There are always more job candidates than there are jobs, so it's a lot easier to eliminate unsuitable candidates than to attempt to find the one perfect applicant. An interview is a kind of ritual duel, where the interviewer is continually thrusting and probing for information, hoping to draw blood, while the candidate is parrying, trying to stay alive. Every question is a potential trap, where saying either too much or too little can be fatal. Kurt Einstein's comments apply to the interviewer. Harvey Mackay's are advice for the interviewee.
Kurt Einstein: It's interesting to know what the candidate would admit to.
Harvey Mackay: This question is a real test of your negotiating skills -- that is, negotiating as in, "He negotiated the rapids without tipping over in his canoe and drowning." You must provide something that isn't so serious as to be disqualifying yet not so trivial as to appear that you're either concealing your flaws or taking the question too lightly. I'd give high marks to a candidate who came up with something like, "I offered some ideas that I felt were constructive, but I was told not to rock the boat"; or, "I usually finished my assignments more quickly than my peers and some of them resented it"; or "I'd take courses at night when everyone else was in the bowling league and I was told I was an oddball." Don't try these, though, unless you can back it up, because the inevitable follow-up request is: "Okay, wise guy, prove it." I have to admit that others, like the National Business Employment Weekly, are quite critical of the "Little Ms./Mr. Perfect" answer, like "I'm a workaholic," or "I'm a stickler for detail." The answers I give here don't go quite that far, but they are borderline. They would advise shifting the emphasis off yourself with something like "I'm learning to be more tolerant of the mistakes of others." If you ask me, that's a distinction without a difference. I still think we've got the right approach.
KE: If he agreed with some . . . you've identified an area of weakness; if he disagreed with all . . . an inflexible candidate, hard to manage.
HM: Agreeing with some of the criticism seems to me to be a lot better answer than agreeing with none of it or all of it. Only a megalomaniac thinks he or she is always right and only a schnook thinks he or she is always wrong.
KE: Observe whether candidate plans ahead and sets goals.
HM: Bag this answer: "I'd like your job." It's been overworked more than "Officer, I didn't know I was speeding."
KE: This will indicate whether the previous answer was truthful or programmed. Ask them to explain in detail.
HM: Get beyond the obvious -- i.e., "hard work," or "I plan to take lots of courses." Be clear and specific as to how to meet the requirements and responsibilities and obtain the skills to execute your career plan. There's a study you should be aware of: Over a quarter of a century ago, an Ivy League university interviewed a class of graduating seniors and asked them if they had clear, specific career goals. Three percent said yes; 97 percent said no. They interviewed the same group again after twenty-five years. The 3 percent with the goals had 97 percent of the wealth. Two conclusions are obvious: 1) set goals, stay focused, adjust your plan to meet changing conditions; 2) your interviewer is probably aware of the study.
KE: Why would he want to change it?
HM: "I don't think it should be changed. I do think it has to be mastered, and that's an exciting and challenging opportunity. Obviously, at some point in my career, I'd hope to be able to handle even more responsibility."
KE: Indicates personality preferences. Indicates "would he or she fit with future boss."
HM: Cute, isn't it? Particularly, since you probably don't have a clue at this time what your potential boss is like. You should finesse this one a bit: "I've worked with hard-driving, demanding bosses, and I've worked with bosses who've had such a light touch on the throttle, I've barely had any real supervision or direction. I can adapt to any style." And then, move in for the kill: "But, if you really pinned me down, I'd say it would be someone who gave me enough direction so I had a specific idea of what was expected of me and had enough restraint to let me do my thing without hovering over me every step of the way."
KE: Indirect way of ascertaining areas of weakness.
HM: If you have strong feelings about what you like best, you're also revealing the opposite . . . what you like least. What are good things to like least? Well, for one, "bad morale." So, you might say, "Being part of a winning team." Who wants to be part of a losing one?
KE: Delve for three negative adjectives.
HM: Here's another loaded gun. Obviously, no negative adjectives need apply, but even positive ones can have negative implications if they're grouped in a way that suggests a weakness. For instance, "intelligent, efficient, reliable." All great attributes, but when grouped together suggest an absence of human qualities. Is this person arrogant and aloof? Does he or she get along with people? The grouping "friendly, cooperative, a team player" suggests fine personal qualities but a possibly weak performer. Best to combine a few virtues to suggest strengths in both ability and personality, such as "goal-oriented, likeable, successful."
KE: What are the differences? Is the candidate sensitive to how other people see him or her?
HM: In my opinion, the correct response is to give the same answer you gave for number 6, and then smile sweetly and wait for the next question.
KE: Secure people have less problems giving praise than insecure people. Psychological attitude toward praise indicates interest and ability to motivate. Development of self-esteem.
HM: "I love to get it, so I love to give it."
