How to Handle a Group Interview

Help me understand: Why can't we

Help me understand:

Why can't we takes notes (including names) during a group interview?
The notes I usually take are:
- names (I never read them, but the act of writing them helps me remember them)
- interesting things that people mention that are worthy of a follow-up question

In a stressful and awkward situation such as an interview, what is the harm in taking notes? In the 'cast, you say that we can't, but you don't explain - can you please explain?

NEVER TAKE NOTES IN AN INTERVIEW. An

NEVER TAKE NOTES IN AN INTERVIEW.

An interview is an artificial reality, and one of the rules is no note taking.

The closest communication pattern to an interview is a conversation. It's not a meeting, and it's not a discussion about business. It's a highly stylized, formalized, narrowly construed conversation.

And, we don't take notes in a conversation, and we don't write folks' names down when we first meet them.

Now, CAN you? Sure. But there are a lot of things you can do that we don't recommend.

Interestingly, you must be READY to "write something down" if the interviewer asks you to write down their number or an address...but that's not note taking.

I urge you NOT to take notes. Most managers would ding you for it.

Mark

I thought it interesting that you think

I thought it interesting that you think group interviews are rare. When you said that, I thought you must be talking about groups of interviewees at an interview. Bearing in mind I'm in NZ - but I have never ever been to an interview with less than three people on the panel. For me it's the norm, perhaps I've had unusual experiences but I wouldn't call them rare. But hey - I'm institutionalized, having only ever worked in large and often governmental organizations - currently teaching IT in a polytechnic (think college) where we're mandated to have multiple people in the interview panel, including a union rep I think.

I'm also wondering about the whole thank-you note thing. I'm not sure that will translate well into this culture. I've a feeling it would come across as sycophantic obsequiousness (ie a greasy tosser).

The eye contact thing is important tho - I'm passing this on to some graduating students - I'm sure they'll find it useful. Thanks.

In my previous company, one of the

In my previous company, one of the world's largest insurers, we actually established a rule that no interviews will be done with less than 2 interviewers. The reasons for that were clear:
- prevention of discrimination by the interviewer in his later judgment of whatever so subtle form
- only very very good and trained interviewers get the judgment right after interviewing a complete stranger for only an hour or so.
- it is not easy to listen to what an interviewee is saying and at the same time take in his/her mannerisms, behaviour, and other "secondary communication" at the same time
- four eyes and ears always see and hear more than two

I'm still in favour of it ! Cheers.

I have to agree with daveb. I thought

I have to agree with daveb. I thought you were talking about multiple interviewees, similar to a group interview day for military selection in Australia.

I don't think I've ever been to an interview with less that two people asking questions. Kind of the norm in large government situations.

I thought the podcast was clear that

I thought the podcast was clear that two people is not a group. I always take an HR person with me for a second pair of eyes. I always make it clear to the interviewee, however, that I'm the one they need to persuade.

I was forced into conducting a group interview once and I'll never voluntarily do it again. I find that the valuable information comes from the answers to follow up questions. It's hard to ask those when someone else wants to jump in with a new line of questioning. It results in a very superficial interview.

PS: Love the casts guys - see you in November 08 I hope!

Folks- Thanks for the comments.

Folks-

Thanks for the comments. Sometimes the names of things (what is a "group" interview?) get in our way, and for that I'm sorry.

I do acknowledge that governments are the most likely organizations to conduct group interviews - but they're ineffective nonetheless. Look, there's already enough stress in interviewing - often, group interviewing processes put it over the top. And, saving time to make a bad decision is BAD planning.

And don't get me started on interviewing a group of candidates at the same time. THAT ought to carry jail time and stiff financial penalties!

Mark

Yes it seems downunder group interviews

Yes it seems downunder group interviews are prevalent.

Personally I think it is rather discourteous of an organisation, if they have not notified me prior to the meeting who will be present, at the meeting or interview.

I agree be ready to take notes, but rarely do.

ANISE ~ Brisbane, Australia

I do agree that interviews don't show

I do agree that interviews don't show much. The pretty much just indicate whether a person can do well in an interview or not, and usually the position's I've been on the panel for don't require such skills in the day to day work (although interviewing for teachers might just qualify)

By the time we get to the interview, pretty much all of the people being interviewed could do the job. Mostly all I'm looking for is - does the person annoy me?

