The Art of Interviewing IV

Previous post for reference : The Art of Interviewing III

I am back with the ways to overcome the difficulties that we fished out from the process of interviewing. Just to remind you that we had gone through all the stages of interviewing meticulously but even then found out that the main motive of the whole purpose was not solved just because of the lack of certain important things that needed a proper knowledge of methodology and in turn realized that it cannot be overlooked.

So let us first jot down the points that had emerged which needed a thorough processing before coming up with a perfect recipe of the art of interviewing. They were:-  

1.       Is the Job Description thoroughly prepared to give clear picture as to what is expected from the JOB?

2.       Is the Feedback form clear and understandable to the interviewer and does comply with the Job Description?

3.       Are the questions relevant enough to judge the candidate or rate the candidate confidently on the criteria’s mention in the feedback form as well as the Job Description?

4.       Last but not the least give a clear picture of what you have understood about the candidate which is generally known as the feedback or rating which you can justify confidently. HOW TO RATE?

1.            Job Description We generally ask for this document when we receive a call for some open position and the recruiter fails to explain about the open position or when we are not convinced about the organizations reputation in question. The recruiters ask for this document so as to explain or in other words save their ass when the applicant asks too many questions about the job profile. 

Have we ever given a damn thought about this documentation above the stated reasons? NO, I don’t think so. What do you think? 

There has been volumes written on the importance of this document but I will try to be brief and to the point here and will touch upon this topic sometime later.

Here, giving emphasis on the Job Description will have the following benefits:-

• ·         Give time and provoke a thought process on the visualization of the personality best suited for the given position.
• ·         It will provide greater possibility for the recruiter to entice the best suited applicants for the position in turn lessen the burden of all involved in the process.
• ·         It will give a clear picture to the interviewer at different stages of interview about the kind of skill and personality best suited for the position.
• ·         It will also help the interviewer immensely in preparing the questions to be asked during the interview and give a proper feedback on the performance of the interviewee.
•  

However, I would like to pose a question to you all. How many of the interviewers actually get to see the Job Description?

Over and above this I would like to emphasize on a proper meeting and brainstorming of the stakeholders before finalizing on the Job Description of the open position and it should include all the expectations from the job. I am not convinced with the above statement myself so let’s discuss it elaborately and then we may get a better picture of what I am trying to emphasize. 

Different parts of the JD are:-

Position/Designation – I think we should be a little bit open on this but depends on the organization in question as many applicants decipher the whole Job through the advertised designation.

Skills – This is the most important aspect of the Job description while looking out for a prospective candidate. It has been seen that in practice only the technical skills are emphasized upon and the personality traits are overlooked or just gets a vague mention as the last point with the following sentences “Good personality with exceptional communication skill” or “Good presentation skill”. Here there is need to visualize the prospective candidate and the traits should be written down in explanatory language so that the visualization is clear to all the stakeholders. For example in case of the open position the personality can be explained like:-

• ·         Attractive personality
• ·         Proper dressing sense
• ·         Proper body language and social etiquettes
• ·         Able to explain and put forth his or her points with a decent communication skill.

Why can’t we explain these traits in simple language for everybody to understand?

The above personality trait at least finds a place in form of a single sentence but what about the more important aspect – Behavioural Attributes. Why it is left to the interviewers to judge according to their own understanding without even giving a hint as to what is required or expected in terms of behavioural attributes?

Job Profile – Many a times I have seen a copy and paste of the above section in this section. Here, as the heading suggests, all the details of the tasks and responsibilities that is involved in this position should be jotted down. This should be through and detailed one and again in a clear explanatory language so that interviewer gets to interview the best suited candidates.

Other attributes which includes experience, education, salary, location can be well taken care by the organisation concerned.

2.            The next is Feedback Form. I have seen very few people carrying a feedback form or even a notepad to the interview. What does this signify? This signifies that the decision of taking the candidate in or out is taken in the first 10 minutes of conversation and latter the feedback form if any is filled which evolves round the decision already made. This is a very sorry state of our corporate culture and HR fraternity.  

Even if there is a feedback form, it is the same for all the positions and openings.

The Feedback form should be made in accordance with the Job Description with an easy format so that all can fill it with least assistance. It should contain all the attributes that the candidate needs to be judged upon. This will also assist the interviewer to set questions accordingly. The feedback form is as important as the Job Description in the sense that this creates the elaborate record of the performance of the said candidate in the interview. 

