3 ms·

A remarkably subtle and effective way to assess the candidate is to let them lead the interview. Start with this script - "I've read your CV, know you've met w

A remarkably subtle and effective way to assess the candidate is to let them lead the interview. Start with this script - "I've read your CV, know you've met with HR -- what questions do you have for me? what areas would you like to discuss?" The quality of their questions tells you a great deal about their intellection, motivation, and business acumen. Incidentally, George Bradt offers excellent advice on evaluating candidates> http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgebradt/2011/04/27/top-executive-recruiters-agree-there-are-only-three-key-job-interview-questions/#667eef0d4de7 http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgebradt/2011/04/27/top-execu...

athenot 10y ago
I've never considered this but it's a great idea for many reasons. - Chiefly, you get to find out how interested and motivated the candidate is. - It's disarming but in a good way: it removes the "grilling" and "test" mentality and starts a conversation. - The quality of the questions that the candidat asks will answer the problem of knowing how well the résumé is subtantiated. I'm going to have to experiment with this one. Thanks for the tip!
bluejekyll 10y ago
This can quickly backfire and you don't get to know anything you need to about the candidate. I use the behavioral interview process. I spend 10 minutes reviewing their resume before the interview. I introduce myself to the person at the start of the interview, about 5 minutes. Then I explain my interview process to them so that they know what to expect though the interview, it helps put people at ease to understand what is coming. Then I dig through their history, asking who they've worked with (yes, get names, people are inherently more honest when they use real names). Ask anything you want here. For technology I find it useful to dig into the areas they find most exciting, and discover how well they actually know those areas. This should last about 20-30 minutes. I try to focus on the thing that are important to the job being interviewed for, but this is also a great place to see how personable they are. After this I turn the floor over to them, allowing them to ask any questions until the end of the interview, generally 10 minutes. In total this is structured for an hour, I think more than that is too much, personally.
- fsloth 10y ago
  "Allowing them to ask any questions until the end of the interview, generally 10 minutes." 10 minutes sounds like a really short time for candidate driven discussion, IMO. Personally, when I've been the candidate, I treat the interview as a two-way discussion. I'm I suited to the job, are they an employer that I feel comfortable with. If there is no time reserved for myself leading the discussion, or I feel I would have nothing to discuss anyhow, is an indication to me that no matter the technical requirements, the position is not a terrific match. The best interview sessions I've had have evolved into a detailed discussion about technical details, business angles and organizational skills, lasting well over an hour. But those interviews were in a situation where the candidate pool was very limited.
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    The earlier portion should be in the form of a conversation, not some point and shoot questions. I think you need this to get at the details you as an interviewer need, but it doesn't mean they can't interject questions, that's how conversations work. 10-15 minutes of candidate led questions, gives them the floor entirely after that, and I've never found it to not be enough time.
a-saleh 10y ago
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately in my culture it is quite rare for candidates to be so open as to ask enough questions, especially because the candidate will be for a junior position. I could see this working better for a more senior positions :)
cburgas 10y ago
I would love to do this, but judging by the last couple of months of interviews this would not work out most of the times around here, even though I am currently only interviewing for senior positions. It is mind boggling how little interest some people are showing or how seemingly unprepared they come to an interview.

athenot 10y ago

I've never considered this but it's a great idea for many reasons. - Chiefly, you get to find out how interested and motivated the candidate is. - It's disarming but in a good way: it removes the "grilling" and "test" mentality and starts a conversation. - The quality of the questions that the candidat asks will answer the problem of knowing how well the résumé is subtantiated. I'm going to have to experiment with this one. Thanks for the tip!

bluejekyll 10y ago

This can quickly backfire and you don't get to know anything you need to about the candidate. I use the behavioral interview process. I spend 10 minutes reviewing their resume before the interview. I introduce myself to the person at the start of the interview, about 5 minutes. Then I explain my interview process to them so that they know what to expect though the interview, it helps put people at ease to understand what is coming. Then I dig through their history, asking who they've worked with (yes, get names, people are inherently more honest when they use real names). Ask anything you want here. For technology I find it useful to dig into the areas they find most exciting, and discover how well they actually know those areas. This should last about 20-30 minutes. I try to focus on the thing that are important to the job being interviewed for, but this is also a great place to see how personable they are. After this I turn the floor over to them, allowing them to ask any questions until the end of the interview, generally 10 minutes. In total this is structured for an hour, I think more than that is too much, personally.

fsloth 10y ago
"Allowing them to ask any questions until the end of the interview, generally 10 minutes." 10 minutes sounds like a really short time for candidate driven discussion, IMO. Personally, when I've been the candidate, I treat the interview as a two-way discussion. I'm I suited to the job, are they an employer that I feel comfortable with. If there is no time reserved for myself leading the discussion, or I feel I would have nothing to discuss anyhow, is an indication to me that no matter the technical requirements, the position is not a terrific match. The best interview sessions I've had have evolved into a detailed discussion about technical details, business angles and organizational skills, lasting well over an hour. But those interviews were in a situation where the candidate pool was very limited.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  The earlier portion should be in the form of a conversation, not some point and shoot questions. I think you need this to get at the details you as an interviewer need, but it doesn't mean they can't interject questions, that's how conversations work. 10-15 minutes of candidate led questions, gives them the floor entirely after that, and I've never found it to not be enough time.

a-saleh 10y ago

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately in my culture it is quite rare for candidates to be so open as to ask enough questions, especially because the candidate will be for a junior position. I could see this working better for a more senior positions :)

cburgas 10y ago

I would love to do this, but judging by the last couple of months of interviews this would not work out most of the times around here, even though I am currently only interviewing for senior positions. It is mind boggling how little interest some people are showing or how seemingly unprepared they come to an interview.