Comments on: The New Interview: More Real than a 3-D Screening of Jaws

By: Michael DeHaven

Michael DeHaven — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:28:48 +0000

To add a little more context to this topic, I should make it clear that this was not a hostile or intimidating interview by any means. Mr. X and I discussed numerous topics, laughed, and shared an interview that was very casual. The only potentially hostile moment was near the beginning of the interview when I asked a very standard question like, “What circumstance brings you here today?” When his reply was totally canned, I replied with a smile, “That’s a great reply, but I could get that from anyone interviewing for this position. Take a minute to think and give it another try with something more unique to you.” I did this to let him know that I wanted to give him a really fair chance to show me what made him stand out from the crowd. Also, after watching him stumble at the whiteboard later in the interview, I walked up and showed him a couple ways that he could have answered the questions. He replied, “Wow, I really need to brush up on those skills.” I assured him that we understand that technical skills can be learned, and that I was trying to find out if his subjective self-assessment was consistent with our interpretation of the word, “proficient.”

In an article that we posted on CareerBuilder last year (Top 4 Strategic Interview Styles) you can read more about some traditional interview styles. I suspect that 3-dimensional techniques could be applied to any of those styles.

By: Chris Townsend

Chris Townsend — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:51:42 +0000

We recently interviewed candidates for a position that involved, in part, calculating payrolls, account transfers, calculating leave balances, etc. Essentially, it was fairly math-intensive. We selected candidates that had previous experience doing such work, and gave them an opportunity to show us how to do some basic math by selecting real life scenarios our current employee was doing.
What an eye-opener! Some people who claimed to have done it all with one hand tied behind their back couldn’t get the figures right. One person dismissed her lack of performance by stating “I don’t DO percents”. She won’t be doing our payrolls, either!
Asking people to demonstrate their skills doesn’t have to be threatening or hostile. One can be warm and supportive, but still expect a candidate to demonstrate what they know.

By: Ron Hendershot

Ron Hendershot — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:20:41 +0000

I have used the let’s go up to the whiteboard and just “do it” interviewing question style for years. I set the session up in an easy-going collaborative style. Collaborative in the sense that I work together with the candidate to create the answer. In fact I tell the candidate in advance that we will be doing this kind of style so there are no surprises. I also make it quite clear, in advance, that I will keep asking harder and harder technical questions, until they answer … “I don’t know.”. I make it clear that “I don’t know.” is a perfectly acceptable answer and is much better for them versus BS. This style of interviewing is much more effective than the crappy … “where do you want to be in 5 years?” … type questioning in which you learn NOTHING about what they can contribute to the organization.

By: Megan

Megan — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:19:53 +0000

I agree with this tactic or a varying form of it. We have interviewees complete a supplemental questionnaire which we created and is specific to our industry. Not only does it tells us before we even sit down face to face with the interviewee if they have the required knowledge to do the job, it shows their penmanship, punctuation and grammar. All of which are required to complete any position within our organization. Then during the interview process we pull from that questionnaire and have the interviewee verbally expand on each question to see how in depth they truly understand each concept. It has helped tremendously in the selection process.

By: John

John — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:41:15 +0000

I think this is a great technique and have done things like this in the past. It is similar to behavioral interviewing where you ask the candidate to provide specific examples of previous experiences and judgment. (Lies have no detail. Ask for details.) Demonstration is even better.

Stephanie commented that she prefers a more comfortable interview (doesn’t want the applicant to perceive that she does not trust them) and that most employees appreciate a pleasant work environment will make the job is desirable to a majority of the prospects, but this will not identify the person most capable of meeting the employer’s performance requirement for the job and therefore assist in the selection process. (In my experience, the appropriate “Definition of Trust” is not that you shouldn’t have to question an employee. It is that when you do question them, you can trust that the will give you the answer that you expect.) To that point, the 3-D interviewing technique is not just about catching the dishonest job candidate, it is really an opportunity for the candidate to prove and impress the prospective employer with their skills and abilities.

By: Lauren

Lauren — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:33:55 +0000

I have asked candidates specific questions to understand their perception of their proficiency. For example, “What are some of the functions in Excel that you use most often? Have you worked with Pivot Tables and in what way did it apply to your data?” I think this gets the same effect without the risk of offending the candidate.

Several years ago I was the candidate in a 3 dimensional interview. I was asked to teach the group (11 people interviewing me at once) how to tie their shoes. After I got off to (admittedly) a rough start, the lead interviewer stopped me and in an antogonistic tone asked me how I thought I was doing. Before I could adequately reply, she cut me off and told me to try again. I should have saved us all time because at that moment I decided I had no interest in working for a company that would treat candidates and probably employees in such a demeaning manner.

They may have been looking for someone who who could communicate difficult concepts in an easy manner, or someone who could respond to uncooperative clients, or someone who could handle high stress situations. Point is, it is a risky tactic. I have not and would not recommend that company to anyone — and now they may be working harder to recruit potential candidates.

By: Valentino Martinez

Valentino Martinez — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:27:10 +0000

Interviewing is double-edged sword. If you conduct such and interview as described in your 3-D expose, to be fair you would have conduct the same exact interview process for every candidate interviewed. Also, by asking a candidate to perform demonstration of their knowledge, you are introducing a “test” criteria. Interview tests must be qualified by legal and the OFCCP and can be challenged by EEOC relative to how the “test” is conducted and if the test is descriminatory to people who cannot walk up to a whiteboard, etc.

So you, the employer, must be careful on your 3-D approach to interviewing because skills can be taught, and employers can selectively eliminate whole populations (including protected classes) of candidates based on unique tests that only few can comprehend much less pass.

You may also assert that your demo questions are universal and all or most competent candidates should have them. Well, was every current employee now working for a company pass through the same gauntlet? If not, by what justification can you now apply a new screening devise to eliminate people you have hired in the past.

Best of luck in your 3-D model. I hope we don’t end up reading about how your 3-D model is now being challenged in court.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:14:52 +0000

Stephanie,

I disagree. A job interview is an evaluation. When I am a candidate, I understand that I am there so that my potential boss can evaulate my skills and abilities. There is no reason to take offense when he or she actually attempts to do that. I am a competent professional and have no hesitation in demonstrating that.

Attempting to verify stated skills and abilities does not necessarily make for an unpleasant work environment. The company I work for now has a very rigorous interviewing and background check process. I actually find comfort in that because I know we go to great lengths to hire the best. We have a very good team with a lot of long tenure associates. I attribute that, in part, to hiring the right people in the first place.

By: stephanie

stephanie — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:28:21 +0000

I prefer to do a more comfortable interviewing and you would be surprised what people will say that they CAN NOT do. Getting honesty is not always about putting people under pressure and honestly if I was interviewed in this way (giving the perception that you do not trust people you interview and potentially your own staff) then I doubt I would be interested in working in that sort of environment if offered a position. In attending some recent recruiter focused trainings through Monster I learned that statistically pleasant work environment is still one of the most important things that candidates look for in a new position. Yes, you could weed out some people that are not honest. However, you could also weed out some people that are perfectly qualified as well (and that you could easily train to use excel).