The art of the interview

This blog is part one of two. In this part, we will look at conventional approaches to recruitment practices. In part two, we will take a hammer to convention with a controversial question and a different perspective.

At its core, an organization is essentially the people that comprise it. Sure, there are other aspects to an organization such as a brand, a set of values, intellectual property, product lines and services, a vision and mission and so on. But its lifeblood is made up of the employees who work in it. So it goes without saying then that finding the right people is one of the most important things an organization can do.

Résumés and JDs – a lot like matchmaking
 

Let’s dial it back a little. The recruitment process fundamentally begins long before the first question is asked. It starts when a candidate designs their résumé.

Presenting the right details is crucial. Candidates must consider how their résumé will be read – not just by a human, but also by an applicant tracking system (ATS). There’s a delicate balance between getting keywords in and presenting an impressive career story.

Next up, how much information is too much? Candidates need to ensure they highlight key accomplishments without overwhelming the reader. Does the résumé convey the kind of information that will help the interviewer make an informed decision about setting up an interview? Concise and comprehensive, a résumé needs to be both. They also face the challenge of deciding whether to infuse their résumé with personality or stick to a cleaner, more formal approach.

The view from the other side is no less complex. The job description is to the interviewer what the résumé is to the interviewee. And it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Beyond crafting an accurate job description that reflects the role’s realities and objectives, it requires a keen understanding of how the role might evolve over time.

Once the applications start coming in, there is the challenge of interpreting résumés. How much can interviewers glean about each candidate's competencies? About their stakeholder management skills, adaptability, and teamwork capabilities? These softer skills are often harder to quantify yet critical to ensuring a good fit within the team. Reading between the lines is an understated interviewer skill, in this case.

Types of interviews

With workplace culture and the nature of jobs evolving (now more than ever with AI reigning supreme), several interview styles have emerged, each designed to assess different aspects of a candidate's fit for a role. Each with a unique effort:outcomes ratio for the interviewer.

Behavioral interviews delve into a candidate's past experiences to gauge future performance. By making them recount past milestones – say a product launch, or successful project delivery – interviewers can break down their thought process and the technical know-how they needed each step of the way. With this approach, it’s critical for the interviewer to uncover the story behind the candidate’s accomplishments, to understand how the candidate deals with challenges, works with teams, and overcomes obstacles.

Case interviews assess problem-solving abilities by having candidates work through business challenges. Candidates are typically given a hypothetical scenario and must demonstrate their approach, subject matter expertise and ability to think creatively on their feet to arrive at a viable solution. This format helps interviewers gauge how candidates handle pressure and apply their knowledge in practical contexts, and their potential effectiveness in the role.  

Conversational interviews create a comparatively relaxed atmosphere, ditching the rigid question-and-answer format for a fluid two-way dialogue. This style allows interviewers to get a sense of a candidate's personality, communication skills, and cultural fit, while also making the candidate feel more at ease. It fosters a more natural discussion about experiences, aspirations, and values, often leading to deeper insights beyond what the résumé conveys. Without the construct of an assessment, this approach puts the onus on the interviewer to drive the conversation meaningfully. It’s also easy to get carried away in conversation and squander time without forming an opinion on the candidate.

Structured interviews standardize the evaluation process by using a set list of questions for all candidates. This method reduces bias and ensures consistency, allowing interviewers to focus on the criteria most relevant to the role. However, it can sometimes stifle organic conversation and overlook valuable, spontaneous insights that might emerge in more free-form discussions.

Clearly, some formats lend themselves to more technical roles, and others where soft skills bear more weightage. Interviewers need to consider picking a format not wholly based on their comfort level, but one that will really allow candidates to showcase their experience, knowledge and skills.

Culture fit: compatibility in the workplace

Another concept that has gained significant traction in recent years is the culture fit interview. Although typically a smaller part of the process and not an alternative to candidate evaluations, this step is often a tricky one to crack. The culture fit round tests the alignment between a candidate’s beliefs and behaviors with those of the organization, carried out through pointed questions about values and work styles, as well as presenting scenarios that reveal how a candidate might react in the workplace.

It requires interviewers to be mindful of their own biases – and to be true ambassadors of organizational culture. The goal is to find candidates who can thrive in the environment and not just mirror existing team members. While companies typically place this in the purview of Human Resources, more leaders are choosing instead to have potential hires meet with various team members to gauge mutual fit. This collaborative approach provides a more holistic view of how a candidate might integrate into the organization.

Getting hiring right
 

Bad hires can be costly—not just financially, but also in terms of team morale and productivity. It can also lead to increased turnover and disrupted workflows. The time and resources spent on training and onboarding can feel wasted when a candidate doesn’t ultimately thrive.

To mitigate these risks, organizations must take a hard look at their interviewing processes to better align candidates with roles. This involves clearly defining the skills and attributes needed for success and developing more effective assessment methods to uncover these qualities during interviews.

We hope part one shed light on different interview styles and what may be right for you. In part two, we’ll be the questioning the very concept of the interview, so fasten your seatbelts.