Do you know the difference between successful career professionals and those who get left behind?
“Career success comes from interview success“
To develop your interview skills research explains that you need to follow 3 interview rules
Rule 1 – Identify the Job Criteria
Rule 2 – Be a Self-Promoter
Rule 3 – Communciate with Confidence
To improve your interview ability use the 10 interview reflection questions
Interview Reflection Question 1 How did you showcase your strengths?
Interview Reflection Question 2 Which question(s) did you answer well?
Interview Reflection Question 3 Which job criteria did your answers reference?
Interview Reflection Question 4 In what way did you actively promote yourself?
Interview Reflection Question 5 How did you portray confidence?
Interview Reflection Question 6 What do you need to do differently?
Interview Reflection Question 7 Which question(s) were you less confident in answering?
Interview Reflection Question 8 In which way did you show nervousness?
Interview Reflection Question 9 How did you self-disclose weaknesses?
Interview Reflection Question 10 What do you need to do to improve your interview performance?
By reflecting on your job interview process you can review what you need to develop in terms of increasing job offers. When answering these 10 job interview reflection questions for several of your previous job interviews, not just one. This collated data will allow you to understand in your job interview performance meets the 3 interview success rules
During the job interview and in generic social interactions, humans want to be ‘accepted’ and will avoid situations that draw negative attention towards them.
Being seen as weak or vulnerable is perceived to be negative. This ‘weakness’ rule is prevalent in the job interview, not only with an interviewee but with an interviewer.
If a candidate states they have expertise in an industry sub-niche that the employer isn’t familiar with, many interviewers, depending on their level of self-esteem, will make reference to the sub-niche but wont specifically question the interviewee on their knowledge level.
The belief is, if the applicant knows more about the sub-niche then the interviewer, the interviewer will look weak. An ‘expert’ interviewer, an interviewer with the highest levels of knowledge and experience, or a highly confident interviewer, will happily challenge the candidate to test the levels of expertise to help predict the applicant’s job performance levels.
When being interviewed by an interviewer with a low level of knowledge/experience within a sub-niche, a self-promoter (possessing high levels of confidence) recognising a lack of employer expertise, is likely to increase self-promotion during the answer to this specific question to create authority.
A confident applicant attempting to trick an ‘expert’ interviewer into thinking that they possess a higher level of knowledge/experience than is true, will do so to their detriment. Interestingly, the applicants at the extreme end of high levels of confidence (the extremist being a narcissist), will argue a point with an ‘expert’ interviewer who is an authority on the subject, even when evidence contrary to their statements has been presented.
The goal of an interview, for the employer, is to assess an applicant’s job performance not provoke that applicant’s behaviour, but as each cause has an effect, all actions influence the interviewee’s behaviour.
One reason why many interview processes start with asking non-job-related questions “did you find us OK?” or explaining the organisations history, is to help to relax the candidate so they can, ideally, be ‘themselves.’ As explained, this ideal is impossible, as each applicant is affected by the behaviour of the interviewer.
Understanding how the subconscious cause and effect influences the recruitment process explains why the job interview process isn’t as fair people believe it is.
Recognising their interview identity allows an applicant to develop aspects of their persona within the interview environment to create a more positive perspective from the employer’s viewpoint.
A psychological barrier to a successful interview outcome is ‘projection’. When an interviewer has a strong dislike, based on a prejudice, that makes them uncomfortable – “I don’t think females should work in masculine jobs but I know I shouldn’t be thinking this” they will deflect their own emotional turmoil by projecting their emotions onto the applicant.
This reaction, which is common in all areas of life, is a self-defense mechanism. Humans are more comfortable observing negative qualities in others then confronting a negative trait that detracts from the identity they are portraying to the world.
Projecting emotions or beliefs onto others, that they themselves are struggling to come to terms with, is just easier.
