Interviews aren't all that they seem

I was asked to sit on an interview panel. A position had been advertised. Someone had been acting in the position for about a year or more. I knew them only casually, and very pleasant they were too. They were interested in holding onto the job. They were well regarded in the office, well liked, and in so far as I knew did the job well. Of course, to make a permanent appointment the formal process of advertising and interviews had to take place.

From what I could make out, unless they bombed badly at the interview or unless another candidate made a better impression the job was theirs for the taking. So why advertise outside the establishment?

Why indeed. No one wants to spend time writing an application and attending an interview for a job they don’t have a snow ball’s chance in hell of getting. It’s a waste of everyone’s time, and the sooner organisations pull their head out of the sand, and stop doing this, the better for all concerned.

I made two observations. The first related to the manner in which the ‘preferred’ candidate was treated compared with other candidates. The second related to one of the applicants who interested us.

Most people get a bit nervous at job interviews, and as a consequence it can be easy to lose the plot. That list of examples or experiences you wanted to use to demonstrate some knowledge or expertise gets forgotten or misquoted. You goof during the interview and it’s only afterwards when you are feeling relaxed you might remember what it was that you should have said. Too late then. This clearly happened during the interview.

The person chairing the meeting knew the capabilities of the person, knew they were failing in their response to one of the interview questions, and by rephrasing the question, and with a bit of prompting got them to respond fully. No words were put into their mouth. It’s just that these two people had worked together and in a sense one was coaching the other through the interview. Consequently, all questions were responded to fully and very well. This treatment did not apply to other candidates. If they floundered they were not assisted. Consequently, the interview reports were inferior to that of the ‘preferred’ candidate. Coming to a decision as to who to appoint was straightforward. Is this unfair? Sure it is. Unfortunately, there’s not much that can be done about it.

Prior to the following experience I have doubted the honesty of people who say, when advising you that you were unsuccessful for a position, that they liked your application and were forwarding it to a colleague. It sounds very positive, but in my experience nothing has ever happened. Either they lied, or if they did pass on the application it just lay in someone’s bottom drawer for ever or was discarded immediately. I maintained that belief until I had this experience.

This other applicant had submitted a poor application. It was clumsily written due to language difficulties. Their experience was limited as a front counter person. The individual was unsuitable for this particular job, but on a technical level they were very experienced. Their skills didn’t match the advertised position.

Think of a civil engineer with heaps of experience in managing large projects like bridge building. Think of the same person applying for a position as a construction worker. They could probably use a shovel, but they are unlikely to do it well. However, in this example, if that company was about to commit to a contract to build a bridge you might be interested in that person for their engineering background. It was with that idea in mind that he was interviewed.

They were never going to get this job, but their application got them into a meeting with the person who hires and fires. The need for someone with this person’s background came up a few months later. His application was retained, and he was contacted and offered a job.

In the first example. Despite other applicants interviewing very well and in some cases coming across better, they didn’t have the relevant experience for the position, which disadvantaged them. It has to be considered that if someone is acting in a position you have a slim chance of getting anywhere in the process. Your energies may be better spent elsewhere. When you telephone about the advertised position, one of your first questions should be to find out whether anyone is acting in the position. Consider contacting the person who is acting and talking to them. Who knows maybe they might shed some light on the job that you would never hear about through formal channels. What’s the boss like? What’s the company like?

So if an aircraft pilot can’t find work is it worthwhile them applying to be a bus driver? Possibly not. In this example this individual had a great deal of technical expertise relevant to the company. That experience would have been a great help had they been the successful candidate; there was no doubt of that. I never found out whether they were interested in the advertised position at all and whether their goal was simply to make themselves and their experience known to the company. It’s a strategy worth considering but be prepared for a lot of knock backs. It obviously works sometimes.

What do your referees say about you?

It’s interesting the things you hear about other people. I heard a story about someone who had applied for an interstate job. I gather that, although their work had been done okay and no one had any complaints about the quality of their work, this individual was unpleasant. She was just generally not liked by anyone; not by management nor staff. Everyone wanted rid of her. She got a glowing reference from every referee. They were all glad to see the back of her, and giving her a great wrap was a good way to guarantee she’d go.

I went for an interview for a job I was particularly keen to get. Everything went well at the interview; the interview panel gave me the impression that they’d be good to work with. They had beautiful offices on about the 30th floor of a building with fabulous views, and I think I addressed all the questions well. I left the place happy that I’d done okay. The interview went so well I was more than half expecting a phone call the next day to offer me the job.

I had a very enlightening conversation with one of the interview panel members who rang to say they weren’t going to offer me the job because of a comment by one of my referees. He didn’t go into detail, but recommended I reconsider using him.

To say this was disappointing was an understatement. I was beginning to dislike my current job situation, and this only made things worse. I felt as though I was stabbed in the back, and trapped in the place. Keeping me there may have been the intention. Fortunately, this individual was good enough to tell me who made the unenthusiastic remarks about me. This person was the assistant to the CEO; my manager’s boss. I very quickly arranged an alternative referee.

