HRGuru

Interviewer's Behavior Affects Job Seeker's Decision on Job Offer.

Two-thirds of job seekers say that the interviewer influences their decision to accept a position, according to a study released by Development Dimensions International (DDI), a consulting firm, and Monster.

The survey included nearly 628 staffing directors, 1,250 hiring managers, and 3,725 job seekers.

Job seekers identified a number of interviewer behaviors that adversely affect their willingness to work at the company, such as:

-Acting like he/she has no time to talk to me (70 percent)

-Withholding information about position (57 percent)

-Turning interview into cross-examination (51 percent)

-Showing up late (48 percent)

-Appearing unprepared for interview (47 percent)

-Asking questions unrelated to job skills (43 percent)

An interview can quickly escalate from being a 'meeting of the minds' to a 'clash of personalities' if both parties are not prepared and respectful of one another," says Scott Erker, DDI's senior vice president of selection solutions. "Interviewers sit inches from the candidate, but there's a wide gap between what they think candidates are looking for and what would actually motivate interviewees to become employees.

The survey also found that staffing directors and hiring managers often struggle to identify what job seekers want in a new job and misunderstand the elements that are most important to potential employees. For example, 67 percent of job seekers identify a "compatible work group/team" as a significant factor in their job hunt, but only 37 percent of staffing directors ascribe a similar importance to this aspect. While job seekers rank the need for "a good boss/manager" (75 percent) and "an organization you can be proud to work for" (74 percent) among the top most important elements of a new job, these are underrated by employers.

Join The HR Networking Group on - HR Guru: http://www.hrguru.com/groups/16-human-resources-network

This article reveals that the interview is not recognized as the important tool it is for a company in making a positive impression in the market place.  Even if you have very good HR personnel; the interviewing skills of front line hiring managers can cost a company not only the loss of potential talent but the time spent filling their open positions .    How can companies emphasize the importance so it is not viewed as just another task? 

That is good and true information. I just experienced some of those influential behaviors the other day when a Honda Manager called for a phone interview.  After the usual self assessment questions she proceeded to "tell me about the company" Her first sentence was "We have a point system, if you are 1 sec. late you get a point". Needless to say I was not impressed with the picture she painted of the company. Then we get to the "have any questions" part and I could tell she wasn't listening and didn't care. Her part was done and what I had to say didn't matter. I would assume she was looking for someone that would respond positively to all her negativity. Now I have a bad opinion of Honda. I apologize if someone is employed by them, I meant nothing personal.

I think that we can all think of an interview that the interviewer presented the company so badly that you thought twice about taking that job.  I think that both HR managers and hiring managers need to practice good interviewing skills.  It can make the difference between attracting the talent the company wants and the talent no one really wants. 

sheilajoe1 says ...

This article reveals that the interview is not recognized as the important tool it is for a company in making a positive impression in the market place.  Even if you have very good HR personnel; the interviewing skills of front line hiring managers can cost a company not only the loss of potential talent but the time spent filling their open positions .    How can companies emphasize the importance so it is not viewed as just another task? 

Interviewers need to come at these subjects from the interviewee's point of view.  Treat it with the importance that the interviewee wants to see.  Once we see by the first posting what employees are wanting, we can now assess our interviewing tactics to see if there is something we need to adjust.  I'll admit that it'll take some fine-tuning, and a lot of listening to employee feedback, but we should really see a difference once we get it right.

You can easily separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to recruiters.   A professional will never sell the employer, the candidate, or themselves short.   The recruiter realizes that his/her credibility lies in how they handle the complete situation, from start to finish, and the finish is not when the job is filled, but whether or not the candidate stays on the job and wants to be recruited again by the recruiter.   If it is an internal recruiter (an employee of the hiring company) this includes issues of job satisfaction, follow up surveys, promotions and transfers.   A professional recruiter builds a "book of business" of talented people they will follow for years to come even if a person isn't hired for this particular job.   Anything less from a recruiter and you are in the middle of a "cattle-call" and dealing with someone who is not a profesisonal.

I couldn't agree with this article more!!!  Unfortunately I have taken a position that I should never have taken based on the interview process.  The person interviewing me called me in and I waited an hour (my first mistake) for her in the lobby.  Then, the interview involved her husband asking her questions about me and her answering them.  I basically sat there until he asked if my significant other would mind me making the commute, and do I need to check with him and get back (my second mistake).  On both those occassions I should have walked out, but I wasn't working and needed a job.  I will never make that mistake again.  If the interview throws up red flags, pay attention!

Great article and very informative from both sides.

If an employer is deliberately making the employee uncomfortable by design, in an effort to get a reaction from the employee, then that would be a bad sign.  It wouldn't be very professional behaviour, and there would be a concern that such mind games would be played during employment, as well.  There are many more professional ways to discern if an employee would be a good fit into the company.  Deliberately making oneself look bad when conducting an interview wouldn't be very beneficial.  However, as you say and as has been said, the employee has the right to leave and look elsewhere.  That's really, as we agree, the best thing to do in such scenarios as we've seen here.  The article was informative, and the discussion fantastic, with many positive posts from the members.  Thanks, guys!

This has been a fascinating read!  The position I'm in now, I went through a grueling interview  not once but twice with the manager.  Was promised many things and none of them were delivered.  You as the candidate really need to pay attention to the flags - had I seen them, I would never have take this position.  Now, I'm paying the price for my mistake in several ways.