KE: Indicates passive or active approach. Common answers: a) It's not my business, b) Report it, c) Give warning. Gives indication as to morality, honesty, and ethics.
HM: In my opinion, the first answer is so bad I'd be tempted to stop the interview right there and send the candidate home. If you can't even be trusted to protect the company's interests against dishonesty, why should they hire you? This isn't swiping cookies out of your third grade classmate's lunch pail. This is the real world. So get real. The third answer is acceptable, barely. It finesses the conflict between being a squealer and letting someone rip off your employer. Understandable, but still weak. Two is best. There's a fourth approach, another finesse, which has the virtue of being a bit more proactive than the third answer: Confront culprits point-blank and try to persuade them to change the erroneous report without issuing a specific threat as to what your conduct will be if they don't.
KE: May reveal areas of weakness if job related, or poor attitude if not job related. Important question is WHY?
HM:The obvious answer is the right one: a job-related use, such as taking courses. But you must be prepared for the inevitable follow-up question, "Why?" because it is intended to probe for evidence of weakness, such as your lack of adequate experience or training for the position you're seeking. So be sure that if you answer "education," the course work you describe is more advanced than that required for the immediate job.
KE: Draw up: Has tendency to think, innovate, conceptualize, theorize, risk taker. Implement: Has tendency to be a doer, follower (can be positive or negative).
HM: Don't choose "implement" unless the major piece of equipment used in the job you are applying for is a broom.
KE: Does he or she admit to any? Blame others? Is the candidate self-assured? Has he or she learned from it, and, if so, what?
HM: Kurt's notes spell out the elements of a winning answer. First, admit to having failed at something. In my opinion, one example is too few: It suggests rigidity, a willingness to make only the barest, most grudging admission of the possibility of error. Three examples are too many. That response suggests that had the questioner asked for more than three, hey, no problem, you would have been able to come up with whatever number of additional failures were needed. Pick two -- i.e., an attempt to get an A+ that netted only an A. Or a second-place finish in whatever. Hardly "real" failures, but admitting to having caused several total disasters is hardly in your best interests. Next, obviously, you don't "blame others" for your own failures. And, of course you are "self-assured." Finally, what "you've learned" is to try harder next time, be better prepared, not to let defeat get you down or become a habit, and that succeeding is a lot better than failing.
KE: Look for: "It was deserved." "It's beyond my control." "Protect myself legally." "Keep company image clean." "Get inside scoop/grapevine." Or: Considers employee's feeling, shows sympathy.
HM: "I felt I was acting in the best interests of both the company and the employee in question." Follow-up question: "Why?" Follow-up answer: "From the company's point of view, the employee's performance did not meet our standards and expectations. Despite repeated attempts to help the employee improve, performance was still not adequate."
KE: This gives candidates the chance to identify their most important career needs.
HM: Your needs better track the company's needs pretty closely, or what you're still going to be needing is a job. I would lean toward answers that stress the satisfaction of setting goals, achieving them, and setting new goals. Companies see employees the way track and field fans see high jumpers. Every time the athlete clears the bar, they want to set it a little higher for the next jump.
KE: How does the candidate respond when an authority figure makes an error?
HM: Here's the trick question of all time: question 4 is repeated here as question 14. Did you notice? If so, now what? Is this some kind of weird psychological test? A memory game? Do you pretend it didn't happen? Is the interviewer trying to see if you change your answer? Do you correct him or her? Are you made noticeably nervous by the interviewer's "error"? Kurt doesn't give us a clue as to what the "right" response is, but my guess is that the only really wrong one is to overreact and make a big deal out of it. I'd answer in totally deadpan fashion: "I think this may have come up earlier, and as I recall, I said I felt no need to change the job itself; the need was to master the job as it is and then, if the opportunity arose, to assume even greater responsibilities at some later point."
KE: Discuss: Significant, insignificant, borderline lies.
HM: A tougher version of question 1. Again, this is to test your ability to walk the line between the answer that is too revealing and the answer that is too concealing. But there's really a lot more happening here than meets the eye. Like question 14, this one is designed to measure how forthright and honest you are in your reactions to an authority figure. This time the authority figure has not just made an inadvertent "error." He or she has issued a pronunciamento, a moral judgment set forth as a statement of fact. He or she has said that everyone lies, and everyone includes you, so the premise on which the question is based is: YOU LIE. All beautifully contained and concealed in this perfectly innocent-sounding, perfectly conventional, perfectly legal, plain-vanilla interview question. What's happening here is you're being tested not only on whether you fib but whether you will allow a perfect stranger to say that you do, when the person saying it can have a considerable impact on your future. Am I reading too much into this? Perhaps. Most of us do, in fact, fib. But remember, this test isn't designed to provide employment for candidates who most nearly correspond to the norm. It's designed to weed out average applicants and locate exceptional ones.
