Digging for Meaning in Job Candidate Responses

While interviewing candidates for employment, how often do you receive a common, seemingly “right” response to a question, only to learn later that the answer had hidden a deeper meaning?

When Right Doesn’t Ring True

Interviewers frequently develop “magic bullet” questions that they believe are litmus tests for gaining foolproof information that will assure a correct hiring decision. But here lies the rub: Job candidates often give practiced, trumped up, pat answers to carefully chosen, yet very predictable employment interview questions.

If you think you’ve heard these responses before, you are correct. Programmed answers to interview questions are readily accessible within books and blogs for job-seekers, or in well-intended advice shared by career counselors, friends or family.

To an untrained interviewer’s ear these answers sound reasonable. Precisely because they are familiar replies, they carry the feel of the conventional. On the surface they sound right, but could these answers be masking undisclosed meanings?  

Here are some common refrains and potential alternative meanings:

“I’m keeping my options open.” 

Can mean….

“I can’t make a decision about my own future, but I’m willing to directly affect yours .... I lack self-confidence regarding my employability, but I don’t want you to find out .... I can talk anyone into hiring me, so I’ll hold out for the highest bidder .... I go through life ‘playing not to lose’ so I can do the same for you, if you let me run (your company, your department).”

“I’m seeking challenge and opportunity.” 

May mean….

“I stayed in that boring job for so long out of inertia—so now that I’m laid off I’d like my next job to be more interesting…. All of the self-help books said I should answer this way…. I am deflecting your question.”

“Money is less important than opportunity.” 

Could mean….

“The first one who mentions dollars loses and I don’t want that to be me…. I’m willing to take my time chatting with you about a job that may not be right for me… .I don’t have a clue what I am really worth.”

“I left because my boss and I had philosophical differences.”  

Possible meaning….

“We had differences over my expense account, my work ethic (go ahead—you fill in the blank from the last time you coached a cover story for a departed employee).”

“I’m flexible and open to what discipline, industry, market or technology (fill in the blank) I work in.” Might mean…

“I have no definite career plan, you decide for me…. I got by ok in the last place I worked, so I figure I can survive here too…. Perhaps you may be gullible enough not to probe any further on this question if I say it with a smile.”

The Answer is in the Digging

These provoking examples are not intended to suggest that all candidates will set out to trick interviewers. Unfortunately, in many instances, the candidates you interview are misled into thinking that it is wise to reply with stock statements.

Don’t come down too hard on people who offer planned responses. You can help job candidates by asking them to speak more frankly, or to offer you an example of what they mean by their answers. Then listen well and continue to dig until you fully comprehend the meaning behind the answer. You’ll discern more completely and make better decisions than you would by simply accepting trite answers to your favorite questions.

*Image courtesy of Photography by BJWOK at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Involving Multiple Interviewers in Employee Selection

When it comes to hiring a key employee, sometimes executives believe that taking a “360 degree view” will help in making a better informed selection. Accordingly, finalist candidates are introduced to an array of people from both inside and outside the organization. The rationale is that a multi-faceted screening process will be helpful in evaluating candidates; and, once a candidate is selected, to help encourage this individual to join the organization.

However, there are times when the law of unintended consequences can interfere with these best laid plans.



 Let’s take a closer look at the pros and cons of using multiple people to screen when tasked with candidate selection.

Outside Assessment

By definition, outside observers are expected to offer unbiased perspectives of the organization, its relationships and its needs. These observers are considered objective, and thus able to offer a non-emotional view of the impact of a hiring decision. Additionally, outsiders frequently bring helpful views on the the skills and experience needed to fill a job.

On the other hand, outsiders are typically less current about the business or industry, and less informed than are people who work in the business on a day-to-day basis.

The View from Inside

There are several positive factors for including insiders in the candidate selection process. Firstly, they can present a welcoming tone to candidates. People within the organization are also often useful to screen in determining whether there is a cultural fit. Certainly, insiders’ participation in the process can foster “buy-in.” Plus, any complaints after the hire about a selection would hopefully be less strident if insiders are involved in the screening at the outset. Another benefit to involving inside assessors in screening is that this can reinforce a sense of positive openness and a “no secrets” environment among the team.

