![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
canyonwalkerIt's been years since I've posted on the topic of Stupid Interview Tricks. From interviews I've done in the past few weeks— interviewing candidates for jobs at my company— I've got a few new ones. Two are related and one is not.
First, the unrelated one: Not including teammates in interviews. This is a stupid trick on the part of the hiring company, not the candidate. One reason I haven't posted about stupid interview tricks in several years is that I've rarely been included in the interview process the past several years. At my company interviews have routinely done by managers: the hiring manager, the hiring manager's manager, the division exec, plus a few managers of adjacent teams. What's missing here is the person the candidate will work directly with on a daily basis. How can management think this interview is so important as to be skipped routinely? I'm glad to see this appears to be changing.
Now two stupid tricks from the candidate side of the interview:
Disrespecting the Question. One candidate began his response to literally every substantive question I asked with the intro, "Well, look. The thing is...." That intro implies the question was misstated, off base, or making the subject more complicated than it really is. Done once I would have ignored it. Done twice I would have noted it as a minor thing. Done every time it was disrespectful.
As I began to write a negative evaluation after that interview I paused to ask myself whether maybe I was being too sensitive to a small (but consistent) verbal tic. Then I considered how sales training techniques such as the Sandler method teach the importance of how to respond to questions. Sandler emphasizes to begin your response with a positive phrase, something like, "That's a great question,' or, "I'm glad you asked." That shows you're listening and are aligning with your counterpart's needs. It also gently rewards them for asking a question, encouraging them to be more engaged in the discussion. The opposite of this is implying to your counterpart that the question is off base and suggesting they should feel slightly foolish for asking such things.
Giving Too-Brief Answers. The same candidate as above also made the mistake of giving brief answers to every question. Sure, sometimes a brief answer is what's wanted, and going long can be a negative. But when I, as the interviewer, ask for details you need to provide them.
I hope you can see in this brief dialogue that the candidate's answers were brief to the point of being insulting. But beyond even his answers raised concern that he was misrepresenting his record. When you're asked to describe a thing you did and you dodge providing any details, giving instead platitudes and circular answers, you create legitimate doubt that you understood what you were doing or that you even did it at all. Maybe someone else did the hard work and you were just along for the ride.
By the way, a great answer to this question looks like this:
That is how you nail this type of interview question.
First, the unrelated one: Not including teammates in interviews. This is a stupid trick on the part of the hiring company, not the candidate. One reason I haven't posted about stupid interview tricks in several years is that I've rarely been included in the interview process the past several years. At my company interviews have routinely done by managers: the hiring manager, the hiring manager's manager, the division exec, plus a few managers of adjacent teams. What's missing here is the person the candidate will work directly with on a daily basis. How can management think this interview is so important as to be skipped routinely? I'm glad to see this appears to be changing.
Now two stupid tricks from the candidate side of the interview:
Disrespecting the Question. One candidate began his response to literally every substantive question I asked with the intro, "Well, look. The thing is...." That intro implies the question was misstated, off base, or making the subject more complicated than it really is. Done once I would have ignored it. Done twice I would have noted it as a minor thing. Done every time it was disrespectful.
As I began to write a negative evaluation after that interview I paused to ask myself whether maybe I was being too sensitive to a small (but consistent) verbal tic. Then I considered how sales training techniques such as the Sandler method teach the importance of how to respond to questions. Sandler emphasizes to begin your response with a positive phrase, something like, "That's a great question,' or, "I'm glad you asked." That shows you're listening and are aligning with your counterpart's needs. It also gently rewards them for asking a question, encouraging them to be more engaged in the discussion. The opposite of this is implying to your counterpart that the question is off base and suggesting they should feel slightly foolish for asking such things.
Giving Too-Brief Answers. The same candidate as above also made the mistake of giving brief answers to every question. Sure, sometimes a brief answer is what's wanted, and going long can be a negative. But when I, as the interviewer, ask for details you need to provide them.
For example, this candidate had on his resume that he succeeded in selling to target clients where others in his company failed. "Tell me about one of those deals you closed and what you did differently to win it," I asked.
"Well, look, the thing is"— there's that noxious phrase— "I try harder. I don't take 'no' for an answer."
"So you had to overcome their objections? Tell me more about that," I asked, looking to get past the platitude of "I try harder."
"Well, look, the thing is, overcoming objections is how you close big deals."
"Well, look, the thing is"— there's that noxious phrase— "I try harder. I don't take 'no' for an answer."
"So you had to overcome their objections? Tell me more about that," I asked, looking to get past the platitude of "I try harder."
"Well, look, the thing is, overcoming objections is how you close big deals."
I hope you can see in this brief dialogue that the candidate's answers were brief to the point of being insulting. But beyond even his answers raised concern that he was misrepresenting his record. When you're asked to describe a thing you did and you dodge providing any details, giving instead platitudes and circular answers, you create legitimate doubt that you understood what you were doing or that you even did it at all. Maybe someone else did the hard work and you were just along for the ride.
By the way, a great answer to this question looks like this:
"Thanks for asking that. I'm really proud of my success selling to XYZ company. When I inherited that account I found that the people we had been talking to, IT Services, would own the solution once it was purchased but were not the ones who owned the purchase decision. That decision belonged to the Product organization. I worked through our contacts in IT Services and scoured LinkedIn connections to identify influencers in Product. We then developed advocates on both sides of the business to land the sale."
That is how you nail this type of interview question.