But projection has a secondary implication: If the interviewer dislikes someone (because of a deep-rooted prejudice) and projects this feeling on to the candidate, they can then come to believe that the candidate themselves dislikes them, the interviewer.
Evidence shows that people like other people more if they believe that said person likes them first. If the interviewer presumes that the candidate dislikes them, there will be a decrease in rapport.
Dyadic social interaction research shows that individuals will reciprocate the behavior that is projected by another person. If, for example, an interviewer has good eye contact and smiles at the applicant, the applicant will reciprocate the behaviour.
The reaction to these nonverbal cues can alter the applicant’s level of confidence. A ‘warm’ interviewer, offering encouragement with smiles and nods of the head, will increase the interviewee’s confidence levels. In contrast, a ‘cold’ interviewer, frowning and tutting, will reduce the candidate’s confidence and self-esteem.
Applicants with low self-esteem perform as well as high self-esteem candidates when interviewed by a ‘warm’ interviewer (both interviewee types will discuss their knowledge/experience) but when interviewed by a cold interviewer, the low self-esteem applicant is more likely to withdraw.
The employer, perceiving the lack of communication as an indication of a low level of knowledge/experience, can also withdraw becoming more ‘cold.’ This ‘cold cycle’ process rarely allows the interviewee to promote their skill set, resulting in a distorted version of the applicant, as an inaccurate and unfair assessment of the candidate has been created.
As mentioned earlier highly confident interviewees, through their ability to externalise the interviewer’s behaviour, are rarely affected by a ‘cold’ interview.
An interviewer’s temperament, beliefs and actions within a job interview can create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If, for instance, an interviewer has a subconscious negative bias towards an applicant, due to any number of characteristics, their behaviour towards the candidate will be influenced. This behaviour indirectly affects how the applicant acts.
The applicant, now (potentially) acting out of character, confirms the interviewer’s initial negative assessment, resulting in a less than favourable scoring, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This process is more persistent with low confidence candidates who are more inclined to internalize the negative behaviour of an interviewer, believing they, the interviewee, have given cause for the interviewer to act in this way. This belief further decreases the candidates confidence levels.
For high self-esteem applicants, this initial assessment, and therefore the interviewer’s behaviour, rarely impacts the interview performance.
High level of confidence candidates will take a similar approach to the interview regardless of the interviewer’s behaviour due to the ability to externalize the interviewer’s actions, believing the actions are in no way a reflection of them, the applicant. The result of which is continuous self-promotion, delivered with conviction.
This contrast between the initial impression of a candidate and the observation of the interviewee not conforming to type, can be a powerful ‘pattern interrupt’ that results in a subconscious change of assessment.
Even with blatant evidence contradicting a schema, some interviewers with a strong belief, based as an example, on ethnicity or sex, will be ‘blind’ to the reality presented to them.
Evidence shows that the way an interviewee perceives the interviewer, positive or negative, will be, in most cases, the same view the interviewer has of the applicant.
One way humans understand other people’s actions is through mirror-neurons. When an interviewer frowns, smiles or, as an example, shows disgust via a fleeting micro-expression, the applicant’s mind, using mirror-neurons duplicates the expression, accessing the same emotional response the interviewer is feeling.
Using the interview prediction grid, a career professional can gain an insight into how an employer will view them in the job interview and improve any areas of weakness.
Bias, prejudice and stereotypes create an initial impression (a filter) that interview answers are processed through. As this interview perception process is automatic, interviewers are often unaware of how their opinion of an applicant is influenced.
Not all biases are negative; the ‘affinity’ bias shows that it is advantageous to have shared experiences or beliefs with the interviewer, even when the similarity is minimal – both the interviewee and interviewer attended the same university.
Similarity is so powerful that believing an applicant has the same opinions (gained from the candidate’s social media feed, application form or from hearsay – the comments of other department team leaders for an internal vacancy), the interviewer will create a positive pre-interview opinion of the applicant affecting the job interview outcome. And in the interview itself, if the interviewer subconsciously believes the interviewee ‘likes’ them, through reciprocal liking, they will favour the applicant more, even if there is an absence of similarity.
