Interviews – It’s a Two-Way Street
At a time when the technology industry seems on a desperate rampage to constantly achieve more with fewer people, it can be very easy to forget the basic fact that someone has chosen to interview for a new job.
And it is always just that. A choice. It doesn’t matter what stage someone is at in their pursuit of a new job, they have chosen to attend an interview, be it virtual or in person.
They’ve taken time out of their day to prepare and attend. That may have involved booking annual leave, making special childcare arrangements, buying a new interview outfit, paying for expensive travel, researching your company, preparing for the interview — or all of the above.
On the flip side, companies have more choice when hiring than they’ve had at almost any other time in recent years. Redundancies are rife, and the cost of living is pushing more people towards striving for that extra 5–10% pay rise they can’t get by staying put.
It would be easy, then, for the balance of power to shift too far. More candidates, more applications and more choice can create the impression that candidates need companies more than companies need candidates.
But more choice shouldn’t mean lower standards when it comes to how you treat the people who have chosen to interview with you. And there’s another reason for that beyond simply being decent: you want to see the best of them.
An interview is supposed to help you understand whether someone can be successful in your business. So why wouldn’t you create an environment that gives them the best possible opportunity to demonstrate that? Put them at ease, explain how the interview will work, introduce the people in the room and have a conversation before you start firing questions at them.
I’m not suggesting you make the interview easy. Ask difficult questions, challenge, probe, dig into their experience and find out what they really know. Hiring is a risk and you MUST feel like you’ve done your due diligence. But there’s a big difference between challenging someone and making them uncomfortable.
If nerves, ambiguity, or an unnecessarily hostile interview prevent a good candidate from performing, what have you actually assessed? Their ability to do the job, or their ability to interview?
The level of choice employers have is huge, particularly in the QE space right now. It’s my view that this should never be taken for granted.
The person sitting opposite you is forming an opinion of your company throughout the entire process. They’re looking at the people they’d be working with, how you communicate, how prepared you are, whether the role sounds like the one they applied for and whether the people interviewing them actually seem happy to be there.
The strongest candidates will still have options. Sometimes their best option will be another company and sometimes it will simply be staying exactly where they are. So while you’re deciding whether you want to hire them, they’re making exactly the same assessment of you.
The sell should always be two-way.
It’s only the company that holds the ultimate choice here; if the job isn’t offered, there’s nothing to accept but regardless of this, you should want every candidate to leave an interview with a better perception of the company than they had when they walked in.
If they don’t, you’ve probably missed an opportunity.