Hiring managers. Would you ever employ someone like this at interview

[Llechui]

If they seemed warm, honest and like they'd be great to get along with in the team. Feedback from reception was that they were very helpful to someone who came in upset.

But when they got to interview they went blank when answering the basic question about their experience. They apologised and asked if they could come back to the question at the end.

They answered the other questions fairly well. One technical question very well, the example of work experiences well but when they went back to the first question they still only touched on what we would have liked as an answer. They noted this by apologising and saying they had gone blank but at least had added a bit more to the answer.

They've only just qualified and did have the experience as mentioned on their application. Just the interview let them down.

They seemed nervous but no shaking or sweating.

Would it be unreasonable to employ someone like this? Would you be unimpressed overall?

It's for a job that requires communication skills, a professional degree and positive attitude/initiative.

I ask because I'm seeing several candidates like this. Seeming to get nervous and go blank and I find that when employing the ones that showed great confidence and perfect answers they're a nightmare to work with even if they came across lovely in interview.

Sometimes you can just feel a warmth and genuine nature in someone, which I'm starting to give more credit to.

I work in recruitment and spend my days interviewing potential candidates. I often speak to candidates who perform well with me, but fall apart when they go to interview. I wish employers would adapt their approach for candidates that are clearly struggling with the whole interview process and make it informal. Interviews should be skilled in dealing with nervous candidates and learn how to probe in a gentle way.l Sometimes just changing the subject and then returning it to it helps. Also if a candidate recognises they didn't answer the question well, that's a tick in my book.

If I were you and you had a good feel about them, I would call them up on the phone and have a chat. Maybe frame some of the more important questions you want answering in a different way.

In my experience you can mould and teach people with a good attitude, but a bad attitude is much more difficult to manage.

If you work at a council can you employ someone who doesn't meet the competencies? I thought public sector interviews were very rigid.

What about a trial period?

As long as they meet them on the application form it's fine. Her written application was exceptional.

I went blank on a question in my interview for my grad job - and asked if we could come back to the question later. Just had a total mind blank.
Got the job.
Still here [many] years later and many promotions later!

Absolutely yes to gentle probing. We "set up" the interview at the beginning with a mix of explaining why we may probe and also that we may move people on if they've answered a question sufficiently. We also highlight that candidates can come Back to a question if they are struggling.

We also spend some time at the beginning building rapport & trying to get the person at ease. Interviewing is a skill and not everyone is good at interviewing which can make people nervous going forwards . If you are interviewing young, inexperienced or nervous people they may have had poor interview experiences before meeting you.

It's important to remember that people should only be assessed on the interview & the competencies within it that can be measured. So feedback from the receptionist is actually irrelevant. Interview notes need to stack up that the candidate offered the job was the one that performed the best.

Could you perhaps look at your interview format & make small but meaningful changes to the structure of the interview based on recent experience? So slightly more time on rapport, making the questions that people find easier at the start of the interview?

I think it depends on why she was thrown by the question, too.

I was thrown by the first question of an interview. I had applied for an internally funded course. It was at the same level as previous study I have done, but is the next step in the speciality of my career. The first question of my interview was 'This is an academically challenging course. How will you cope with the academic challenge and who will you turn to for help and support?' My thought process was 'It's degree level. I have a degree. I've got a post-grad qualification in this career. It is at the same level as that so I'm used to that level of study....what are they getting at?' Unfortunately what came out of my mouth was 'Umm...well I'm quite academic and I have a degree already and it's a level 6 course, so I hadn't anticipated it being academically challenging, to be honest.' Then there was an awkward pause and one of the interviewers said 'no, let's move on, that question probably wasn't for you...'.

It's an artificial situation, isn't it. You're not getting them in their natural environment.

Are you sure she wrote the written application herself?

Could it be that the way the question is phrased is confusing or not sufficiently open-ended? If they answered the technical question and the work experience question well but it's a recurrent problem on this specific question that you notice with other candidates too then that would make me want to rethink how I approached this.
If it's something you really need to be able to assess, can you present it as a case study and ask them to think it over for 10 mins before they go in to the interview?
It would be a shame to lose decent candidates over something like this.

There is a lot of emphasis on looking and sounding right these days. It doesn't necessarily mean they are the best person for the job and I've seen quite a few managers who frankly haven't got a clue what they are doing.

I worked for a lovely director a few years back. He was amazing at presenting and selling himself mainly!!!- but absolutely rubbish at managing which was a major part of his job. The dept thought he was a jackass.

I've done my job a long time and consider myself to be pretty near the top of my game but I cringe when I think of some of the my interviews. Likewise, I've know staff to interview well and not be particularly good at the job.

I find that when employing the ones that showed great confidence and perfect answers they're a nightmare to work with even if they came across lovely in interview

This sweeping generalisations is quite telling. So someone who prepares well, gives good quality answers and basically does what all the interview advise suggests, being confident and giving no cause not to be employed, translates to a 'nightmare' in the workplace .

It does make sense to give it your 100% - you only get one chance to make a first good impression

She might be perfect in a different role, perhaps in HR.
I'd be concerned if someone had written a perfect essay but then couldn't discuss it.

I think that's quite an unusual question to go blank on. The experience question is asked in pretty much every interview situation. You can prepare it beforehand. If the person was nervous at the start why were they still not able to provide answers when you want back to it. Why did nerves not affect the other more challenging questions. If their are other people who performed better then I think you need to give them the job. I am a little bit wary of the 'would be a great fit' personality wise , what that usually means is they have similar views, approach as the interviewer. When I managed a team there were a number of people who I had nothing in common with, didn't gel with etc, they were very good at their job.

I think that's a fair point, Daisy. From my perspective, interviews can be an uncomfortable, artificial environment and that puts lots of people off but others do cope better. I've had the experience of preparing very well for interview myself and giving my less good example in answer to a competency question - no idea why. In another, I was thrown by being asked a perfectly straight forward question that I should have had no trouble answering (and I was furious with myself once the door closed), again, I don't know why.

Our process gives us a tick list of achievements which we can mark as met, partly met or not met.

Your candidate sounds like a "partly met" on this particular question. If the others are met or partials we would appoint.

I've seen good interviews followed by poor performance and weak interviews followed by strong performance. The interview is an indicator and an important one but it's not a perfect test.

Is it possible to ask them to come in for a trial? That way if they can't manage/don't fit in you can say goodbye with no hard feelings.