BTW I've had a few InfoTech graduates tell me that they were put through practical troubleshooting tasks. That'd stress me out completely, I wonder what you think of scenario and practical work based interview/selection

Dave- We disagree. Good interviews

Dave-

We disagree. Good interviews show everything, in spades. They do far more than indicate whether someone can do well in an interview.

And, sorry you'd be stressed out - we agree with tests that further measure skills the measurement of which can be attenuated by verbal skill variances.

Mark

You state in the 'cast that group

You state in the 'cast that group interviews might be more efficient, but I'm not seeing that, either. 5 interviewers, one hour each. Whether they're in a room together or not, it's 5 person-hours. (OK, it may be more efficient for the interviewee, but that's irrelevant!). Worse, you get far fewer questions answered, so you find out less about the candidate.

So not only is it ineffective, it isn't even more efficient.

John

John- I was imprecise in my comment.

John-

I was imprecise in my comment. I did not mean to suggest that we thought they were more efficient, but rather that those who use them think that. Sorry I didn't make it clear.

And, there are different types of efficiency: conducting 5 interviews in one hour, to allow more interviews in one day, IS more efficient, particularly when considered in the context of interview costs and minimizing time between opening and filling the position.

Mark

Mark, Thanks for the reply. I

Mark,

Thanks for the reply.

I can see few instances where group interviews are more efficient. Let's assume each candidate has to meet with 5 people. One candidate, 5 person hours. Two candidates, 10 person hours.... 5 candidates, 25 person hours. If you have fewer than 5 candidates, you can get the group interviews done in as many hours as you have candidates (three candidates done in a group, 3 hours elapsed, 15 total person hours...three candidates done in individual interviews, 5 hours elapsed, 15 total person hours). Same number of total hours, slight advantage in getting one set done 2 hours ahead of the other. But with four candidates you're only getting a one hour advantage, and beyond that, there is no advantage at all. (OK, you're also using rooms more efficiently.)

You can interview 8 candidates in one day with either system. Given the downside of group interviews, it would be hard to justify them for the occasional hour or two improvement in the overall hiring cycle.

Apologies for the geekiness of this post.

John

Wasting hours of employee time in group

Wasting hours of employee time in group interviews merely to oversee the process is a poor reaction to the general ineffectiveness of the hiring process. A better response would be to fix the process, not to absolve individual responsbility by hiding behind a group process.

It is very unlikely that all interviewers are equally involved in the decision making process. The hiring manager should presumably have the largest say (otherwise, why are they a manager?) . If the others are there merely to make sure that they are comfortable with the hiring decision then they should review the notes from the behavioural interview and maybe have a short meet and greet of candidates.

John- WE don't count time in person

John-

WE don't count time in person hours. We count time in hours. Your examples leave out conflicts, - which are rife in interviewing. One interview with 8 people is done in the morning, and thanks to co-location, you can canvass results immediately and make a decision more quickly. Further, 8 one person interviews means the 9 am interviewer has moved on to other things, and may not give feedback that day, and then goes on the road, and suddenly it's been 3 business days - and 5 actual days - and HR doesn't even know whether to offer or not.

Your context is too narrow...and efficiency isn't the point anyway. ;-)

Mark

Mark, How is the candidate supposed

Mark,

How is the candidate supposed to know how to spell the interviewers' names, which is necessary, of course, for thank-you notes? I guess one could ask politely for business cards, but not everyone will necessarily be carrying them, especially if some of them are not managers or salespeople but engineers.

Thanks,
Isaac

Guys I work in a US based company

Guys

I work in a US based company that had an Australian parent company. One of the legacies was the introduction of behavior based interviews (group style). I have used the "group" style for the past seven years with good success. Only two failures of the process but I do not see that being related to the group effect. I will have to listen to the cast again. Maybe I missed why having multiple points of view in an interview is a bad thing. I have to say I agree with almost everything you guys say in the podcasts and I am struggling with this one...

On a legal note how do you manage the risk of percieved discrimination if the interview is one on one?

Is this topic covered in the premium content or the interview series in more depth???