The format should be such that against each attribute, space should also be provided for comments other than the numerical ratings. The feedback form should also contain the information regarding the minimum rating needed against any rating for selection. I think this is new to everybody. Let’s take for example the communication attribute for a software engg. post. Do we need a person having a rating of 5/5 for this position to be selected? May be a 3 or 2.5 will do. Accordingly, against each attribute the minimum cut off rating should be mentioned for a given open position. This will also give clarity to the interviewer on the attributes to be emphasized on.

The basis is that we don’t need an Einstein for every position. 

3.            Now the next is the Set of Questions to be set for the interviews. It is wise to prepare a set of questions to be asked from the prospective candidates during the interview. This is the integral part of the structured way of interview and it has been seen that structured way of interviewing has many benefits above the unstructured way of interviewing. 

It keeps the uniformity of the basis on which each and every candidate is judged upon. Each candidate can be further probed on any specific question depending on their answers.

4.            Now last but the most important aspect; How to Rate? Have ever answered this question? Where do you rate yourself on a scale of 10? How do you answer? How do you actually rate yourself? Where do you stand on a rate of certain scale? Do you have any answer to the above questions? NO, let us find out together.

First, we will understand a scale. What is a scale? A scale is a system of ordered marks at fixed intervals used as a reference standard in measurement: a ruler with scales in inches and centimetres. Or a progressive classification, as of size, amount, importance, or rank: judging divers' performances on a scale of 1 to 10. 

Now we have the definition of scale for us to refer. We all have used a calibrated scale called ruler in our childhood to measure the length. Now let us say we are asked to measure the length of a stick without the ruler then what do we generally do? We find out another thing that has already been measured and keep the stick in front of it and give an approximately right measurement. Some of us are sharp enough to give this approx measurement because we have a fair idea of the length of the scale in our mind. But have you realized that even in the later case we are using ourselves and our vision to refer as a ruler? 

I will make you understand with one more example. What if you are asked to measure the height of a person on a TV screen with a blank background? Now here we don’t even have ourselves and our naked vision to refer to? Now you got the point.

Now from the above discussion the following inferences can be drawn:-

1.       If we have a scientifically calibrated scale, we can measure any length accurately.

2.       If we don’t have a scale handy then also we can give an approximately right measurement but on the condition that we have something to refer to whose measurement is known to us.

3.       If we don’t have a scale and not even anything to refer to then it is only an guess work which ourselves are not confident of.

Generally, the third instance is what happens with all the ratings that are done around us, be it our performance appraisals or interviews. 

I think now we can start to understand the process of rating on a given scale.

Let us take the scale of 1 to 10 for discussion where 1 being the least and 10 being the maximum.

First we need to calibrate each point on the scale. Which means that for each point we need to clarify what should a person posses to be rated on that point starting from Einstein i.e. 10. This can be done according to our own understanding because there is no universal scientific scale being used for such measurement. I think it is simple enough to understand.

Second we need to design the questions in a way that the answers and further probing on those answers will give us enough confidence to rate the person on the given scale judiciously.

I think this is workable without any extra load. Is it not?

I will suggest you one more methodology of rating which is a bit complicated than the above stated one.

Allotment of points for each of the Attribute indicators

	-ve indicators	+ve indicators	+ve results	Competency Awareness	% points
1	Strong	Nil			0%
2	Light	Light			40%
3	No –ve or +ve evidence for an attribute				50%
4	Nil	Light			50%
5	Nil	Strong			70%
6	Nil	Strong	Strong		80%
7	Nil	Strong	Strong		90%
8	Nil	Strong	Strong	yes	100%

Interpretation of the points

%Range	Level	Interpretation
0-36	1	Below Avg (without potential to improve)
37-50	2	Below Avg (with potential to improve)
51-63	3	Average (Generally delivers satisfactory results)
64-74	4	Proficient (Always delivers satisfactory results)
75-84	5	Highly Proficient (Generally delivers more than satisfactory results)
85-92	6	Expert (Delivers Reliably good results)
93-100	7	Master (Can deliver precise results)

The above two tables illustrates the way to rating or grading the interviewees and even your current employees.

I think I have put my best to help you to triumph over the difficulties that one faces in interviewing. I would like to hear your queries if you find any difficulty understanding the ways that I have suggested and also would like to hear your feedback on the same if you bring it to practice.

I would like to strictly advise my friends not to rely on your gut feeling and be unbiased while taking an interview as one prepares and is full of hopes while entering the interview room and should be given ample opportunity to prove oneself.  

HAPPY INTERVIEWING