How does this work if, for most of the time, you have been asking questions which they have been answering? When do they get the chance to ask the questions?
There is a school of thought which says that candidates should be encouraged to put questions to the interviewer throughout the interview and that this is the only way real communication can be established. The more conventional view, however, is that this makes control impossible, and that the interview will end up being a conversation without any direction.
The answer depends on how confident you are. If you feel you can handle interruptions during the interview and still maintain control, then it is a good idea to give the candidates the chance to ask questions. If you do not want to answer immediately you can always suggest they ask them later. But if you feel that inter viewing is difficult enough as it is, stick to the conventional method, which is to leave questions till just before you close.
Either way, you should be prepared to answer them if you want to be certain that the person you pick for the job in turn picks you. The important factual details about your organization, the job itself, its duties and location, the kind of person required and, of course, the benefits should be in the press advertisement or in the data you send the candidates at the time of applying.
In addition to this, potentially suitable candidates will also want to know:
- why the job has fallen vacant and whether the previous holder has resigned, retired, been dismissed or promoted
- what training they will require and how long it will take
- for whom they would work and over whom they would have responsibility
- what the opportunities are for advancement
Questions having been asked and answered, signal the candidates that the end is approaching by summarizing and picking up points that you may have missed. It may also help to get the candidates to sum up their impression of the interview, from what we talked about, how do you see yourself in the job?'
Candidates will probably be as relieved as you to know that the interview is about to end, because they will want to get on with their lives. If you have done your job properly, they should feel drained but at the same time reasonably pleased with themselves. They should not feel that they are useless and worthless.
Thank them for coming, tell them that you enjoyed talking to them and found what they told you interesting. Get out of your chair, walk them to the door and shake their hand. It is demeaning to be dismissed by an interviewer with no more than a brusque 'thank you', or by one who continues writing notes without looking up or, worse, bids them send in the next candidate.
Do not, however, go to the other extreme and leave candidates thinking that the job is 'in the bag'. Do not tell them how well they performed or express the view that they have nothing to worry about.
Whether or not they will get the job, candidates have the added anxiety of not knowing. We have all been through it, yet regrettably some interviewers forget how unpleasant the waiting period can be. Do as you would be done by. Relieve them of some of their anxiety by telling them when and how -by letter, telephone or both - they will be told of your decision. If possible, make that sooner not later. And keep your promise.
If, by the end of the interview, you have made up your mind that, for whatever reason, the candidate is not suitable, say so in the kindest way possible. Indicate that the unsuitability lies with the job rather than the candidate, for instance, Tm afraid that the job demands more training or experience than you've actually got,' or 'I don't believe the job will challenge you or exploit your abilities to the full.'
Rejection is painful however it is conveyed, but at least the candidate will know where he or she stands and can apply for other jobs.
Finally, if you have offered to pay candidates' expenses for attending the interview, it is embarrassing for them to have to remind you or go through complicated bureaucratic procedures to get their money. Make sure they are paid promptly and with the minimum of fuss. Remember, their time is as valuable as your own.
Unfinished Business
The difference between interviewers and candidates after the interview is that candidates have done their work. For interviewers the most important work still remains to be done, namely, choosing the right applicant.
Half the problem of making the choice is the danger of relying on irrational judgments based on superficial impressions of the candidate; the other half is finding a system that will give you the approximation of a scientific and rational decision.
Survey after survey of selection procedures reveal that the majority of decisions about a candidate are made within a few minutes of the start of the interview and that they are based almost entirely on irrelevant data. The rest of the interview is spent asking questions that will fit into these first impressions. The better the impression, the easier and more helpful the questions; the worse the impression, the harder the questions.
Ask yourself: Why did I like or dislike the candidate? Perhaps it was the voice that irritated you, or the way of sitting, or the nail-biting or constant sniffing. It may have been the hair or clothes - by themselves insignificant details but adding up to an unfavorable impression.
Just as important is to ask yourself why you liked the candidate. Beware, though, of what is known as the 'halo effect', where the interviewer gives a general 'Yes' vote to a candidate based on one favorable, and often not very important, detail. You may, for instance, share a liking for the cinema, or even a particular film, and, if you are not rigorously honest with yourself, that alone may color your whole judgment of the candidate in his or her favor.