Ron

Isaac- Ask for cards, and if they

Isaac-

Ask for cards, and if they are not forthcoming, say, "I'd like to write you a brief thank you note. Would you please spell your name for me?"

Or, ask the coordinator. Really - would you turn down such a request?

Mark

Ron- Good points. Alas, having more

Ron-

Good points. Alas, having more people doesn't improve interviewing results. There's no data to suggest it. On the other hand, your case has MUCH more to do with behavioral interviewing than it does with group interviews. Having more people see a good or bad behavioral interview is only painting the lily, or wasting more folks time.

What perceived discrimination? Who is discriminating? Who is perceiving? And how would a group mitigate that? ARe we looking for witnesses? For the defense?

This should be fun...

Mark

PS: GREAT post Ron. Thank you.

Mark, I think Ron is referring to the

Mark, I think Ron is referring to the following situation:
If a company uses only males to interview and hire another another male employee, a female interviewee may use that as a reason or part of an argument to appeal the process, that is, she didn't get the job because the interviewers were all male and biased, so will appeal the process.

I suppose you could insert any religious group/race/gender in instead of a female interviewee. At least if you cover the gender thing, and have both male and female interviewers, you can "cover yourself" so this issue doesn't arise.

It is a bit of "political correctness" or doing things to make sure all I's are dotted and T's crossed, and I'm not saying it is correct, but that is how it was explained to me, and how my company usually tries to do things.

Ken.

I've had dozens of interviews over the

I've had dozens of interviews over the years (both public and private sector organisations) and can only think of one that wasn't group, the others there was always at least 3 interviewers. The one exception was an interview to get onto a course and probably doesn't count as the first thing the interviewer said when I sat down was that it was only a formality and I was on the course.

At my current employer it is mandated that all interviews be a 3 person panel and that the panel reflect (in so far as possible) the interviewee pool. So if all the interviewees are white males you can, but are not required to, have an all white male panel; if there is one woman or one black interviewee then you must have an interviewer who is female/black as appropriate. Similarly if an interviewee discloses a disability, that they're gay or that they practice a faith then (in so far as possible) that should be reflected in the interview panel. This is, as indicated by Ron and Ken, to avoid accusations of sexism or racism. It doesn't always happen that the interview panel reflects the interviewee pool, sometimes it's not always possible (I have seen emails going around asking if there's anyone from a particular group willing to assist in an interview, followed by another one the next day asking if there's anyone who shares one or more characteristics with that group) and other times the hiring manager simply doesn't bother to follow the procedure. I'm aware of 14 occasions in the past 8 years where an unsuccessful candidate has brought a complaint due to the make up of the panel not reflecting their gender, ethnicity &c, 2 were successful (we had to pay compensation) in the other 12 cases it was possible to argue that reasonable efforts had been made but no-one suitable could be found. Still, even in the unsuccessful cases someone still had to investigate the complaint, check the law and report back to the complainant, in some cases (where the complainant is particularly tenacious or is backed by a 'community' group) appearing at tribunal (i.e. court) to argue the case.

Stephen

Stephen- I had no idea. Sorry to

Stephen-

I had no idea. Sorry to hear it.

Mark

Ken- Thanks for the clarification.

Ken-

Thanks for the clarification. I did miss that.

All-

If your purpose is to avoid being sued, there are two solutions that I bet would work best. One, interview only those - regardless of qualifications - whom you think would never sue. Or, two, train ethical managers to give fair interviews. The idea that ethnic (or other "diverse" criteria) make up of a panel is a better way to ensure lack of lawsuits - or that lack of lawsuits is a better outcome than quality candidates - is silly, unless there are laws governing interviewing panel make up (which , while misguided, is certainly to be honored).

More bad interviewers, regardless of race or creed, INCREASES the chance for bad results, legally or professionally.

You cannot replicate the results of one professional interviewer with more un-trained interviewers, and the latter costs more.

Mark

Mark, I think it's a question of

Mark,

I think it's a question of what's easier, to give the appearance of equality by having a wide range of, untrained, people on the interview panel or to train managers on how to deliver equality and audit the process to make sure it's working? Or at least what seems easier.

Stephen

If easier is the standard, you guys

If easier is the standard, you guys win.

I want to compete with companies who think easier and appearances are what's important.

