Interviews - the other side of the table

[revolution saint]

OK, I'm on an interview panel this week for the first time and I was wondering what other people's experience of it was like? I'm not really asking for advice because i know what I want to find out about the candidates and I think I'll be fair. Having been on the other side of the table often enough I've seen my share of good and bad interviewers and hopefully I'll be one of the better ones. From my own experience I hate interviews that are not challenging - it doesn't give much room to excel or impress which is what I'd want. It'll be open questions to start for me and then some questions concerning detail.

 

I'd be interested in other peoples experiences though?

[NickG]

found it hard to judge on ability rather than just gut feeling. Can't go far wrong if we have the 4 or 5 most important skills/experience and asked them to evidence them, then question on this - score for each skill and see if it is the one you want to get the job!

[Deano6]

Give it to the one with the biggest tits.

[ericofarabia]

Give it to the one with the biggest tits.

 

Interviews - the other side of the table

 

.... or in the case of Whitehouse Interns .... Under the table !!!

[Doctoroncall]

I always try to get a balance between eligibility (experience, looking at the qualifications and references) and suitability (fit with team, aptitude and versatility) but if there is a standout candadite who is more suitable, then training can address eligibility and they are more likely to stay longer with the company.

[Johnny Bognor]

OK, I'm on an interview panel this week for the first time and I was wondering what other people's experience of it was like? I'm not really asking for advice because i know what I want to find out about the candidates and I think I'll be fair. Having been on the other side of the table often enough I've seen my share of good and bad interviewers and hopefully I'll be one of the better ones. From my own experience I hate interviews that are not challenging - it doesn't give much room to excel or impress which is what I'd want. It'll be open questions to start for me and then some questions concerning detail.

 

I'd be interested in other peoples experiences though?

 

You can have peope that interview well and turn out to be not all that, whilst others don't interview well that turn out to be stars, so it is a bit of a lottery as far as I am concerned.

 

I tend to ask very personal questions for two reasons:

1. They are not expecting it, so you can see how they cope under pressure

2. You tend to hire based on people's skills and fire them for who they are. Therefore, you need to find out who they are and what makes them tick

 

Aside from persoanl questions, one obvious opening question is "what do you know about us". I am shocked at the number of people that don't do their own research especially with the available information on company websites. Not having any internet access is not an excuse because everyone knows someone with a PC/iPhone etc. In the old days, you would phone up a company and attain some product brochures for further information. My view is why should I bother to read their CV, if they haven't been bothered to read the company's CV?

 

I would far rather hire a less able person who really wants it, rather than a very able person that can't be bothered.

Edited 20 July, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Saint in Paradise]

Slightly off topic in a way but over here in NZ interviews don't appear to be so important anymore.A company

with 19 or less employees can take someone on with a 90 day trial period, if they don't come up to requirements they can be let go without worry.

This scheme has now been extended to all companies.

 

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1007/S00213.htm

 

http://www.johnlaw.co.nz/publications/employment-law-90-day-trial-period/