There Might Be a Reason We Seem Distracted

Ask A Manager has a new post up about showing confidence in your job search.  In general, it's great advice, and there are some specific tidbits that should prove helpful for those looking for work.

A couple of commenters to the post have brought up an interesting subject.  An anonymous commenter writes:

I wish this had been written earlier. As interesting as the personal stories are on here, it also helps to hear general advice.

However, I would like to see something added on to here: When does being assertive cross the line?

Why? There have been times in an interview where I wanted to point out something to the interviewer that I felt was wrong, but I kept my mouth shut. I've been on a couple of interviews that were interrupted or the interviewer was distracted. I wanted to say "hey, I'm over here speaking." But to me, that would've been the wrong thing to say and consequently not get me the job (which I didn't get anyway).

In response, reader a.e. writes:

Anon, I totally relate! I am a rather confident person, I would think, but I have definitely been in an interview and the other person is checking email, is reviewing some other material, taking 5+ min calls, etc. Good times! I always struggle with what to do. I have tried the, "would there be a better time to re-schedule this because you seem to have a lot on your plate right now", but that doesn't make a lot of sense when you traveled especially for the interview. Anyway, like I mentioned, I have been out of work for over a year and a half so its not as if I can say I have found a strategy that works particularly well.

Alright, a couple of things: 1.) No, you should not offer to re-schedule and imply that the interviewer isn't doing his job properly; and, 2.) No, you shouldn't even think about saying, 'hey, I'm over here speaking.'*  Really, do either of those seem like a worthwhile course of action?

Though it is true that the interviewer might just be a jerk, there is the distinct possibility that something else is going on.  First, and most straightforward, the interview might just be busy.  He might be busy because he is understaffed.  He might be busy because of the very reason that you are sitting opposite him; he needs to hire somebody.  Rather than allowing your hackles be raised, just do your best to demonstrate why you'd be a good fit for the job, why you would lessen this burden.

There is another possible explanation.  This could be a stress interview.  The interviewer could be doing his best to get a rise out of you.  He could be trying to see how you respond under pressure or in the presence of rudeness.  In such a situation, he wants to see you phased.  Don't give in.  It doesn't matter how many interruptions, seemingly useless questions or barbs you have to endure.  Take it all; let it roll off your back; keep answering questions.  Interviewing may not be a game, but that doesn't mean you can't win.

As an aside, I used to conduct some interviews as if I was ill prepared.  I'd jump around the resume, asking about school, then work experience, then volunteering, then back to work experience.  I would do this for two reasons.  First, I didn't want people to get too comfortable answering the questions, and just walk them through their resume.  By jumping around, I would try to break them of the preparation they had done for the interview so that I could see the real person.  Sometimes, people would let the guard down so much, they would tell me things that they would never usually dream of telling someone in an interview (I once had a candidate tell me that he generally had a problem following orders, and never had any respect for any of the bosses for whom he had worked previously).

I would also do this to see how they would react.  If someone was quick to get in a huff the first time something didn't seem to go quite as they would prefer, I knew that was someone that I probably wouldn't want to hire.

I don't do this anymore, it's not really appropriate for my current job, but if I ever went back to my old job, I'd probably dust this little chestnut off.  I found it worked quite well.

*Okay, as an interviewee, if you are inclined to yell at people and tell them that they have to do what you consider important, please do let me know during the interview.  Terminations are never fun.

The Mathematics of the Familial Millstone

Evil HR Lady has an interesting letter from a reader seeking insight into a hiring decision her employer recently made.  It seems there was a candidate that should have been hired but wasn't.  It seems that she wasn't hired because her sister used to work for the company and left on bad terms.  It seems that there could have been no other reason not to give this person a job offer.

'Seems' is an interesting word.  It's a great way to kick off an investigation, but a lousy way to conclude one.

Here's what EHRL said (in part):

That said, unless you were in on the hiring discussions you can't know for sure that this happened. Why did they bring her in for an interview if they weren't going to hire her, based on her relative? That makes absolutely no sense. If they refused to interview her, the relationship could have been behind that, but have you checked the unemployment rates lately? Honestly, if I had 300 candidate resumes (not unusual lately) and one was the sister of the psychopath we had to fire two years ago, I wouldn't put her as my top choice unless her qualifications were so phenomenally above the other 299 people.

And that's my point right there: Yeah, it's possible that her relationship hurt her, but there are so many people for each available job that it's not likely the only reason.

Makes a lot of sense (as is to be expected from EHRL).  However, I do not think EHRL went quite far enough.  Sometimes, your personal and familial relationships are sufficient cause for not receiving a job offer (or in a situation I've seen, losing your job).  It is completely, utterly, 100% unfair to the candidate.

But it'd be completely, utterly, 100% unfair to those doing the hiring to force them to be blind to everything but a person's resume.

There's an old trope about, well, pretty much everything, but it gets applied to recruiting from time to time: recruiting isn't a science; it's an art.  Unfortunately, that's wrong.  It's neither; recruiting is, at times, mathematics.   It's risk/reward; it's balancing probabilities; it's playing the odds.  It's constructing an intangible metric that will maximize the probability that you will produce successful hires.  You can't do that by merely going through a checklist.

When constructing a team, ability, skills and experience are only part of the calculus.  One must take into account the dynamics of the working environment.  You've got to figure out if this new person will be a fit.  Employees do not always function rationally.  Their emotions guide them, and their productivity can be affected by endogenous and exogenous variables, tangible or not.  If an employee's relative holds a grudge against the company, it's not preposterous to imagine it could have a negative impact on the employee's productivity.  Further, it's not preposterous to think it could have a negative impact on the mood of the team, detracting from the productivity of the team as a whole.

Certainly, there's no guarantee that such an outcome would occur, but 'there's no guarantee that I will destroy the culture of your office' or 'it's possible that I won't be a huge distraction at work'  are not valid reasons to hire anyone.  As EHRL eludes to in her post, with two satisfactory candidates of similar experience and ability, why take the one that could become the office cancer.

As I mentioned, I have known people in this type of situation.  It sucks; it really does.  Judged solely through the eyes of the jilted candidate (who knows that she'd be a great employee and that there'd be no taint from a disgruntled relative) this is an egregious wrong.  However, if we take away the certainty of it - and the hiring process is riddled with uncertainties - no longer does the hiring manager seem like such an ogre.  If we step back, we see that the manager is just a person trying to deal with the imperfections of life.