How to make job interviews less terrible

Job interviews - who do they work for?

Many of us will have experienced job interviews in our working lives. Some of us will have also been interviewers. While these job interviews may have varied slightly in terms of length, style and makeup, I feel pretty safe in saying that most interviews are a torrid experience. Often for both the interviewer and interviewee they are exhausting, stressful and time consuming.  This may be ultimately worth it if they were an utterly reliable and equitable way to connect the right people with the right workplaces and the right roles. In my experience however job interviews generally fail to fulfil this function, other than by luck.

We seem a bit stuck recruiting in maintaining ‘the way things are done’ rather than thinking more creatively about what both employers and potential employees need from an employment process and how it could be structured creatively to achieve these needs. Most job interviews still center around a panel of people asking an applicant a series of questions and taking notes, potentially to score answers or make overall comparisons.  

This type of interview structure works super well for someone like me. Someone who is extroverted, loves to talk about issues, and has confidence in being able to articulate my thoughts on the spot. I have always “interviewed well”. These attributes, however, do not necessarily make me better for a role than someone who may, for example, be more introverted, someone who is more of a processor (takes more time to consider their response), or someone who faces cultural barriers to talking about their own achievements or skills.

What I have learnt about interviews

I have been in the privileged position of being on many interview panels over the years. My experience is that panels are typically provided with a pre-set series of questions, drafted by someone else, and notes about what to look out for from the answers (that, of course, were meant to remain secret to the panel). Interviewing felt like a weird guessing game where the interviewees had to try and figure out in the moment what the questions were trying to tease out of them. Running interviews in this way left me frustrated, the exercise felt about as robust as a lucky dip process. Some people interviewed really well, while others were super nervous but for all it felt hard to gain any real insight into their skills (other than how well they interviewed) and their fit for the mahi.

Wanting to improve the experience and outcomes, I began seeking feedback from participants on both sides of the process. (This is something I highly recommend to improve recruitment processes). Drawing on this feedback, I’ve been experimenting with different approaches and testing how these different approaches might better meet the needs of both the interviewer and the interviewee. Below are the some of the key things that I have found have worked very well, for me as an employer/interviewer as well as for the people who were part of the process (both unsuccessful and successful applicants).

Share the questions you intend to ask beforehand

Many people in recruitment consider sharing the questions prior “cheating” for some reason. My experience is that I consistently get better, more resonant and considered answers to questions that people had been given beforehand. This approach resulted in answers which provided me with a much better insight into the person and their competency than an on-the-spot response from someone who was sweating on what the next question might be. Interviews should not be set up for ‘gotcha’ moments but rather offer a chance for a meaningful exchange between potential colleagues.

Open and close interviews with karakia or whakataukuī

In my experience taking care to make an interview space as warm, welcoming and calm as possible was directly correlated to better experiences and outcomes for everyone. Feedback I received showed that people from all cultures really appreciated this process and how it calmed and grounded proceedings. This meant that even when an interviewee was unsuccessful, they felt like the process had been a good and supportive one.

Encourage people to consider their skills and attributes broadly

When sending out the questions ahead of the interview, I encourage people to think about the skills, competencies and experiences from their broader life; volunteering, caregiving, church, marae work and so on that they can include in their responses. These parts of people’s lives can bring useful transferable skills which they may not have considered raising or discussing without this prompting. The information can also provide an interviewer with a much more well-rounded view of an interviewee.

Consider offering supplementary ways to give information

As well as attending an interview, I found that offering other (voluntary) avenues for people to provide information about themselves and their skills is useful. For example, as part of arranging an interview, outlining that an applicant was welcome to write or send a short video of additional responses to interview questions post interview. This possibility was taken up by some people who felt that for whatever reason they had not been able to convey everything they wanted to at the time.

Proactively offer the opportunity to bring support people

I have found it worthwhile to offer every interviewee the chance to bring support people, whānau or friends along to the interview. If this offer is done as par for the course -rather than targeted at people you assume may wish for it - it normalises the offer and those applicants who would find it useful are more likely to take you up on it. Many people spoke to me about worrying that bringing a support person would make them appear weak or less competent but may have felt differently if this was offered to all interviewees proactively at the outset.

Break the mold on panel makeup

I have been told many times that it is standard practice to have only senior, internal employees interviewing. That it was simply not done to have someone ‘at the same level’ on a panel. However, in my experience one of the best people to understand the skills and competencies needed for say a senior advisor is, well, a senior advisor!   

The other useful addition to an interview panel for roles which interact with the public or other organisations is a stakeholder representative – someone who is there to reflect on the skills and competencies needed in that part of the work. This may be an iwi representative, a community leader or a key agency representative. This process strengthens connections with the stakeholder and brings a depth of perspective.

Good recruitment processes can really improve the culture of your organisation, strengthen relationships with stakeholders, preserve good relationships with unsuccessful applicants and improve retention.

If you are keen to improve your practices, I can help!  Contact me at amy.ross@workethics.nz for a free half hour consult on how I can support improvements in your recruitment practices.