I don't see anything the matter with challenging the we-all-lie premise. I'd answer as follows: "Oh, I don't think everyone lies, or, as you say, fibs. In my life, I've known people I believe never to have lied. So I have to tell you, I don't think your premise is correct. I cannot say I have met that standard myself and have never lied. I know I have. I will say, though, that when I have lied, I've tried to confine it to social situations. I'm afraid not every baby I've seen is movie-star material, and not every meal where I've been a guest has been worth four stars in the Michelin Guide."
KE: If answer is other than NONE, probe further for candidate management and motivation style.
HM: Threatening employees is usually not an attempt to improve performance. It's a calculated prelude to discharge. The threat is used in hopes of thwarting subsequent legal action ... "We warned him or her, so the firing shouldn't have come as a surprise." No one is fooled. The hope is that the employee will get the message and move on before the discharge takes place. And THAT is the only benefit of threatening.
KE: Ask for examples.
HM: Threats are as common in business as coffee breaks. Employers threaten employees. Unions threaten management. Management threatens unions. For instance, a customer threatens a supplier with replacement if punctuality doesn't improve. The customer knows how inconvenient it would be to commit the time, money, and effort to find a new supplier and, even then, not know if the new supplier would be any freer from defect than the old. By threatening, the customer hopes to achieve the company's goal without effort. Thus, a threat is very often a sign of weakness rather than of strength. Why hesitate to take the action announced if you're willing and able to act immediately to achieve your goal?
KE: Reveals candidate's area of weakness or fear.
HM: By now you should be able to ace this kind of probe. What you're concerned about, of course, is not failure but success. You anticipate no difficulties but would hope to work in an environment that values teamwork, rewards initiative, provides opportunities for advancement, achieves its goals, and is a congenial place to work.
KE: Explores candidate's FEARS (realistic or not).
HM: Another attempt to get you to spout negatives and reveal yourself as a bundle of psychoses. Since you fear nothing, you give the time-honored positive response. Your only concerns are that you have the opportunity to excel, and since your research has led you to believe this is the kind of place you can do it in, well, it's not a concern at all.
KE: Weakness . . . understanding of oneself.
HM: Another "we-all"er but this time worded in such a way that you're given the option of agreeing or not. So, now you can agree. Again, I'd stick with providing two instead of the requested three, on the theory that giving only one shows arrogance and inflexibility and three is a classic display of wimpiness in going along with whatever the authority figure demands. And again, I'd try to turn the question around so you can give yourself the opportunity to play to your strengths and not to your weaknesses. Thus, you want to continue to grow professionally. While you are certain you have the tools necessary to perform the job in question, no one can have too much education or preparation, and you're going to continue to take self-improvement courses, both those that provide professional training and those that are designed to help upgrade personal and interpersonal skills. Secondly, you never seem to have enough time to perform service work on behalf of others, and there are various volunteer organizations you're interested in, such as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and so on.
KE: a) Threat, b) Fear, c) Example.
HM: I've already indicated why I believe threats are overrated and misunderstood. Fear works. As you read here earlier, Bob Knight, the former Indiana University basketball coach, is a master at goading players into performing. But what motivates a nineteen-year-old college sophomore to excel in athletics over a brief, intense time span as part of a team, all of whose members have been equally abused by "Coach," won't work in just any setting. Where the personnel are mature, experienced, and professional they will not regard mistreatment and claims of absolute authority as a source of inspiration. One of the most powerful motivators is "peer pressure." That's what the armed forces use to motivate soldiers. What makes an eighteen-year-old kid risk his life in combat? It sure isn't because he thinks his second lieutenant is such a prince. It's because his buddies, the guys he's bivouacked with since boot camp, will think he's a coward if he doesn't go with the flow.
But peer pressure, despite its powerful impact as a motivator, is, like the other motivators, imposed from without, which means the values expressed are someone else's. It tends to work best on young people, because their personal set of values is not yet fully formed, and they are more easily influenced by others. I think the best motivator, the one that is most likely to stick with you, even for a lifetime, is the one that comes from within, the voice inside you that tells you to show 'em your stuff. If you're looking for a one-word description of a truly motivated person, I'd say "self-starter." Sure, the spark that lit that fire had to come from somewhere. It can be the product of your home environment, your religious upbringing, your drive to achieve success. But wherever that spark comes from, once it becomes part of you, what you believe, then external forces are merely temporary, coming and going with the people who are imposing them.
KE: a) When I can collect Social Security, b) When I am president of the company, c) When I have your job, d) I will never arrive . . . neurotic need, constantly chafing at the bit. Explain "Compulsive Achievers." Difference between "wanting" and "having" to succeed.
HM: My definition is when you're rich enough to eat the heart of the watermelon and throw the rest away.