Therefore what an interviewer reads, views or believes has a powerful effect on how they initially view each candidate and if they will be predisposed to ‘like’ them or not.
Recruitment professionals are aware that prejudices are subconscious and many will disagree with the negative stereotype. Organsiations even go to the trouble of training HR staff to understand the effect of unconscious bias in the recruitment process.
Even with awareness, automatic processing happens. Within milliseconds of meeting a candidate an impression, a prejudice, is formed through that interviewer’s experiences (an interviewer may have lived in a household where the stereotype was regularly expressed).
Because the bias is automatic it can’t be stopped, it simply pops into one’s mind. For example, the stereotype “women can’t perform male roles” can be the initial thought as an interviewer meets a new applicant, even if the interviewer doesn’t consciously believe the stereotype to be true. The automatic response to seeing a stimuli is just too powerful, the (stereotype) appears without warning.
To counter this automatic process an interviewer can consciously override it, by searching for evidence that disproves the belief “Janis our best performer is female and works in a stereotypical male role.” This is the conscious mind (the slow thinking analytical part of the brain) in play.
This conscious overriding of automatic thinking is harder to complete when stressed or tired – towards the end of a full day of interviewing candidates.
If the interviewer believes the prejudice, they are more likely to go with their schema rather than to challenge it, making it harder for the applicant with that (characteristic) to create a positive impression.
A racist or sexist interviewer, as an example, will be predisposed to conform to their bias even when the applicant has high levels of knowledge/experience and high levels of confidence. The interviewer’s beliefs are simply too powerful to alter their perspective, even when evidence is presented proving the value of hiring said candidate.
There are, of course, people who do not have an automatic process for (stimuli = stereotype) and won’t be affected by the (prejudice). At the interview start, even though an initial opinion will be formed (possibly from a second schema), the said interviewer won’t be affected by the first stereotypical belief.
Legislation is helping to create a fair recruitment campaign. Non-job related factors; age, race, gender, ethnicity, disability, etc that can be used to discriminate against certain applicants are no longer allowed to be considered as part of the application process.
An example of this is organisations no longer being allowed to advertise for a job role that requires the applicant to have ‘a number of industry years experience’ (age discrimination).
Even though, in this example, an older applicant can be offered a job interview based on their application form without their age being taken into consideration, in the interview itself a prejudice based on how old they appear to be, can be created subconsciously, affecting the older applicants interview scores.
Interestingly there is no legislation around physical attractiveness in a recruitment campaign even though the evidence is proving the ‘beautiful is good’ schema to be true. One answer to this would be job interviews based on the TV show ‘the voice,’ where singing auditions are judged blindly and judges can only ‘turn their chair around’ once they pick an auditionee, based on their skill set alone (in this case their voice.)
The evidence states that it is impossible for each applicant to receive a ‘fair’ interview, as candidates are judged differently by the interviewer(s) at an unconscious level.
This could be the difference between an interviewer, who sees commonality with themselves and the interviewee, subconsciously encouraging a candidate, due to high levels of likeability, to give a higher scoring answer or, due to an interviewers negative projection, will hear the applicant answers less favourable then the evidence suggest they actually are, resulting in a lower score.
Or due to a schema based on, as an example, physical appearance, or a stereotype, or a long-held belief, an interviewers bias can affect the applicant’s ability to showcase their predicted job performance.
To override an initial negative prejudice, an applicant, by highlighting their high-level sector knowledge/experience and high level of confidence during the first interview questions can create an ‘interview identity’ that becomes the interviewer’s new filter, often bypassing the initial cynical impression, unless the said answers show a low level of knowledge/experience and low level of confidence which, instead of helping an applicants cause, reinforces the primary bias.
A common bias in play is gender stereotypes; males are often viewed as strong and dominant and women as emotional and caring, which can, unconsciously, create a job interview bias.
