An article (3/23/10) on the Yahoo home page identified "10 Types of Interviewers." Every one of these "interviewers" is real, from the way too common "inappropriate one" to the "one who has better things to do."
Comment: I've got two problems with this article and they both relate to what's missing from the article. First, the advice is relatively weak. Advising a candidate to watch "Law or Order" to prepare for "the interrogator" is not that helpful. Neither does standard advice like "know your weaknesses." There's much better advice out there that would help candidates know exactly what to say... (see www.212-careers.com for starters).
More importantly this article fails to recognize the 11th "type of interviewer," a trained, accomplished interviewer that asks questions in a way that helps the candidate give complete, factual information about their accomplishments and motivations. A good interview actually trains a candidate to provide better answers as the interview progresses -- unfortunately because most candidates are more likely to be asked questions by the "other ten" types of interviewers. A good interviewer doesn't ask "Who's your favorite character from the A-Team?"
The real tragedy of this article is that without acknowledging a "good interviewer type," the article recognizes the frequency of bad interviews and the infrequency of really good ones.
Why oh why do we continue to accept such poor quality in such an important process - especially one that can be resolved with solid interviewing techniques and training???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment