruiter I, (like many interviewers) have developed a way of dealing with candidates that seem to go out of their way to really ****me off during an interview. I put my right hand under my desk, bring out a large axe, and then embed it in the centre of the forehead of the said candidate!
While I obviously don't really do it (honestly I don't), the thought of the process is strangely therapeutic! So what will a job seeker have to have done to 'warrant the axe'?
Here are my ten ways that a job seeker can really upset an interviewer and warrant having their head cleaved with a metaphorical Woodman's axe:

1. Don't turn up late to an interview and offer no apology whatsoever. This is just blatant rudeness and will not be tolerated at all. If they can't even acknowledge being late what hope have they for working for you?
2. Don't turn up smelling like they have just smoked 20 cigarettes in the last five minutes. Sometimes it is even worse - you meet them from reception and they still seems to have a smoke cloud around them! Makes me question nerves and addictions immediately and gets me reaching for an early axing!
3. Don't be overly arrogant or blatantly rude, especially to receptionists, secretaries or PA's. Interviewers don't hire cocksure bullies whose ego is bigger than Mount Everest! (Exception to the rule are Investment Banking City Traders; their default requirement is an ego the size of Africa!)
4. Don't display a complete lack of motivation or laziness. If you can just about to be bothered to get you ass out of bed to get to the interview, then quite frankly don't bother! Even worse, if during the interview you utter those immortal words....'I dunno', 'yeah, whatever'or 'the Job Centre told me I had to apply', then expect the interviewer to buzz through to their secretary to send them down to the local DIY shop for a real axe!
5. Don't continually complain or moan about previous employers or employees. While there may be a fragment of truth in your previous issues or grievances, don't air them at your interview. It makes you come across as an angry, embittered person, who is not able to look forward and take the positives out of a previous situation. If the interviewer just happens to know the people you have been slagging off then you will have finished the interview before you have got started!
6. Don't lie. Get caught lying and the axe will be out quicker than you can say 'Gordon Brown's a Loooser'. If you have been stretching the truth on your CV then make sure you know it inside out and are prepared to be challenged on it. Quiver, shake or say 'umm' too many times and you will have given yourself away and got caught committing a cardinal sin.
7. Don't show a lack of respect for either the interviewer or the company you are sitting in front of. Do no go to an interview without doing the basic research. You WILL DEFINITELY be asked the question, 'So what do you know about our company?' Failure to be able to answer that question  - after all even if you just read their website you could answer it - is tantamount to high treason, of which there is no excuse.
8. Don't forget to put deodorant on. Turning up to an interview with a strange smelling aroma about your person, is an embarrassing situation for both you and the interviewer. Under stress and duress, the human body will sweat - that's only natural. Make sure you are prepared, make sure deodorant is used and avoid the potential nightmare.
9. Don't drink and interview - they just don't mix! Dutch courage should be left in Holland, and shouldn't be taken prior to any important meeting, especially an interview. I am not sure if there is anything more annoying to an interviewer, to know that the person has had to go to a pub or bar to get the 'strength' to attend the interview. No excuse at all.
10. Don't take the interviewer for granted. When you get up to leave, shake the person's hand and thank them for the time. Even ask them if they have been successful at the interview. But don't leave the room without doing both of these things, remember, that is the last thing the interviewer will be thinking about you.

I am already thing of having to do a second list -  a sort of Part 2, but I will save that for another day :-)

Just for reference though:

No, I am not undergoing anger management classes
No, I don't really have an axe under my desk - just a metaphorical one!
No, I am not a vindictive, mad axe murderer
No job seekers were harmed in the research for this article

.....and Yes, I do have a vivid imagination!

Obviously there is a little fun involved here, but the mistakes are only too real. if you are a job seeker, please see through the humour and take not, after all, jobs are hard enough to get at the moment, without alienating the interviewer immediately!

Has the 'mighty' Seth Godin got it wrong, or are we not brave enough to admit he is right?

I read a post by Seth Godin over the weekend, that (like all of Seth's stuff) made me sit back for a moment and think. Seth was discussing the most productive way to interview candidates, and while it somewhat goes against the grain of structured interview methods like competency interviewing, there is probably some validity in what he says.
We all know that many interviewers make a decision on a candidate within a few minutes of them walking through the door - what they look like; their handshake and what they are wearing. Some managers I know even make the decision based on how candidates walk to the interview room!!

There is something about Seth's views that are very pragmatic and realistic, and although it may ultimately be successful, my worry is that you could be potentially opening yourself up for employment tribunals. In five minutes - the 'sniffer test'as Seth calls it - you would not be gathering enough evidence to make a valued decision.
So if I have got Seth right, you just keep interviewing people for five minutes a time until you find the candidates that 'fit' your chemistry and character. Then when you have found them, you 'try them out'.

Seth is right though, in that this is exactly how many line managers do interviews, isn't it?

So here is the text that I have been referring to - see if you agree!


The wrong way first: interview someone for an hour. If you like them, have them interview three or four other people in your organization for an hour each.

You've invested five hours of your team's time, but really you only were looking for approval, because you'd already decided you liked the person enough to work with them for years.

All the evidence we've seen shows that this is a lousy predictor of future performance. And, let's tell the truth... if the first three people love the guy, are you really going to let the fourth, junior person veto him? Or is it just an annoying courtesy?

There are two approaches you can use as an alternative.

First, you can work with someone for months before you offer them a job. Your pool is smaller (freelancers, joint venture partners, interns) but the exposure to how they work is spectacularly different. You don't get the thrill of finding a pearl in the oyster, the "wow, I found the most incredible hire!" bragging rights. Instead, you get exactly what you expect. Organizing for this sort of hiring isn't particularly difficult, particularly in a down economy. Not surprisingly, I've had 100% success doing this.

