Yet, despite this, so many of them lose it within the first few minutes and seldom regain it. The interview often turns into a wayward, unfocused, time-consuming 'chat' from which neither gains.
You keep interviewees motivated in two ways - by what you say? And by what you do or put another way, by your verbal and non-verbal skills.
Verbal skills include not only what questions you ask (which we have already dealt with), but also how you ask them. Even the best questions if put badly will discourage or inhibit interviewees.
Using your voice effectively
- Speak clearly. If you whisper, mutter into your chest or talk with your hand covering your mouth, interviewees may not hear you, and though they may ask you once or even twice to repeat yourself, they will feel too embarrassed to keep on doing so. The result is that you will not be communicating with each other as you should without either of you realizing why.
- Do not shout. A loud voice is intimidating.
- Vary the tone. There is nothing more boring than an interviewer asking question after question in exactly the same way.
- Keep your voice free of any expressions of approval or disapproval. This may be particularly difficult in, say, a disciplinary interview where you may feel strongly about what the interviewee is supposed to have done, but it is essential that you do so otherwise you will not be able to conduct the interview fairly.
- Lighten the tone. A deep voice undoubtedly carries conviction, which is fine when you are making a speech, but this is not the effect you wish to convey in an interview, where your role is to receive information not give it.
- Make encouraging noises. Your interest in your interviewees should not only be implicit in the questions you ask, but explicit. Respond, therefore, to what they are telling you with 'Mm-mmm', 'Uh-huh', 'I see', 'I follow', 'How interesting!'. We do this naturally when we are involved in an interesting conversation, but interviewing tends to make us self-conscious, so we sit in total silence. As we shall see later, silence can be used effectively to motivate reluctant interviewees, but if you remain silent while they are answering all your questions your interviewees will eventually become discouraged.
- Use prompting devices such as 'I'm not sure I follow', 'In what way?', 'How do you mean?' and 'Why do you say that?' to indicate that you want your interviewees to give you more information. To be effective, these devices should be accompanied by encouraging eye contact and facial expressions, as we shall discuss below.
- Avoid verbal 'ticks', such as saying 'Yes,' to whatever interviewees answer, or 'O.K.,' or 'I know what you mean.' They can become an annoying distraction.
Ignorance
When interviewing experts on their subject, you should have done sufficient prior research to ask interesting and intelligent questions. Unfortunately, some experts assume the same degree of knowledge in others as they themselves possess and they glibly reply in the jargon of their profession, expecting the interviewer to follow them. When in doubt, clarify words, phrases and names that you are not familiar with at the interview. Never attempt your own post-interview interpretations.
Ignorance, real or not, can also be used to probe for more information. Say there is a conflict between the foreman and a worker which is causing problems on the factory floor. You know from other sources that it started when the worker swore at the foreman but before you can solve the problem, you need him to admit it. At the interview, instead of challenging him about the incident (which he may deny), you can pretend ignorance so that he is forced to give you the full story in his own words.
'Might you have said something to Bill that upset him?' 'Perhaps.' 'Any idea what it could have been?'
Another version of this strategy is to introduce deliberately false information into the interview, thereby inviting the interviewee to deny and to give his side of the story.
'Is it true that you hit Bill?'
'I don't know where you heard that from but it's not true. I just call him a bloody . . .'
This technique is frequently used by journalists when questioning obstructive press officers whose function it is to give an official line.
‘I understand the council are closing every school in the borough.'
‘That's nonsense! They're only closing down two junior schools.'
Negotiation
In recruitment interviewing interviewees are concerned to sell themselves and to make the best impression by answering your questions as fully as possible. But in problem-solving, counseling and disciplinary interviews, where interviewees may have something to hide, they can make each stage of the interview as hard as climbing a mountain, boulder by back-breaking boulder. You try probing; you try silence; you try pressure; nothing seems to work. This is the point at which either you tell them that there is no point in continuing, or you try negotiating.
This means that you step outside your role of interviewer and discuss with the interviewees why they are being obstructive. This, obviously, will require you to ask more questions, but you are doing so as a partner in a joint enterprise rather than as the controller of the interview.
'We seem to be getting nowhere. I wonder why.'
'You're asking me about things I don't want to discuss.'
'I can understand your reluctance, but you must realize that unless I find out what the problem is, I can't help you to solve it.'
Once the interviewees admit that the interview is making no progress, remind them what you are both trying to achieve and how important it is that you do so together.
As with the other methods of probing that we have discussed, it is vital that throughout these negotiations you remain calm, patient and, above all, involved. Your aim is to maintain or re-establish channels of communication. Anger or indifference will drive interviewees further into themselves and you will forfeit what little rapport exists between you.
