What’s in an Interview?

As one who has held an interview, or been interviewed almost 100 times – interviewing is hard and not to be taken lightly.

I can say that I’m hard-pressed to find any interviews I’ve been on to be completely ineffective – or even completely effective. Those I found hard were ones where they didn’t seem prepared, didn’t have clearly defined job plans, or weren’t interested in performing the interview. Those I enjoyed (and ended up working there for many years) were full of information and were completely open and honest about the job they were hiring.  In addition, their second interviews were more of an ability to let me ask questions about the position, the management, and the job.

For me though – I felt I did the best interviewing when I was using a reliable testing technique I used for clerical positions within our organization. While this position was front-facing for some of the time they worked, the majority of the time entailed detail-oriented word processing or data entry. To seek out the best candidates, I used an effective portion of the interview. I created two simple tests with simplistic instructions – type a letter, and calculate a row of numbers on a 10-key calculator. The test wasn’t the ability to calculate numbers on the calculator fast, nor type a perfect letter.  The test was to “double check your work” (i.e., run it more than once) and check for errors in the letter (which there were a handful of easy typos).

This test had a reliability that allowed those who took it to show they had the ability to take a beat and really understand the ask – take it slow and be precise.  This test proved (though I’m not a subject matter expert) that those who did well on the test – were truly those who were detail-oriented and spent time producing quality work.

Right or wrong, interviews are tough and sometimes it takes out-of-the-box techniques to find the right person for the right job.