I Hate HR

Over the past two months I have been given the unique opportunity of observing during interviews. Not only am I paying attention to the interviewee but also to the interviewer. I have begun to see patterns in how our managers and supervisors interview. Unfortunately, not all of these patterns are positive. Some of the recurring mistakes I have seen include:

Not coming prepared.

The interviewee’s resume is distributed to all interview participants as soon as the interview is scheduled so that they may formulate specific questions based on that individuals background. Despite this fact, some will come the interviews without their copy of the resume (and often not request a new one before the interview starts). Or they will come with a copy that’s never been looked at. This reflects poorly on the company. Interviewers should be asking for clarification on the resume, not asking the applicant to recite their resume because the interviewee did not read it.

Not asking consistent questions.

As a subset of the last question, the interviewers often do not enter the interview with a set of questions for that position. While they have an idea of which areas they would like to ask about, not having consistent questions means that some candidates are asked hard hitting questions while others are not. It also means that after the interview the interviewee often says, “Oh I wish I asked him/her about that.” This issue could lead to potential legal ramifications if an interview feels they have been discriminated against.

Not asking behavioral based questions.

I’m surprised at how few behavioral based questions are posed to our candidates. Instead, our managers and supervisors prefer close-ended questions and what-ifs. These are obviously not good interview techniques because it allows the candidate to give you the answer you want, rather than a more realistic picture of how they will behave. Luckily, candidates are still nervous enough that they rarely answer with the perfect response, but this is not a technique I would allow in another industry where the interviewees are more polished at the art of interviewing.

Talking too much.

There are three reasons an interviewer should talk rather than ask questions: 1. To make the candidate comfortable, 2. To provide a realistic picture of the job, 3. To promote the business. However, there is a pretty thick line between talking enough and talking too much. I find that the interviewers in my business over share during the first level interviews. While this does not hurt the candidates view of the business, it does take away from the whole point of the interview – which is to gain more understanding about the candidate.

Favoritism Bias

In my observations it becomes very obvious which candidate the hiring manager prefers. I can tell this right away from the tone of the questions. Later, it becomes obvious after the first level interview who the hiring manager is going to chose for the position. Even though we require second level interviews with staff and clients, it would take something big (like a candidate bombing the second interview) for the hiring manager to decide against the candidate they prefer. This negates the point of having the second level interview since the hiring manager is not truly open to input when they already have a candidate chosen.

So where does this all leave me?

Of course, as an HR professional I would be ineffective at my job if I allowed this behavior to continue. While it is not my intention to stifle anyone’s individual interview style, I have already begun to prepare a training for managers and supervisors on how to be more effective in the interview process. After all, how the interviewer performers is just as important as how the interviewee performs. The next step in my journey is of course getting the buy-in from management to perform the training. Wish me luck!