Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on July 28, 2008 at 3:31pm

Bill, I commend you on an outstanding question. You're absolutely right - the moment of truth is when the HM and candidate meet. Period. It's like a football team that practices and practices and practices . . . after opening kick-off, it's all about your performance on the field in the real-game situation. Or consider the typical Special Operations unit - all the training in the world matters little if you fold under incoming fire. This is why teams and military units develop and rehearse (and over and over and over, iteratively), 'reactionary drills'. (Perhaps the best movie reac-drill was here in "Heat" with Deniro and Pacino - the way the 'bad guys' hold off the police is a reac-drill for the ages.)

Personally, I would use an expert to train me on how to train my candidates to interview better . . . only for cost reasons. That being said, if we're talking a $150k or above candidate, I would consider a consultant to work with the candidate individually - I personally think it would be a very wise investment. As far as whether a candidate should stand on his or her own feet, I don't know the relevancy of that question - I say that because most top performers are sticklers for details and want to know they're as mentally/physically/emotionally (and perhaps spiritually) prepared as they can be.

When everyone else is sleeping, you're running steps at the stadium -- it's part of what makes a winner a winner. When they're tucked safely in bed, you're pushing the envelope trying to improve yourself. Those early mornings might not matter every minute of the game, but there will be crucial situations where they do; crucial situations where you have the chance to impose your will on the other team. It's these few crucibles that separate the wheat from the chafe.

Permalink Reply by Teresa R. Bustamante, PHR, ACIR on July 28, 2008 at 3:35pm

Hi, Bill. I feel very strongly that it is very ethical, helpful, and often, essential to lend assistance to candidates for the interview prep. When is anyone ever taught how to interview? Never. Part of our job is to provide our candidates with the necessary tools to make them successful and to assist them in furthering their career. As a result, the prep often lands them the position which, in turn, does wonders for their self-esteem, their financial outlook, the livelyhood of their family, and their future as a whole. Early in my recruiting career, I insisted that the candidate come to the office en route to their interview and we did a full interview prep lasting about 20 minutes. Most people really needed this time to perhaps ask questions of me as a professional that they honestly had never been able to ask of anyone else. It was basic stuff to me but when else had anyone ever taken that time to honestly just help them. Often, if nothing else, it was a courage-booster and would often land them the job. It became not just a habit of mine but a rule that I stipulated up-front on our initial meeting. At first, other recruiters scoffed at my practice but then the veterans started seeing my numbers jump. I had been fortunate to have attended a top business school where interviewing skills were drilled into us, videotapped, critiqued by both professors and peers, and... well, we didn't really have a choice but to hone our interviewing skills to become, over the years, an art. No one can tell me that interviewing is not a social art, a dance of sorts. Look at it this way, you're doing a kind act for someone who is often eager for help in an area that is rarely taught; it's just the right thing to do when conducted humbly and with honest intent. If one does it solely to earn the fee... now we're talking unethical....

Permalink Reply by Bobby J Davis on July 28, 2008 at 3:41pm

Bill,
Not all recruiters have the knowledge to prep their candidates on interviewing techniques, but they should be learning how to do so not only for the sake of their candidate, but for their own knowledge base as well. To be a great recruiter, this is one of many tools in a recruiter's bag of expertise to be shared and used with every candidate whether it is a phone screen or personal interview. Recruiters have more interaction with hiring managers than candidates and should know the techniques their clients use. A "professional" would not have this information nor be aware of the decision makers "hot buttons". Recruiters need to be that professional. There's more to recruiting than throwing resumes to the wall and hoping they will stick somewhere or just setting someone up with an interview schedule. Candidates count on their recruiter for all this advice. Unfortunately, a lot of candidates don't get this service.
We should prepare our candidates for who they will be interviewing with and their role in the organization, the do's and don'ts of interviewing 101, and what kind of questions will be asked of them. They should also be prepared to ask good meaningful questions and to ask for the job and get feedback. Spending time with your candidate and preparing them for the interview process adds value to the client as well as endearing your candidate to you. And remember, candidates turn into "HIRING MANAGERS" and they will know how thoroughly you work with candidates and will want to work with you when they have future needs to hire.

My 2 cents -

Bobby Davis
Executive Recruiter
Worldwide Resources, Inc

Permalink Reply by John Borrowman on July 28, 2008 at 4:48pm

Like many (most?) recruiters, I do my own candidate preps. I think I cover the right stuff, but I think my candidates would benefit from whatever it is that Eric Kramer proposes to offer.