Second, and with some controversy, you can admit that an hour interview is actually a five minute sniff test followed by 55 minutes of wasted time, multiplied by four colleagues. Tell the truth and switch to five minute interviews.

If you do five minute initial interviews, you can interview 12 times as many people for each job opening. This initial filtering takes precisely as much time as your wasted one-hour approach, but dramatically increases the chance you'll find someone you actually have good pheromone and body language connection with. After the screening, I can only encourage you to do the projects, reference checks and other serious diligence you're probably too exhausted to do after spending all those hours with one person...

This process takes a lot of work, but it definitely works. If you can interview 60 people in a day or two and then have the three best fits do projects, presentations and freelance work for you, you're way ahead of a company that interviewed only three people and fell in love with one.

What do you think?

This may well work in a recessionary economy, but can you imagine this working when it is a candidate driven market?

Maybe we have all got it wrong and maybe we need to accept that, interviewing is very much just about those first few minutes of contact with the candidate sitting in front of you!

OK, so what DO you have to wear to the interview to get a job then?

Is it a sign of the times that 76% of British bosses will make a decision on your suitability for their job,  based on what you are wearing when you sit in front of them at the interview?

Is this really a surprise? I don't think, so as employers have been doing it for years. In candidate driven markets they have had to 'scale down' their expectations and would overlook dress codes (especially when recruiting gen Y'ers). But now the landscape as changed (albeit temporarily), and the hiring companies feel that they have the control back in the interview, which of course they do!

According to this recent Ladders survey of 500 senior bosses from UK companies, over a third of interviewers have cited bad interview appearance as a primary reason for candidate rejection!! Blimey!!

So what should you avoid wearing at an interview?

Ok Men here you go with your no-no's!

1. No tie (52% say fire)
2. No jacket (50% say fire)
3. Chinos (50% say fire)
4. Polo shirts (66% say fire)
5. Jeans (82% say fire)
6. T shirts (88% say fire)
7. Leather jackets (70% say fire)
    

Here you go ladies, don't feel left out...

1. Short skirt (60% say fire)
2. Low necklines (95% say fire)
3. Sports shoes (91% say fire)
4. Dangling jewellery (99% say fire)
5. Bare legs (94% say fire)
6. Big shoulder pads - ala 80's style - (97% of bosses say big shoulder pads are wrong for interview)

I haven't finished yet, as there are more no-no's.....

1. 59% of interviewers, stains and dirty marks will see you out of the interview room immediately
2. 36% of interviewers see co-ordination of colours and styles as an important indication of the candidate’s personality
3. 75% of interviewers will look at whether your clothes are “appropriate for the circumstances”
4. 33% of interviewers said they would consider whether the candidate’s style suited their organisation
5. 95% of interviewers said orange was an inappropriate colour to wear to an interview, with red (84%) and pink (83%) coming in closely behind orange

What have the interviewers got against the 80's? People did get jobs then even with the fashion mistakes you know!!

So after all that, what should you be wearing to your interview?

1. Tailored navy single breasted suit (51% hire)
2. White or blue long sleeved shirt (48% hire)
3. Black leather shoes (56% hire)
4. Black socks (77% hire) (too right here, seen white socks making a comeback again !!)
5. Low key tie (35% hire)
6. Cufflinks (37% hire)
7. and no handkerchief (35% hire) (Come on, who wears a handkerchief in the top pocket any more?)
8. A mid-length black skirt or dress (64% hire) (women, obviously....)
9. Long sleeved and collared shirt or blouse (42% hire)
10. Tights (94% hire)
11. High heels (69% hire)
12. Pearls (56% hire)

Well it seems that we have returned to traditional boring conservative Britain again!! 

The sooner the employment market gets back to normal, and the gen Y'ers can (and maybe the gen Z'ers) can start to break the mold the better! Seriously, do we all have to dress like shop dummies to get a new job?
Well obviously at the moment, while the companies have control, then I am afraid if you want your next job, you better get shopping!!

Doctors are just like Hiring Managers!

I had the pleasure the other day of sitting in front of a consultant doctor in a hospital (not for me I might add), and observed his actions (or rather lack of actions!)
I have to say that as bright and clever as they are, I have come to the conclusion that doctors are just no different to your average hiring manager I have come across in my career.

Why? Two words - professional dis-respect

What is one of THE most annoying and disappointing things a hiring manager does at an interview (apart from not turning his Blackberry off)? They show the candidate absolutely no respect by not even bothering to read the candidates CV before an interview. They then proceed to read it through at the start of the interview, at the same time as asking the very lame, 'so tell me about yourself' question. It is so shallow and totally transparent, and yet they think it is perfectly acceptable. WRONG!!! It shows total professional dis-respect!!

Now let's go back to the doctor.
At the first meeting a few months ago, he took copious amounts of (albeit illegible) notes regarding the medical problem. For over twenty minutes he quizzed, questioned and proposed ideas. In short, he was efficient and instilled faith that he would do his best to help.
Roll on to the meeting this week with the same doctor. Can you guess where I am going with this? He proceeded to ask all the same questions again. It was so obvious that he hadn't even read his own notes, that it was just laughable! Within seconds, any credibility he had was destroyed. He just showed professional dis-respect, to his patient.

What really hacks me off with both examples is that it isn't a one off. How many times have either of these happened to you? I will bet, more than a couple!
All they would have to do is to take a few minutes before an interview or a consultation just to read through the notes or CV....that's all! Just think what the difference that would make!

So come on all you doctors and hiring managers, start treating people with respect, and we might all start showing some in return!!