I explained my recent experience to my new referee. I sought an honest opinion from them. I was trying to assess what they may or may not say on my behalf. I was assured that they would give me a good comment, but being the doubtful Thomas I am, I laboured the point. I explained that unless referees are willing to boast of the individual they are speaking for, to go over the top, to describe them as though they are on a pedestal then there is no point in saying anything. This may have been taxing our friendship, for this was a work colleague rather than a supervisor. Unless you are sure of your referees, don’t use them.

He only had to take one telephone call. He did as promised, and I got the very next job I applied for, and I stayed there for about five years. I keep wondering where I would be today if I had got any of those other jobs I wanted badly, but was knocked out of the race because of a crumby and unfair reference.

If you are feeling game, get someone to ring your referees as though they were an employer and you had applied for a job with them, and have them report back to you with their opinion as to how much regard your referees have for you. A word of warning: if you are going to do this, make sure you do some preparation should your referees want some documentation about this fictitious job.

Shooting yourself in the foot

I generally don’t particularly like sport. I don’t mind watching the sporting prowess of experts showing off their talent. Sometimes these displays can take on the appearance of an art form, but I can’t stand the bickering that goes on amongst people as they boast of their favourite sporting teams and heroes.

Whenever I have engaged in anything remotely sporting (golf, squash, table tennis) I’ve done so for the fun of it. I’ve generally always relied on the other person to keep score. Most of my fun comes from engaging in the activity and I couldn’t really care less who wins. The competitive part of the activity holds little interest. So, what has any of this got to do with employment?

With almost every job I’ve applied for in recent years, my application and the subsequent interview has had an item in the selection criteria and/or interview question relating to being a ‘team player’ in the workplace. Sporting analogies pervade almost every area of our lives, but at times these analogies are not applicable, and yet people just keep on using them. Anyway, I don’t like them.

So, one day, mostly as an experiment I separated myself from the concept. In an attempt to disassociate myself with this concept at an interview with Telstra, at which ultimately I was unsuccessful, I attempted to place my response to this question in a light which deemphasized sport (ie. being a team player) and emphasized cooperation and working with one another rather than working against people. (Oops, I almost fell into the trap: I could have said: ...working towards a common goal.)

I can’t recall the question the panel put to me, but it would have been something along the lines of, “how do you work in a team?” or “what team values to you aspire to?” or some such thing. So, it was with my bias against sporting analogies in mind that I responded to the question.

Let me tell you how I behave in the workplace. Whenever anyone is in trouble at work, say, they can’t do something in Excel that I know a lot about, I’ve never held back when they ask for help. I do this without hesitation and it doesn’t matter who they may be. I will offer the same amount of assistance to the boss or a new starter. To me, if someone needs help and I can offer it I feel obliged to share what I know. It doesn’t matter whether that person is a colleague, or someone who works in a different section six floors below. To me, if someone puts out a plea I must do what I can for them. By contrast, some people will only assist those in their direct work section. Me, I’ll help anyone. If we all work for the same company we should all cooperate with each other. This attitude grew from several experiences of being in desperate need and being refused assistance because I was located in a different work area. I think that’s despicable. I promised myself never to be like that.

To elaborate on the sporting analogy, the trouble with it is that teams are competitive in their nature. They work against each other. That’s what they are all about. And in the workplace, you can see lots of nasty examples of competition occurring in companies; often referred to as silo building. One department will not assist any others. It’s also common to withhold information or actively provide inaccurate or incomplete information, and shroud themselves in secrecy. I can’t stand that type of behaviour. It’s unproductive.

This is how I shot myself in the foot. So, I’m at the Telstra interview, and it’s going along okay. I felt as though I was responding well to the questions. I was certainly feeling comfortable at the meeting. It was a job I could do easily. Then the teamwork question came up, and I described the above philosophy. I said how I preferred to promote cooperation between work colleagues, and gave examples, and there were a few nodding heads amongst the panel members. I went on to point out the negative aspects of the team analogy and how it generally doesn’t help in the work environment. Crack! The crack was the sound of a bullet entering my foot. I went on to elaborate on the misuse of the term ‘team’ in the workplace, and that it could be considered counter productive for all the reasons I’ve already described. The nodding heads froze in a silent stare. There were a few other questions, and the interview completed, but my response must have bugged them.

A few days later I was contacted by the employment agency that had set me up with the interview. Her advice was that my application was rejected because, “I wasn’t a team player.” I gave her a potted summary of what I had said to the interview panel, and she said, “that’s the same as being a team player.” Well, of course it is, but the interview panel members were too obtuse to recognise it.

My mistake was to assume the interview panel could appreciate an alternative point of view. The moral for me was to never stray from the expected response for standard questions. In some cases, dishonesty is the best policy.