I say "proposes" because there's quite literally nothing to see at his website. He offers to let the user "View Sample InterviewBest Presentations". I click on "View Samples" only to discover that they're "Coming Soon". I want to "See InterviewBest in Action" so I click on "See Demo". Ooops, "Coming Soon". Ironically (or maybe not), clicking on "Getting Started" will set you up so that, after your free trial, you can start paying for ... what was it ...?

You are a regular source of good, new ideas, Bill. This might be one of them. Maybe it would be better to bring Eric back when there's something to see besides a Beta site.

Permalink Reply by Dave Opton on July 28, 2008 at 5:14pm

Bill,

Maybe I am missing something here, but so far as I know preparing the candidate for the interview has been going on since day one. Using an outside resource to take on that process or to supplement what the recruiter would be doing themselves feels to me like a time management issue more so than a potential ethical one, although as Teresa's comment points out, there certainly is an ethical line that could be crossed.

Anyone who has ever interviewed for a position certainly knows that preparation on any number of levels is absolutely critical, and most people that I know would likely welcome any help they could get in going through that preparation.

On the other hand, what worries me more than a little is that with the ease of research and the tools and resources available to prepare a candidate that what the client sees during the interview is not necessarily what they get when they hire.

Said differently I often wonder if the track record of "stick rates" that some companies have might be caused by candidates who are have simply become super role players as opposed to revealing the behaviors that will really surface when crunch time comes.

All that said, I guess I would come down on the side of not having an outside resource (other than what a candidate might be doing on his/her own anyway) coach the candidate. If the recruiter is as close to the client as one would expect, it seems to me that they would be in the better position to get the candidate ready than a third party.

Permalink Reply by Eric Kramer on July 28, 2008 at 5:58pm

Dave,
While developing InterviewBest we were asked the question you raise. Does helping a candidate thoroughly prepare for an interview cause unqualified people to be hired because they are "slick" interviewers with an impressive document? The answer to this is probably yes, in certain cases. On the flip side, thorough preparation helps the talented but interview challenged individual do well in the interview and get the job. The ultimate control is in the hands of the hiring manager whose task is to discern the "role players" from the high talent individuals.

I think of it this way-The resume is the company brochure (gets you in the door) and the interview presentation is a sales proposal. No one seems to question getting help to develop a resume even spending as much as $800-$1000 or more for top notch resume writers. Why not get help to develop a great sales proposal?

In response to your statement about time management, we have found the interview presentation is an excellent tool to assist the recruiter in their interview preparation. The candidate develops the presentation and then shows it to the recruiter. In 15-20 minutes the recruiter can review the presentation with the candidate and suggest strategies, tactics, and content based on information the candidate will be presenting in the interview. Having a visual document containing the candidates thinking makes this process far more powerful. We have had a number of situations where the recruiter has been able to make pre-interview corrections that saved the day.

Permalink Reply by Eric Kramer on July 28, 2008 at 6:02pm

John,
I am surprised to read your comment. Other than the demo which is in the works, the site is fully functional including the most critical areas the presentation development and the follow-through letters. I just checked the samples area (lower left on home page) and it works perfectly as it has been doing for weeks.

I would be happy to give you a tour of the site. Please contact me at 610-420-4158 and I will arrange to show you InterviewBest.

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on July 28, 2008 at 7:44pm

Teresa, well articulated. I agree, and especially liked the following:

"Often, if nothing else, it was a courage-booster and would often land them the job."

"No one can tell me that interviewing is not a social art, a dance of sorts."

Kudos :)

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on July 28, 2008 at 7:58pm

Eric, let me comment that I like the way you've handled potential objections and worked to keep the dialogue moving forward. Everybody here brings up very real concerns, and I commend you on taking the time to appreciate everyone's concerns/thoughts while attempting to work through them.

In my estimation, it is these reasons that social media can make or break a company. In an age of citizen journalism, ideas move rapidly . . . through an industry in what amounts to a heart beat. In the 'old days', marketing was about the information vendors/salespersons/etc. would 'push' to the marketplace . . . the consumer/buyer had little to no ability to engage outside of the 'call to action' on the marketing piece/commercial/etc.

The inverse of how you're working through these concerns is what Starbucks did after the previous CEO, Howard Schulz, returned and wrote a letter to Starbucks employees about "the commoditization of the Starbucks experience".

Keep up the good work and consider all dialogue, both positive and negative, as great things. In my estimation, it's the difference between winning and losing in our new social media age.