On the other hand, it is important to remember that insiders can bring particular biases into the selection process. When considering a candidate as a potential co-worker, views about which candidate fits best can surface in an interfering way—intentionally or unintentionally. Also, some individuals can be threatened by the presence of a candidate who might appear to be stronger than they are in a particular discipline. These insiders may discourage candidates in subtle or not so subtle ways.

Depending upon their position within the organization, some internal assessors may lack a strategic perspective. If they are limited to one internal function and are asked to take a broad business view, they might misread the importance of relevant aspects of a candidate's background. Also, internal people sometimes only “know what they know.” If they lack broad exposure to other disciplines and organizations, they might not understand fully the background of an individual who comes from a different or broader environment. In these instances, it may help to have each person who screens take a more specific line of inquiry with the candidate.

Maximizing Perspectives

The first step in involving multiple insiders and outsiders is to make certain that all interviewers are trained and well prepared for the task. The interviewing process consists of a lot more than simply asking questions and listening to responses. Formal training in evaluating candidates and in eliminating unfair or discriminatory behavior in an interviewing setting is prudent.

Outsiders and insiders both offer excellent opportunities for gaining perspectives, and in selling finalist candidates on the wisdom of their joining the organization. If you avoid common pitfalls, you can maximize the opportunities of using multiple interviewers in your hiring process.

Can Candor Predict Interview and Job Success?

How is it that people are brought into an executive hiring situation with high hopes; yet candidates end up eliminated despite their great credentials? 
 
The Fear Factor
When you go to bed the night before you plan to interview prime candidates, you aren’t praying that you’ll find reasons to reject them.  However, chances are the candidates are lying awake that night fearing you have just that agenda in mind. Dreading rejection, they practice contrived sound bites and structured, stylistic presentations.

What a waste of time. The fact is, if you have selected a candidate for a personal interview, you have already found the person’s credentials as acceptable. As the hiring executive, your take on the upcoming interview is that it will help you assess whether intelligence, communications style and values compatibility are present. Your decision will come down to your impression regarding the candidate’s credibility, which in turn is related to a candidate's confidence.

The Credibility Factor
Confident candidates feel they have nothing to hide, despite a career with ups and downs. They comfortably handle your sensitive questions regarding their less successful experiences. Credibility is not an issue of what they tell you...it has to do with whether the candidates believe what they are telling you. If they do not believe their answers to your questions you will sense that they are bluffing.You may not know what is wrong with their answers, but you will probably conclude that something doesn’t ring true. You may chalk it up to poor chemistry or some other elusive factor when you explain why you decided not to continue discussions.  

So what happened during the interview that changed your mind? It wasn’t the facts of candidates' explanations, and it wasn't their word choices. It was your discomfort and sense that they themselves don’t believe what they are telling. In cases where you are uncomfortable with a candidate’s manner in an interview, you aren’t likely to hire the person. 

On the flip side, confident candidates can stumble over their words, disclose a failing or failure, or otherwise come across as less than smooth--but their candor will carry them. When they believe clearly what they are telling you, you feel more comfortable, and are more likely to continue on with their candidacies.

Here are some additional tips that can improve your chances of hiring the right executive:

• Involve multiple, skilled and informed interviewers 
• Perform reference and background checks
• Seek outside counsel from industrial psychologists and executive search firms

A Foolproof Approach?
Can candor and credibility on the part of the candidate predict success on the job?  It is not a guarantee. There may be times when a person is hired for all the right reasons... credentials, obvious intelligence, shared values and confidence.  But still your good "fit" fails. Why? Consider that if the believable candidate you hired lacks self-knowledge, then they may strongly believe their confident assertions to you, yet be kidding themselves about their pasts. 

*photo with permission: freedigitalphotos.net &David Castillo Domininci