Not only that, evidence indicates that equally qualified males and females are not viewed as equals and, once employed, can receive varying salaries. In 2017 the UKs equality act came into force, making organisations with 250+ employees to report their gender pay gap figures.
The BBC, one of the largest UK organisations, in 2017, became embroiled in controversy when it published a list of its highest earning presenters. The report showed that around two-thirds of presenters earning +£150,000 annually were male presenters, with all the top 7 biggest earners being men.
Job gender stereotypes and attraction are linked. The ‘beauty is beastly’ stereotype shows how an ‘attractive’ female applying for a ‘masculine’ job role can be rated lower than an ‘unattractive’ female with the same skill set.
For masculine or feminine roles, if the applicant fits within the job gender stereotypical (IE males applying for masculine positions and females for feminine roles), and are viewed as an ‘attractive’ applicant, they will be perceived to be more qualified then less attractive counterparts. Additional research shows how overweight females are viewed less favourably than overweight males.
Currently, much of the ‘beauty is beastly’ stereotype experiments have been conducted in the laboratory not in the field, meaning more research is required to fully understand the subconscious decision based on job gender stereotypes and perception.
What we are learning from this research is how the career/gender schema affects the interviewers’ view of each candidate and how bias has an underlying, often inaccurate, cause-effect; ‘obese’ employees are less worthy then a ‘healthy’ applicant or that an ‘attractive’ applicant possesses certain positive characteristics.
Where does this leave applicants? We know stereotypes exist. It is clear that schemas affect the recruitment process. Does this mean that all obese or unattractive applicants fail to gain employment? Clearly not. As discussed in earlier articles, commonality increases likability and for high skilled roles, an applicant’s level of knowledge/experience, when communicated confidently, is one of the key factors for a successful interview outcome and can override the ‘beauty is good’ stereotype.
To understand how your level of knowledge/experience and level confidence changes the employers perspective of you in a job interview read the Interview Prediction Grid article.
A job interview bias found to influence the selection process is ‘attractiveness.’
Much evidence confirms that most people have a “what is beautiful is good” stereotype; the more physically attractive an applicant is, the more they are perceived to be job worthy – even for job roles that don’t require a ‘beautiful’ employee (manufacturing, administration, etc.)
To test the attractiveness bias, the same ‘average’ level CVs were graded for a potential job role. Half of the CVs had attached to them a photograph of an ‘attractive’ applicant and the other half was sent without a picture.
The experiment concluded that the additional ‘attractive’ photograph assisted those candidates in gaining a job interview invitation. Interestingly, for different levels of skill sets, one applicant meeting the job criteria more than another, the lack of ‘attractive’ image for the more skilled applicant did not hinder their chances.
Also with high-skilled jobs, attractiveness of a candidate was mainly insignificant. This shows that ‘attractiveness’ creates a positive bias, but having a high level of knowledge/experience when applying for a professional position trumps this schema.
Being physically attractive strengthens the interviewers likability of the applicant and increases sympathy towards them, improving the interviewees overall chances of being hired. The schema – ‘what is beautiful is good’, and for all other prejudices, creates the initial bias that proceeding answers are filtered through.
For positions that would benefit from an ‘attractive’ employee (customer service roles, TV presents, etc) the ‘what is beautiful is good’ stereotype has a stronger preference or filter, increasing how an ‘attractive’ interviewee is viewed by a recruiter.
This is because attractiveness has an association with other positive traits – we subconsciously believe attractive people to be mature, sociable, friendly, well-adjusted and happy. But attractiveness alone isn’t enough to secure job offers, rather it just creates a positive bias at the interview start.
Interestingly though, recent research showed that recruitment decisions were influenced more by ‘attractiveness’ for unstructured job interviews compared to structured interviews. Structured interviews use a score system based on job criteria, and even though ‘good looking’ applicants have increased likability, they are still required to have a certain set of skills, showing the importance of self-promotion in the job interview for candidates with high levels of knowledge/experience.
