Interviewers can get away with mistakes more easily than interviewees. Candidates are supposed to stress about how to create a positive impression. Conversely, an interviewer can come in unprepared, they can slouch, boast or even offend and few of them are likely to be held responsible for a damaged employer reputation or the loss of an excellent prospective employee.
Yes, there are a lot of avoidable gaffes that job seekers can make during the interview process. But what about the interview mistakes that hiring managers make? Without realizing it, you might be persuading talented candidates to turn down a job offer (or worse, refuse a second interview).
Below is a list of mistakes hiring managers sometimes make:
Arriving late: Candidates do not get paid for their time. Interviewers do. It is considered OK to waste candidate’s time, but it is not.
Being on time for a job interview is rule number one for interviewees. Yet, somehow, hiring managers think nothing of leaving a nervous candidate stewing in the lobby while they finish off a few more emails. Nothing screams “your time isn’t valuable” quite like keeping someone waiting. Aside from a serious crisis (which should be communicated as quickly as possible), interviews should start on-time, every time
Forgetting to read the resume in front of you: Interviewers come to interviews unprepared and read resumes in front of candidates. It is unprofessional, just like not getting back to candidates quickly.
This is top of the grievance list for many seekers: a hiring manager sits down in an interview, only to admit they haven’t even glanced at the candidate’s CV. This sends the message that the manager is disengaged and over-stressed – and not someone you want to work with full-time.
Asking ridiculous questions: They ask questions like “where do you find yourself in 5 years”. Instead they should explain where they see their company in 6 months.
This mistake takes many forms. It can mean not catering questions to the specific job – for example, asking about resolving workplace conflict makes sense for a potential project manager, but not a delivery driver. It can also mean asking weird, obscure, or even existential questions. You might be trying to see how your candidates think on their feet, but you’ll just come off unprofessional.
Searching for a superhero: Trying to find only faults in candidates. Nobody is perfect. They are unwilling to take any risks, looking for that perfect candidate to come along.
It’s bad enough to fill your job posting with unbelievably unrealistic demands: five university degrees, fluency in four languages, two decades of previous experience, and so on. But bringing those expectations into the interview – and dwelling on them instead of your candidate’s actual qualifications – can be confusing and belittling. It’s fine to be selective, but be realistic.
Not knowing what you’re interviewing for: They do not explain what the job is about, what it is like working there, advantages and potentials.
There are a lot of reasons to have a detailed scope of the job you’re looking to fill. Most importantly, it helps HR to craft a job posting that will snare qualified candidates. But in the interview, it also ensures that your questions are on-topic and that the information you’re providing to your candidates is clear and concise. Nothing scares an interviewee away faster than ambiguity.
The same way you’d expect an applicant to come prepared and to have researched your company, you and your hiring manager should be well-informed about the role’s tasks, responsibilities, and place in the organization. An interviewee should leave wanting to work for your company, and this can only come when they have a clear sense of what the day-to-day looks like, and how they would fit into the overall structure
Mini-me effect: They are looking for MiniMes. Do not hire people to work for you. Hire people to work with, people you can learn from, and eager to learn from you.
Many interviewers have an unconscious tendency to favour people who are similar to themselves. They look for mini-me protégés that they can train up.
This is common when the interviewer is back-filling their role or interviewing for a position they have previously undertaken. They feel their own background is ideal for the role, so when they see someone with a similarity to them (such as attended the same university) they have an innate tendency to seek confirmation that the candidate is good.
Not communicating with candidates after interviews and not giving honest feedback:Let's stop treating candidates as applicants. Treat them as people, like you want to be treated.
The truth is, to a candidate looking for a job, whether presently employed or not, finding a job is the very highest priority. To a currently-employed interviewer, in spite of the lip service paid to the importance of hiring, it is simply one of their functions. Hiring is a risk. Most employers don’t really like doing it. So the process often gets postponed, sloppy and rather unprofessional. As the market tightens, quality candidates will have many suitors. A good candidate will simply lose interest in a possibly good opportunity if they are treated rudely. Also, if the candidate isn’t going to be considered, he or she should be told as soon as possible
While these interview mistakes are the most common, there are other that are far more serious. Ageism, sexism, racism, and all the other nefarious isms that are prohibited by law can worm their way into our psyches without constant vigilance. Remember to enter every interview with an open mind.
Comments
Post a Comment