Interviewing is often an acting job on the part of both the candidate and the hiring manager. We have two people trying to present themselves in the best possible light, each attempting to “sell” what they have to offer. Both are focused on saying the right things, especially if they think it’s what the other party wants to hear.

The candidate enters the interview knowing there will be one of two outcomes: A job offer or rejection. And in almost every instance, he will go to great lengths to get the job offer and, therefore, avoid rejection.

The hiring manager is also in a conflicting position. She needs to find someone for the vacant job sooner rather than later. Until the position is filled, there will be a sales territory which is not covered or a project without a supervisor or a controller trying to “fill in” for the empty CFO position. There is pressure on the interviewer to fill the job ASAP with a qualified person. Therein lies the conflict. “I need to get it done fast, but I also need to make sure I get a great person.” The situation is ripe for compromising an important hiring decision.

In interviews, candidates will often have prepared themselves by developing a set of scripted responses to questions they anticipate being asked. They usually think about the positive traits they want to highlight and the negative ones they’d like to avoid discussing. The basis of the script may or may not be truthful as positive experiences get embellished and negative ones get buried.

In the other corner we find hiring managers desperately wanting to hear the right answers from the candidates they like. It’s not unusual to see a switch from objective, tough interview questions to easy, “softball” ones lobbed in an effort to get a candidate to say what they need to say to get the job. Once this happens, it usually isn’t long until the manager starts selling the candidate on the attractiveness of the job and how great it is to work with the company. And it’s easy to embellish everything the opportunity has to offer if your heart is set on a candidate and you’re trying to reel him or her in.

These two “actors” really are honest people, but their goals in this instance cause them to skirt the whole truth as they both find themselves needing to sell their story. This distortion will intensify if the candidate really needs the job and/or if the manager is anxious to get this over with so he can get on with “doing his real job.”

This scenario is highlighted by a couple of conversations I’ve heard over and over:

Question from a friend/spouse: “So how do you think you’ll like your new job?”

Answer from new hire: “It’s hard to tell. Ask me in 90 days.”

Question from the CEO to the manager: “So how do you think the new person will do?”

Answer from hiring manager: “I think okay. Ask me in 90 days.”

Is it any wonder we keep hearing that 20% of the people produce 80% of the results? Hiring often ends up as a crap shoot for both the candidate and the manager. But there are a few things managers can do to offset this mutual acting job and focus on maintaining an objective viewpoint:

Start with a solid Job Description. Make sure it accurately describes the position and identifies the traits you most need in the person you hire for it. Consider the tough parts of the job, the everyday activities, the necessary personality and talent requisites, your management style, the company culture, experience level you need, etc. Be meticulous about sticking to interview questions that uncover whether candidates have what you know you need. Even if you really like an individual personally, the Job Description will continually remind you that assessing fit with the position is even more important.

Use a third party assessment tool. The good ones are based upon science, can be very reliable in describing a candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, and offer unbiased input. We estimate there are as many as 2500 available online, of which we think maybe 25 are decent. Some are inaccurate, some measure things which may not be important for predicting job success, and some are so simple they don’t dig deep enough. Do your research to find an accurate one that will help you make good hires and avoid very costly mistakes.

Don’t shortcut reference checking. Some references will overtly lie to you. The candidate may have been fired, but the reference will say she was great because she was a nice person and the reference feels bad she had to let her go. Or maybe the candidate resigned, and the reference is holding a grudge because he lost a great employee. The key is to talk to people who are not on the candidate’s reference list. Network for other names. Of course, you may need to be careful if the candidate is concerned that her current manager will find out she is looking. Ask references lots of questions to get to the truth. We will discuss reference checking techniques in another post.

Use your interviewing skills and don’t shortcut interviews unless you decide the candidate and job are not a fit. We have discussed interviewing techniques, tips, types of questions, and strategy in earlier articles. Read them again and practice your questioning and listening skills.

Most people are honest and can be trusted. Most candidates and interviewing managers are trying to do the right thing. However, in the interview environment, both will often shade reality or omit something which might shed a negative light. Don’t let your pants catch on fire! You won’t like the ashes you have to deal with in six months or a year when you find out you made a mistake.

Share and Enjoy:

Posted in Hiring, Interviewing, Reference Checking