What was it that Kruschev said at the UN? ;-)

Merry Christmas all!

Mark

Mark, I didn't say I agreed with the

Mark,

I didn't say I agreed with the policy. It's one solution to a very real problem, a band aid, works in the short term but not ideal in the longer term. It's a policy based on paranoia and fear, fear of being sued. Fear and paranoia tend to make people make poor decisions, they're reactive and about yesterday rather than proactive and about tomorrow. But when you're the major employer in an area (50,000 employees (38,000 FTE) in a city of one million with around 3 million customers and an annual turnover of between 2 and 7 billion pounds sterling[1] pa) you tend to be a major target for litigation and scrutiny. It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you!

I'm sure that training managers in how to recruit staff would result in an improvement, training our managers at all would help as well. Last week I assisted in delivery of a course on facilitation skills for managers in a department that has a problem with excessively Theory-X managers causing discontent amongst their staff leading to high turnover and poor performance. Of the 12 managers who were supposed to be on the course 6 showed up, 2 canceled saying they couldn't get away and the others simply failed to appear. Talking to the managers who did attend it became clear that they felt that the managers who didn't attend were the ones who needed the training the most. I have frequently heard complaints from managers about how they are expected to operate procedures without any training in them and how as new managers they feel very much unprepared and left to fend for themselves with no training, coaching or opportunity for mentoring in how to manage. The culture seems to be very much that new managers should know it all already or pick it up as they go along. When asked I've pointed some managers to MT, suggesting specific casts that cover an issue they have at the time when possible, and loaned them books that deal with the technical aspects of the work (ranging from PowerPoint through SWOT to how to read a balance sheet) when needed. There does seem to be change in the wind though, we recently introduced a management and leadership development programme in the business unit I'm part of (500 staff, turnover around £300 million pa), maybe it will spread?

Are you referring to Kruschev's September 1960 speech to the UN where he talked about the USSR welcoming new members to the UN whilst the Western powers feared the newly liberated former colonial states of Africa and Asia (a somewhat ironic statement given the following 30 years)? Whilst it is true that many companies in our area are threatened by competition or subject to take over bids from the states that Kruschev was referring to virtually everything we do is very much 'boots on the ground' and unless we start shipping our service users overseas the work has to remain local. A recent article in India Times talked about how Indian companies are courting us to be able to provide staff and services for us and for assistance in penetrating our local markets.

Stephen

[1] The exact figure is uncertain due to the weirder aspects of UK public sector finance. Basically the 2 billion is what the politicians will tell you we spend, the 7 billion includes all the money that technically belongs to other bodies but we tell them how to spend it.

Hi, Very usefull info. Cheers! CV

Hi,
Very usefull info.
Cheers!
CV Creator

just thought I'd drop a followup

just thought I'd drop a followup ...

Early in the comments I wondered if the thank you note would be seen as a bit sycophantic down under.

I was very wrong. I've recently heard a couple of reports from people who have done that and reported a good response. Didn't get the jobs - but were told that it was appreciated.

Also - I think we do agree with you re meetings (yes AGREE). I don't think they are not a good way of identifying good hires .... when done by me and other's like me.

I suspect that interviews are an excellent tool for yourself.

The difference? I haven't a clue what I'm doing. I take part in an interview about once every couple of years. And feel like I'm engaging in a square dance where someone's told me one or two of the dozen steps which are involved. I don't kid myself that I'm any good at doing something that I only do that infrequently. I just hunt for 'weirdness' or hunches that someone might not be suitable. Crude - but it's the best I can do.

Oh - I do try and get experienced people (HR types) when I can - but at the end of the day if it's my hire then I'm going to be there and make the final call. Even with my lack of finely honed interviewer skills. By good guessing or luck the few I've hired have been pretty good (but who knows the gems I've missed).

As for task-based interviews. Yes I'd be stressed if I took one. That's not a bad thing - and I do think they would be a very very valuable tool, at least for an IT or technical job.

Anyway - just wanted to say that I was wrong about discounting the thank-you letter.

Great casts guys - I look forward to them

Dave- No worries! And...we're

Dave-

No worries!

And...we're readying a series of casts about how to be the interviewer... you'll love them. FULL of details.

Mark