Defining the purpose is usually a relatively simple task - at least on the surface. You know if you are interviewing candidates for a job in your organization the purpose is to choose the right one. Think about it carefully and you will realize that there is more to it than that. First, you have to define the job, and second, describe the kind of person that will suit it best. In some organizations, jobs are vaguely defined. 'Personal assistant', for example, can mean different things to different people. To some it is merely a more acceptable title than 'typist'; to others it is a professional post requiring a wide range of skills. Until the scope of the job is established for both the interviewer and the candidate, any interview would be a waste of time or, worse, could result in employing someone who is either over-qualified or not qualified enough.
The purpose of some interviews is not clear at all and you may need to think carefully and do some research before you can identify what you want to achieve. For instance, Jane, one of your juniors who has always been punctual, has started coming to work late. You have given her a warning, but after a short return to normality she goes back to her bad ways. You decide that a disciplinary interview is in order.
However, after some research, you learn that she has recently suffered a bereavement, so the purpose of the interview now has to be modified into something resembling a counseling interview to help her come to terms with the bereavement. It may be that she will need outside help, and part of the interview would be to get her to recognize that need and accept the help.
What is the purpose of interviewing someone who is leaving the company? As we shall see when looking at dismissal and resignation interviews, it can be a very useful way of finding out more about the company from someone who no longer feels the need to guard their tongue. Organizations can also learn about management problems that might otherwise remain undetected. When, therefore, defining the purpose of such an interview, you would stress the information-gathering rather than the recrimination aspect of it.
Good interviewers are those who know what they want from the interview and organize themselves accordingly; poor interviewers are those who start without a particular end in view and spend most of the interview staggering blindly through it. It is not surprising that interviewees who have to suffer such interviews regard them as pointless and time-wasting and those who conduct them as poor managers.
Often interviewers go into interviews thinking they know what they want to achieve and still fail. The reason is that merely thinking about it in a casual, unfocused way is not enough. More information is needed.
If, for instance, you are about to interview Stephen, an employee who has given in his letter of resignation, you would first want to know as much about his employment record as possible to determine whether or not you want him to stay. If his record turns out to be unremarkable, the purpose of the interview would be very different from what it would be if he were a valued employee whose presence would be sorely missed.
In addition to helping you define the purpose, preliminary research obviates the need to ask unnecessary questions and so saves time. For recruitment interviews, an essential part of your basic research is to read the candidate's application form, resume or CV. Few things are guaranteed to irritate a candidate more than to have to give information which is, or should be, known to the interviewer. Your research may also include talking to people already doing the same or similar job, because it helps you to form a clearer picture of the kind of candidate best suited to the job.
A bored interviewee is an unresponsive one, and boring interviews are those:
- that go on too long
- in which interviewers go over the same ground repeatedly
- in which interviewers appear not to know where they are going o that are too rigidly structured
- in which interviewers ask irrelevant or banal questions
Think of yourself as the driver of a motorcar and your interviewee as your passenger. Every time you interview, you are going on a journey together. Now, at first it may be quite exciting to drive along aimlessly, but soon your passenger is going to become uneasy, then anxious and bored as you meander through strange streets. Finally, if you still haven't found your way, your passenger will get angry. But because you are in charge and the passenger does not want to be left stranded, he or she will say nothing.
With a map, you and your passenger would have had a far more interesting, lively and enjoyable trip, with time even to take one or two small detours. Most important, you would have reached your destination.
An interview plan is your map, and you should work out in advance:
- what subject(s) you intend to cover
- the order in which you intend to deal with them
- the length of the interview
For some of the more problematic interviews it helps to write down the purpose, so that you can look at it, consider it and change it if you do not think it is correct. Just thinking about it may not focus it sharply enough.
It is also important that you work out the running order in which you will take each topic.
The order should have a logical progression, so that the interviewees can see the direction which you are taking. You should outline it for them before the interview starts. Avoid jumping from topic to topic, because that will only confuse them. While it should be logical, the order should not be so predictable that the interviewees are not going to have to think hard about their replies. Lively communication is what you are after, not the dull repetition of known facts, so aim to keep interviewees interested by ordering your topics in the most challenging and involving way.
