Career Center - A Job Interview is Not a Contest

When HIRE POWER by Irv Zuckerman was published four years ago, it was the only job-search how-to book offered with a money-back guarantee. You either got a job offer within 60 days or Irv would personally refund your money. It was only when Putnam Publishing notified him of the first re-print that Irv did the math to calculate what he could be in for. "Let's say 10,000 people asked for their money back. At $9.95, that's $100,000!" Fortunately for Irv and his many readers (including more than 50,000 library hits on C-serve) not a single request for a refund has been received at the Zuckerman Foundation -- the research organization that probes the problems of the hard-to-hire. The most popular section of HIRE POWER? This excerpt on the job interview:


Many "how-to" get a job books give the impression that the interview is a contest between the applicant and the Decision- Maker. In one you're warned to be on the lookout for tricky interview strategies that are designed to trap you into confessing a particular weakness; in another you're advised to memorize no less than 100 tough questions and their answers. Give me a break! Under the stress of a job interview, you couldn't be blamed for failing to remember your own name! Sure, the job interview is a stressful time. Not just for you, the job-seeker, but for the Decision-Maker as well. You're under stress because you're competing with more and more applicants for fewer and fewer jobs. But the decision-maker isn't exactly in Happy Valley, either. With personnel budgets tighter than a comptroller's smile, any mistake in hiring is going to cost three times: The cost of hiring, training and firing the wrong person; the cost of hiring and training the new person; the cost to the reputation of the interviewer as a competent manager.

And here's the most stress-producing reason of all: while both of you may have taken tennis lessons to improve your backhand or whatever, the odds are that neither of you took lessons in how to perfect your ability to interview. The result? A struggle between you to see who "wins," when what you really want is the opportunity to help the Decision-Maker to succeed. However, all is not lost. Let's examine what commonly happens during an interview that creates an adversarial atmosphere and how to avoid it so that both of you wind up on the same side of the net:

In the typical interview situation, you and the Decision- Maker go through that nervous little dance of acquaintance. What always helps to heighten the tension even further is an hour's wait in the reception area. If you've ever been stuck out there so long that you think you've been forgotten, it's a pretty good guess you'll be meeting an untrained interviewer. It's not the delay that should tip you off. Emergencies come up in any business day. It's that no word was sent to reassure you. But, at long last, there you are. Eager to please, you overlook the lack of apology for keeping you waiting or smile your acceptance of the one you get. Now here comes another guess. Unless somebody says or does something to save the situation, you're in for an "off the top of the head" interview. Here's how it works:

DM: (Leaning back and linking hands at the top of the head) Well ... tell me about yourself.
YOU: (Clearing your throat while wondering how to begin, since, in order to get the interview, you submitted a complete resume that is currently right there on the desk in front of the Decision-Maker along with ten more just like it which is a pretty good indication that while you have achieved a place on the short list, that short list is pretty long) Well ... I guess I'll begin at the beginning.

You are now at maximum risk. Instead of addressing your remarks to a detailed list of the criteria required by that particular job situation, you're off on a recitation of anything and everything you think may somehow satisfy the demands of a job you really know very little about. Some of what you say may fit. Some may not. A quick look at the Decision-Maker (another guess is that while you were talking your eyes were not too well focused) will tell you how you're doing. Is the Decision-Maker taking careful notes or are those hands still laced on top of the head? Is he/she looking at you or at the desk clock or at some papers that really need attention? The phone rings and is answered. Does the Decision-Maker refuse the call? Take it, but cut it short? Chat for a long time?

Feeling uncertain, the Decision-Maker's most practical strategy for self-protection is to try and find something in your dissertation that will disqualify you so that a safer choice will wind up with the job. Somebody with the exact industry experience. Somebody, younger, thinner, not so over-qualified. Somebody who looks more like they will "fit in."

DM: Well, that's all very interesting, but your experience in (and you name it) won't be of much use to us, since we use a different method.

OK, it's your move. But where to? Out the door? On to the next interview? Or do you sit your ground and counter with a don't-take-no-for-an-answer response that shows the Decision-Maker the error of his/her thinking? Or do you stretch a point and invent some work experience that parallels the experience the Decision-Maker is looking for? Clearly, unless you have a way of rewinding the last fifteen minutes and starting over from the top, what's happening here is an adversarial situation. So if you're on your way to a job interview, suppose, instead of concerning yourself with the differences between what you are and what the Decision-Maker is looking for, you focus on those areas where your goals and that of the Decision-Maker coincide. W hat is he/she looking for? How well can you provide it?

How To Ask the One Question that Puts You and the Decision-Maker on the Same Side.

The best way to get any information is to ask a question that is easy to answer. Since the Decision-Maker knows the criteria by which he/she will select the person for this job and you wish to know them, a natural question would be:

YOU: By what criteria will you select the person for this job?

By asking first -- and speaking later -- a Decision-Maker, will tell you what he/she needs. You'll get a list of the criteria you'll have to meet in order to get his approval. When you "tell all about yourself," you'll know what to tell and how to tell it . A closer look at the structure of the question itself reveals why it is so vital to the success of the interview:

By what criteria ... places the focus of the discussion where it belongs -- on the job, rather than on your age, sex, color, etc. What the Decision-Maker wants is someone who can do the job. Are you that someone? Can you prove it? Then that is what the discussion should be about.
... will you select ... recognizes the authority of the Decision-Maker. Even if the Decision-Maker is a screener and NOT the final authority, you will need his/her approval to get to the next level.
... the person for this job? This is an interview for a specific job. Only one person will be selected. You want it to be you.

Because that's where the competition really is -- winning out over all those other people who want the same job. How? By following a common-sense, 3-step procedure: First, find out what kind of person the decision-maker feels would best fill the job. What skills? What work habits? Second, take notes. You'll be hearing a lot of important information. Don't let any of it get away. Third, when you do tell about yourself, follow your notes. to Make sure you deal with each of the criteria. That way you can convince the decision-maker that you know what he/she wishes to achieve and are the ideal person to help to achieve it. Now, Instead of being adversaries, you're both on the same team.
Any questions?

Irv Zuckerman
Author of HIRE POWER
(Putnam/Perigee, 1993)