The interviewer listening to the self-promotion of a strong candidate is consciously analysing the answer against the job criteria. During an informal job interview, the interviewer does ask questions but each question is spontaneous, based on the conversation created in the moment, rather than the pre-set questions of a structured interview.
The theory of the free-flowing style of the unstructured job interview is that it allows the interviewee to relax, and therefore open-up more, showing their true self, allowing the interviewer to gauge an accurate view of the interviewee and their potential job performance.
Without a scoring system, though, it is hard to compare one candidate against another creating a logical hiring decision. Instead, the conversational style interview results in a ‘gut’ instinct decision making process. For an emotional decision making process, schemas such as ‘beauty is good’, are more prevalent.
The interview perception, formed at the interview start, creates that all important ‘first impression’ which acts as a ‘selection filter.’ The interviewer’s involuntary opinion is filled with errors, prejudices and stereotypes. This automatic thinking comes from assumptions based on the interviewers own experiences, values and beliefs.
If, for example, you believe that an interviewee who is late for an interview will be a terrible worker, you will act from this viewpoint rather than challenge the status quo.
In psychology they refer to an involuntary opinion based on experience as a ‘schema.’
Once you have created a mental structure (schema) even if the concept is incorrect (not all late applicants will be terrible workers – their car may have broken down) the schema creates an effortless pathway from a cause to effect (lateness = bad worker).
In life these schema’s or short-cuts are very useful, as they help to organise and interpret vast amounts of information, but when making expensive hiring decisions based on projected job performance, an instantaneous snap-judgment formed by intuition, not facts, is rarely helpful.
Any schema, positive or negative, can affect the interviewers judgement of the interviewee. This is because schemas influence what information is noticed and remembered; if the interviewer believes that a late candidate = poor performance, the interviewer, subconsciously, will search for evidence to reinforce this belief.
Imagine in a job interview where a candidate, who has been judged for being late, is asked a question. Before answering they hesitate, and then detail a story relating to the criteria referenced in the interview question. The answer highlights several key strengths and skills but also highlights one weakness or area of development. The schema, in this example: late candidate = poor performance, creates a funnel where the interviewer, without conscious awareness, filters the ‘hesitation’ as a sign of a lack of industry knowledge and focuses on the one weakness/area of development, instead of their strengths.
Now, imagine the same scenario but this time the same interviewee had arrived early (their car didn’t break down) activating a different schema (early arrival = high work ethic) this time the same interviewer positively filters the ‘hesitation’ as a sign that the applicant considers questions before replying, and focuses on the interviewees strengths and skills, not their one weakness/area of development.
A single trait, such as lateness or being obese, is enough to become the main emphasis for the judgment of an applicant.
Interview impression formation is a process where different pieces of information are combined, instantaneously, to create a summary impression, even when the information is irrelevant to the job role.
Several experiments show how stereotypes affect the recruitment process. In one example, two identical application forms were sent to organisations recruiting administrators. The only difference was the attached photograph sent with each application; one displayed a ‘average’ weight individual and the second, an ‘overweight’ applicant. The research showed how an ‘overweight’ applicant was less likely to receive an interview offer than an ‘average’ weight candidate even when both applicants had the same experience, skill set and qualifications (the experiment used the same CVs for both the average and overweight applicants)
The structured interview process is the principal intervention to make a decision on which applicant to offer an advertised position to. It is the asking of standardised questions of job-relevant criteria and a numerical scoring mechanism of the interviewees answers that results in the assumption that the best candidate is offered the advertised role.
The structured interviews ‘fair’ scoring system does not take into account bias. Evidence shows how perception disorders affect judgement. Two people seeing the same stimuli can attach different meanings to it.
