In this current economic climate, employers will likely have a surplus of candidates from which to choose. But having a lot of options doesn’t make it any easier to determine a prospective candidate’s potential for success based on a pre-employment interview.
Findings consistently show that interviewing is a 50/50 proposition; a “coin-flip” in terms of selecting the best fit candidate. Although a comprehensive psychological assessment can increase predictability to well over 90 percent, there are communication styles that will tell you a lot about how a person will behave on the job. Interviewees can raise “red flags” when it comes to what they say or how they say it. While many may simply be having a bad day and thus not giving the best or truest account of themselves, some stylistic patterns can emerge as possible “deal killers.”
The Storyteller
Some candidates experience considerable difficulty providing a “Cliff’s Notes” version or sound bite. When queried, they engage in lengthy accounts of past successes chocked with nonessential details.
While such communications may simply be the nervous ramblings of a person trying to impress (and completely convey everything possible about past experiences and accomplishments), it also could be a signal that succinctness in responding is not a strength. Nor is full consideration of the needs of the listener.
If this tendency persists, through multiple interviews with different questioners, it may pose real concerns in terms of moving forward. If chosen, such individuals may monopolize group situations and, in the process, kill both constructive discourse and morale over time. People can and do lose their jobs over such propensities. Consultants hear these kinds of stories all of the time.
The Egotist
The telltale sign of an egotist is her or his overuse of the words “I” and “me” when describing career successes. In small business settings, few, if any, best result scenarios occur in isolation. Even if the person did work alone, he or she likely benefited significantly from collaboration in some fashion.
If candidates cannot articulate how they were helped along the way, it can speak to a real lack of collegiality. Moreover, if selected, these candidates may be too focused in on their own professional advancement at the expense of optimally preparing subordinates and peers for possible next steps professionally. It is hard to work for, with, or under those who are blatantly and intensely self-serving.
The Guarded One
By its nature, job interviewing is, to a large extent, a “put your best foot forward” endeavor. Nevertheless, candidates should possess enough self-awareness to effectively articulate strengths and weaknesses beyond the generic, “I’m too impatient” or “I expect too much out of myself” responses.
Additionally, they should be able to describe how they were instructed in the past: how someone actively mentored them from a green to a seasoned performer. Moreover, they should also demonstrate recent, ongoing learning experiences. If they cannot give voice to the above, it may indicate concerns regarding their ability to be coached. Responses to questions such as, “Tell me the last time you learned something and from whom,” can speak volumes.
Finally, if past experiences did not pan out as envisioned, it should not always be someone else’s fault. Applications with a “reason for leaving section” for previous jobs can provide further information as to how candidates viewed their roles in things not working out as anticipated. Again, a lack of objectivity may be at play.
The Career Explorer
Amazingly, some people enter job interviews not knowing what they really want to do professionally, and actually convey this uncertainty to the interviewer. Incredibly, they openly give voice to considering going back to school in a new field or starting a business while at the same time trying to sell themselves and their experiences and abilities to a prospective employer.
From their comments and demeanor, the position they are applying for seems to be little more than a stopgap or “settle for” type scenario, not a destination job. This may be more prevalent and pronounced in the present economic cycle. While re-inventing oneself vocationally can be tremendously satisfying to an individual, no small business benefits hiring someone who doesn’t know what he or she wants to be when they grow up; unless the position is, in fact, limited in duration and all parties agree to timeframes.
Conclusion
At its best, interviewing alone is a dicey proposition. The above can help screen out undesirables, and help you get a better sense of how a person will communicate on the job.
Kent Noel, Ph.D. is the director of assessment for Carr & Associates, an industrial psychology firm in Overland Park.
kent.noel@carrassessment.com
