c






 





 







 
 




 

The company interviewer who claims to be able to decide within minutes of a candidate
coming through the door whether he or she is the right person for the job is a familiar
figure in business folklore. Years of experience have left the interviewer convinced his
instincts are unassailable and the rest of the interview is a formality. At the most, the
recruiter will use the remainder of the time to reinforce his or her first impression.

However, if recruiting were so easy, there would be far fewer expensive mistakes when
hiring people - whether it is a chief executive or a graduate trainee. The truth is that it is
a complex and skilled process. Many people have an exaggerated view of how good at it
they are and leave a trail of second-rate staff in their wake.

Accountants, lawyers, and particularly financial services companies, generally take a

rigorous approach to interviewing. They are better at it than manufacturers, who are
slow to catch up with new developments, and media and advertising firms, who often
tend to rely on their instincts. However, as Rob Yeung's latest book, 

 
 
 
, makes clear, a more thoughtful approach by both candidates and
recruiters can take much of the pain out of the process. Yeung is a director of
Talentspace, a talent-management and assessment firm. He has worked as a recruiter for
a range of companies and knows that interviews come in all shapes and sizes. Some
recruiters he has worked with aim to traumatize the candidate with trick questions.
Other interviews are simpler affairs with interviewers asking obvious questions. On
other occasions, candidates may face a whole battery of questions.

The important thing, says Yeung, is preparation, something neglected by many

candidates, who fail to seize the opportunity to sell themselves. As part of their build-
up, candidates should work out the three biggest achievements of their career, what they
are proudest of outside work, their career goals, what they want to get out of their next
job and why an employer would want to employ them.

The book has chapters on how to make the right impression and how to answer different
sorts of questions. Many of the questions will be hypothetical, such as what motivates
you or how well do you get on with new technology? That is the traditional approach.
However, increasingly candidates will face interviewing techniques used to explore
what companies describe as 'behaviours that are linked to success at work'.

Yeung says that a lot of research has been devoted to examining the value of the
hypothetical approach. 'This has shown it's very fallible. It's easy to fake responses to it.
People aren't going to say 'no' when they are asked if they are good team players. Many
candidates will try to shape their experiences to what they think the interviewer wants to
hear. Yet they may simply not have the right skills. The behavioural approach helps to
weed out the weaker candidates.'

Competence-based interviewing separates the high performers from the candidates

trying to bluff their way into the job. 'It's not just a question of having a few notes on a
piece of paper,' says Yeung. 'Executives in the company have to decide the behaviours
that they believe will lead to success in the job. Past behaviour is the best predictor of
future success.'

Establishing a candidate's competences requires a more rigorous approach. Instead of

hypothetical questions, which leave room for the candidate to embellish past
achievements, the interviewer needs to talk about how the candidate has tackled real
problems in the past. In what is effectively a cross-examination rather than a simple
interview, the interrogator will chip away with more questions to build a detailed
picture. Candidates who have been lying or exaggerating will soon find themselves in
trouble. The other main difference is that whereas a candidate can prepare for a
hypothetical interview, competence-based questions are tougher to predict. 'It's much
more challenging for the candidate,' says Yeung.

His book takes several examples. One question he uses as an example asks candidates if
they have ever helped a colleague in trouble. What was the situation and what did they
do about it? Yeung suggests other questions that could follow: How recently did this
happen? Why did he come to you? And what was the problem? What were your
suggestions? It can become relentless, but it is an opportunity for the interviewer to
build a comprehensive picture of the candidate's capabilities. Assessment centres are
also becoming increasingly popular with employers. 'These are even better at weeding
the good from the average,' says Yeung. 'It's the least fallible selection tool we have.' It
is not a special building that is used but an approach that combines a variety of different
methods, such as in-tray exercises, role-play simulations, presentations and
psychometric tests to provide a more thorough picture of a candidate's strengths and
weaknesses. Again, it's much harder for candidates to fake their way through.

This really began as a tool for selecting graduate recruits, but is now also being used to
assess senior managers. Some critics of this trend are sceptical of what there is to be
gained from expecting senior people to sort through crowded in-trays quickly. If you
think they are right, just try it and see how exacting it can be.

For those with crowded in-trays in real life, the value of Yeung's book, unlike many
management texts, is that it is clearly written and to the point. To be interviewed
without having read it is an opportunity missed.