Permalink Reply by Mitch Byers on July 28, 2008 at 8:05pm

When I got started in recruiting in the mid 90s, I joined an office of 25 full-desk recruiters making placements in engineering and telecom. (I was the lone mortgage banking recruiter.) One day, I couldn't locate a document in our forms cabinet. One the ol' timers said, "Look in Beth's office. She'll have it. It's the cabinet that is unlocked." I snooped around and happened across a number of documents that had not seen the light of day in many years. The images were out of the 70s and some had been copied so often the type was crooked on the page and barely visible in areas. But the information was jumping off the page. It was like I had a handful of sparkling jewels. What I had stumbled across were loose sheets from an old training guide, that when put together, was an excellent candidate prepping document. I was surprised, because when I showed them around the office, no one had every seen them. If fact, they just snickered at the pictures.

Undeterred, I reorganized and retyped the information into an 8-page interviewing prep guide. Soon it was expanded to 12 pages, and finally to an 18-page guide. The information was shared with candidates scheduled for a client interview. I can't claim I was the most successful person in the office, but for someone starting out, I was doing everything in my power to help the candidate hit the target.

In 2003, this guide became the launching pad for my book, InterviewRX, now in its third version. InterviewRX is an easy read interviewing guide, chocked-full of ideas to ace the interview.

I am a strong believer in preparing the candidate and feel the need to outsource the prep is a personal and financial matter. While every recruiter should be able to prep the candidate in a pinch, I feel there is validity in bringing in an expert to either work with candidates directly or provide training sessions for the staff. If working directly with the candidate, there could be a flat fee per person with a bonus for those that are placed. That way, you are assured everyone has their eye on the same goal.

A viable alternative would be to pick one or two interview coaches you trust and encourage the candidates to contact them for some one-on-one time. Their coach would provide solid interviewing strategies and would complement the knowledge they have received from their recruiter.

The interview is a time to package your value in revealing and compelling stories. The interviewing coach can help the candidate help the hiring manager "see" them being successful. Based on my 3,000+ face-to-face interviews, too few candidates present themselves in a succinct manner or share enough relevant information to persuade the hiring manager. This is a sad fact, because often the candidate is qualified, and often the most qualified for the position. While candidates are part of the interview, in too many instances they are overwhelmed by the process and do not "own" their time in front of the hiring manager.

Just like a great football coach can build confidence and help his (or hers) players stand on their own, an engaging recruiter or interview coach can push someone good to something GREAT.

Is it ethical? Yes, if the interviewing coach is ethical and honest. There are always business rules to guide our success.

Mitch Byers, author of InterviewRX and SalaryNegotiationsRX
www.interviewrx.com

Permalink Reply by Karl LeMuth on July 28, 2008 at 9:40pm

Hi Bill. My answer and opinion is no. Basic guidance from us as recruiters should be sufficient. My thoughts are that the 'expert' is the person whom is right for the job. You can take someone hopeless and make them a star interviewee- then they will fail in the role and it will be on your head.

The more simple we make this the better. If we feel our clients are selecting the wrong candidate then it is our responsibility to explain why. If we have done our job right, we will know the 'right' candidate from the 'wrong' one, as should our client (in a perfect world).

When I send my candidates to interview, I go with them - this has a LOT of benefits. But I still feel that the way someone presents themselves is a direct reflection on them as a real person- it should not be simulated- that way the right candidate will get the right job for the right reason.

Perhaps an expert to coach some of our clients in "how to be a better boss" may be helpful though! lol =P

Permalink Reply by Michael Delaney on July 29, 2008 at 1:15am

Having read the other responses there is perhaps little I can add in the way of major value however a couple of points I would make. Any time you put a candidate forward to a manager it is for mine an absolute must that you give them enough preparation to be able to get past the interviewers style and personal bias and into the specifics of why they are the best person for the job. I would consider it very unprofessional to let someone go in and potentially be blindsided by a lack of knowledge.

However there is merit in letting the candidate stand on their own two feet and get the role from their own efforts so I give everyone the same information pack and advice and that way it is a level playing field.

Would I pay an external expert to do this? Perhaps for the right level of role say a Regional Manager / VP or above but even then I would like to think (perhaps in a degree of self aggrandizement) that I have the ability to know what the interview engagement will be like and how to best steer them through the potential pitfalls.

It was interesting to read of the person who found the old manual and reworked it and subsequently published around this as I was trained by an "old school" manager who believed that you should be meticulous in the preparation phase and try not to leave it to chance.

It was a good question and one that I think deserves further consideration as to where I could possibly implement such a solution for the benefit of my business results.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page