We get to interview all kind of people. Sometimes we have to interview too many in a too short period of time. Sometimes we only have one chance to talk to that person before making conclusions. That’s why it’s important to make the most out of that time. The person in front of you has intentions, desires and goals. They’ll try their best to impress you and to be the chosen ones. Some of them will take matters to a machiavellic extreme, where anything goes in order to get the job. Other times it’s more unconscious. But always remember that everyone, to some degree, will perform for you, and that’s because they are being tested.
That’s why it’s key to assume a neutral attitude and forget about the person, the face that we have in front of us. Just listen to the words he/she says. Read their gestures. Devoid them from context. That will make every phrase they say have its own meaning in itself and it will trigger new meanings within the context of the interview. If you listen literally to what people say, you’ll be missing the richness of the ambiguity of language. One thing means more than one thing. Feel free to take every phrase out of context and link them to the other ideas that the person throws in the interview.
Listen to what’s behind the discourse, what the person is saying and doesn’t know it. It doesn’t have to be a blatant lie. It can be the real facts disguised by the subjective perception of the interviewee.
For instance, let’s pretend that you are interviewing a person that used to work as a valet parking. You ask “What did you like about your job?” and the answer is “Meeting celebrities and driving the cars”, it’s telling you something: “oh! The guy enjoyed his job”. But also: “I like to run away from the job every time I can”. It carries the sense of “getaway” or “escape”. If you limit yourself to just listening to the spoken word without paying attention to what’s really being said on the background, you’ll be missing the richest part of an interview.
Another warning is when the arguments for all your “current work questions” asymptotically approaches one (1). It can be either because the candidate “prepared” the interview (and is not ready for out-of-script questions) or because there is really not a genuine interest for the job (just the money). People passionate about what they do tend to get quite loquacious when asked about what they like.
If at any point during an interview you realize that there’s too much fantasy in the story, don’t discard it. In Psychology, fantasy has the value of psychic reality. That means that even though the facts are not real, they have a real meaning in the mind of the person and can be interpreted..
Finally, think about how the other person echoed on you (watch your counter-transference). Usually, if after you finish you think that the interview “felt right” it can be because everything squared out. If you are left with the feeling that something doesn’t fit, then you may be right and some of the things that you heard were not exactly as told.
Keep monitoring your counter-transference throughout the whole interview. Everytime you feel impacted (in a good or bad way) by what the person is saying, ask yourself“Why is it making me feel like this?”. Your counter-transference is an invaluable tool at evaluating people for a job. It lets you maintain your neutrality and remain unbiased while on the other hand it helps you grasp those moments when the interviewee says something apparently trivial that ends up being a wealth of information.










{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi, interesting post. I have been wondering about this issue,so thanks for sharing. I will definitely be coming back to your site.
Hi, interesting post. I have been wondering about this issue,so thanks for sharing. I will definitely be coming back to your site.
Fernando, I think you missed the mark here. Neutrality has to be achieved through more systematic methods than what you describe. There is a lot of bias that operates between our ears that is difficult to filter out and that we are not even aware of.
Fernando, I think you missed the mark here. Neutrality has to be achieved through more systematic methods than what you describe. There is a lot of bias that operates between our ears that is difficult to filter out and that we are not even aware of.
Twitter: ftarnogol
July 28, 2010 at 1:13 pm
True, I could have been more thorough on that point.
Twitter: ftarnogol
July 28, 2010 at 9:13 am
True, I could have been more thorough on that point.