A common ‘unconscious bias’ in the job interview is the ‘affinity’ bias – we gravitate towards people if we believe they are similar to us. When recruiting a new team member, interviewers will often have a natural stronger preference for an applicant who they feel is the ‘right fit’ for the organisation.
The ‘right fit,’ when the ‘affinity’ bias is in operation, is the interviewer having a stronger desire to recruit an applicant who they see as having a similar personality, attitude, value(s) and belief(s) as themselves. Not to be confused with an interviewee evidencing that they meet the organisational values, the ‘affinity bias’ perception disorder is an intuitive ‘feeling’ that influences the interviewers decision making process; they remind me of me.
The subconscious association here is; Interviewer has a strong understanding of self: Interviewer identifies similar attributes between themselves and the interviewee: Interviewer associates their character with the applicant: Interviewer increases likability of interviewee.
This whole process happens instantaneously at the subconscious level. A second interviewer, who does not find any common ground with the same applicant, is likely to score the candidate lower then the first interviewer because the ‘affinity’ bias isn’t in effect. In fact, an interviewer may take a dislike to the applicant if they don’t bond due to a lack of similarities. This ‘liking’ or ‘disliking’ is emotional, not logical, and created so rapidly that the interviewer does not question the prejudice.
Similarities can be as basic as having attended the same university, sharing a forename or supporting the same sports team. It can also be something deeper; a belief or attitude. Many attributes can increase or decrease likability; an interviewees weight, ethnicity, sex, age or how a person communicates, dresses and even a candidates handshake all create an interview perception disorder.
The interview perception, formed at the interview start, creates that all important ‘first impression’ which acts as a ‘selection filter.’ The interviewer’s involuntary opinion is filled with errors, prejudices and stereotypes. This automatic thinking comes from assumptions based on the interviewers own experiences, values and beliefs.
The brain is designed to create short-cuts to reduce the time it takes to complete each task. It is this fast-thinking part of the mind that uses generalisations to make rapid decisions. If, for example, you believe that an interviewee who is late for an interview will be a terrible worker, you will act from this viewpoint rather than challenge the status quo.
It is important to understand the mind’s cognitive processing system: Simplifying the complexity of the brain, humans use two operating systems; system 1 and system 2.
System 1 is the fast-thinking mind, creating opinions quickly and intuitively. The brain is always operating using system 1, making decisions that you are not consciously aware of – an interviewer judging an applicant as they arrive for a job interview.
System 2 is a slower analytical mind that requires mental effort to solve complex computations. It requires concentration to make a conscious choice – an interviewer referencing a stated answer against the scoring criteria.
Each of us use both (conceptual) systems but due to system 2 requiring effort (the brain prefers to use less effort) it will use system 1s shortcuts as a starting point, such as having a bias based on an unconscious opinion or belief.
The structured interview process is the principal intervention to make a decision on which applicant to offer an advertised position to. It is the asking of standardised questions of job-relevant criteria and a numerical scoring mechanism of the interviewees answers that results in the assumption that the best candidate is offered the advertised role.
The structured interview is seen as ‘fair’ as candidates are individually scored on each interview question, which is asked by the same interviewer(s) in the same order. The scores allocated for each answer is rated, as an example, between 1-4; 1 = negative, 2 = good, 3 = effective, 4 = expert, with each employer having their own numerical scoring system.
The rationale for the structured job interview is that interviewees will answer questions by giving information relevant to the advertised job role. This relies on the applicant being able to identify the job criteria. Being able to identify criteria and embedding the stated criteria into the job interview answer should, in most cases, result in either a 3 = effective or 4 = expert scoring, spending on your level of knowledge/experience. Research has shown that the ability to predict job criteria, therefore having a high level of sector knowledge/experience, accurately predicts job performance (the objective of the job interview process), compared to when the criteria is explicit prior to the job interview.
