Fear and loathing in the interview room

THERE’ has been plenty of talk lately about the “candidate experience” and the need to engage with job applicants from the very beginning of the process, particularly when talent is in short supply. Yet the reality is that when it comes to interviewing, these evaluations remain highly adversarial and one-sided.

Few organisations have attempted to evaluate, let alone reduce, candidate stress levels. Nor has much consideration been given to what impact this has on identifying the best person to fill a particular post.

In an attempt to find a better way forward, Nyree Grierson, of Edinburgh College, opted for a more transparent process. Interviewing last year for an officer-level role, the panel led by Ms Grierson sent the exact questions to all candidates 24 hours in advance of their meeting.

The result, she says, was “illuminating”.

“With the element of surprise removed, no one was thrown by the nuances of the questions and candidates could reflect and choose examples which best fit the questions,” she said recently in an article for People Management.

“For instance, a question about time management practices could likely have been anticipated from the person spec, but I specifically wanted to know about when their time management had gone wrong and what they had learned from this. I was thus able to probe much more effectively to get further richer information, rather than fall back on the usual prompting just to keep candidates on track.”

The historical approach is geared primarily towards finding “faults”, rather than exceptional positives. Putting candidates on the spot in this way is rarely a reflection of the challenges they will encounter on the job, which is more likely to entail collaboration to achieve specified results.

There were other benefits as well, Mr Grierson said. Having reflected on the questions, one candidate decided they were not suitable for the job and withdrew, saving themselves and everyone else much time and rigmarole.

Furthermore, none of the applicants had to ask for any cognitive-related reasonable adjustments, which itself can trigger conscious and unconscious bias.

Perhaps most interestingly, one candidate assumed the entire exercise was a trick designed to catch them out. Such levels of paranoia remain far too common in recruitment.

Fear should not be an integral part of the workplace, and that includes the hiring process. Secrecy breeds apprehension, while transparency promotes confidence and optimal performance.