‘Giving too much away’ prior to the job interview, in terms of explicitly explaining the job criteria, allows an interviewee to prepare an ‘expert’ answer even if their industry knowledge/experience is low. Evidence shows that sharing job criteria prior to the interview start makes it more difficult for interviewers to accurately predict a potential employees job performance during a job interview, as the ‘expert’ interview answers are in contrast with their actual level of knowledge/experience.
It has been argued that in the job interview, the interviewee presents the ‘best’ version of themselves. This distinction between the ‘best’ version of an applicant and actual performance once employed has an impact on the organisation’s output. As an example, job interviews often test people’s potential ability (knowledge/expertise not their characteristics IE work ethic, time keeping, etc). The structured interview, therefore, is asking candidates what they are ‘likely’ to do, not what they will ‘actually’ do once employed.
What employees ‘actual’ do in the workplace comes down to their level of motivation. In ‘real-life,’ rather than the fictional scenario discussed in a job interview, the employee makes choices which affects output. Choice could include effort, acting on distractions, responding to external forces IE the characteristic or mood of a manager. In the job interview though, the applicants answers are based on their competencies, framed as ‘typical’ day to day approaches but answers are often examples of the candidate performing at their best.
To counter the distortion created by interviewees presenting a high performing examples, some recruitment campaigns hold all-day interviews which include structured interviews, assessments (to test knowledge/experience) group work activities and informal discussions (to view temperament), with the idea that an applicant, due to the duration of the day, will show their ‘real’ selves and therefore the interviewers can see the candidate as they would act/perform once employed.
Here we see another problem when searching for the ‘best’ applicant. All day interviews often include a ‘teamwork’ or ‘problem-solving’ activity to view characteristics. In a job interview, applicants are highly motivated to act outside their ‘typical’ working style as the ‘activity’ will be for a short duration allowing the interviewee to put in a high amount of ‘energy’ and ‘effort’ which, in a typical working day, wouldn’t be sustainable. In this sense interviewers view applicants at their best, not their norm.
The applicant’s job interview level of confidence can also alter reality. Some ‘high level of confidence’ candidates will use the interview activity to showcase their abilities – actively promoting themselves, whereas a ‘low level of confidence’ interviewee, with the same level of knowledge/expertise will unconsciously self-disclose weaknesses and conform with other, more confident, applicants in team tasks.
Temperament also affects the employers perception of the interviewee, especially the extrovertism and introvertism trait. These two characteristics have nothing to do with confidence, rather it’s about being ‘expressive’ or ‘reserved.’ In team tasks, the expressive individual feels at home as they gain ‘energy’ from interacting with others and thus appear confident, which can help them to stand out in the interview activity. Reserved individuals will think before talking and can be viewed, by some, as being less confident than their extrovert counterpart. This ‘thinking’ before speaking can benefit the introvert in the structured interview as they way-up their answer before replying, ensuring that each answer is relevant to the job criteria. Extroverts, who will often ‘speak’ before they ‘think’ and can, at the worst, interrupt an interviewer or answer without truly understanding the meaning of the question.
All interview formats create a stressful environment making it difficult to see the interviewee as they would ‘typically’ act in the workplace. Some applicants respond well to the ‘challenge’ of a job interview, whereas others act uncharacteristically, due to the stress of the situation. The only way to view an employees typical workplace behaviour is to evaluate an employee when they don’t realise they are being observed. For a recruitment campaign this is an impossible scenario.
It is clear then that the more a confident applicant understands the job criteria and therefore gives high scoring answers, the more successful they will be in a job interview, but not always in the job itself. It is for the interviewer, not the interviewee, to create an interview process that uncovers the applicants work ethic, motivation level, knowledge/expertise as well as to understand which interview answer is based on their maximum performance, and to question the interviewee to understand the applicants ‘typical’ work based behaviour.
The interviewee has one goal; to be seen as an authentic and strong applicant. With a subgoal if deciding if the organization is one they want to work for. As you will learn, to be seen as authentic and strong, the candidate needs to show high levels of knowledge/experience and high levels of confidence.
