Post-Interview Debriefing:.

What Hiring Organizations Say About You

Few human situations are more dramatic than the job interview. It can be a tense time. Yet much of the action takes place offstage, when a candidate leaves and the door closes. It's then that each candidate's statements, style, and demeanor are discussed--perhaps picked apart--by those who will make the hiring decision.

Naturally, candidates might wish to be "a fly on the wall" at that moment. They'd love to be able to listen in to the unfiltered comments of those they hoped to impress. Candidates wonder, "What are they saying about me? What did I do right, and where did I miss the mark?" Many individuals do not have insights as to how they actually appear to others, especially in the stressful setting of a job interview.

A complicating factor is the growing use of the group/panel interview approach. Panel interviews have long been customary for CEO candidates and are increasing in use for other senior executive positions--partly, as a demonstration of the new collaborative spirit. Panel interviews challenge a candidate with the task of assessing the impression(s) made on a number of persons, not just one. What was hard, just got harder.

Part of my job as a search consultant is to attend panel interviews; after interviews are conducted, I listen to and assist the panel members in processing their perceptions and ideas. Because they want to be fair and thorough in their judgments, they're open and frank with me about what they liked--and what they didn't--in each candidate's presentation. They tell me, and I thought it might be interesting to tell you what they have to say. See if any of it sounds familiar. And remember, while their perceptions may not be accurate, they will drive the hiring decision.

Behaviors that hurt candidates...

Organizations are not favorably impressed by interviews in which:

* Candidates don't answer the question. Some candidates talk all around a topic but never actually answer the question. Interviewers sense it's because those candidates just don't know the answer. Far better to honestly say "I don't know"--to admit not every fact is at your command--than to appear vague, rambling, or evasive. A savvy candidate will offer to find the answer and get back to the person who asked the question as soon as possible. And then do it.

Candidates are excessively nervous and never relax. Interviewers don't feel they've gotten to know a tense individual. And they don't like the lack of preparation that is implied by nervousness, either. Everyone has nervous energy, but the solution is to harness it through role-playing and practice sessions. The world's great performers make it look effortless precisely because they rehearse so much. If you are nervous at the beginning, just try to settle down--interviews often get better as they go on.

* Candidates take too much or too little credit. When a candidate's every statement begins with "I," interviewers might wonder whether this is a team player. Bragging never creates a positive impression; no one can succeed entirely alone. An equally damaging impression of not being a leader is left unless a candidate clearly "owns" his or her successes--as I have recently seen played out. It's a fine line, but candidates must learn to walk it.

* Candidates tell us we're wrong. When the interviewers ask for a candidate's opinion, they want honest assessment--but no one enjoys being told they're wrong. Diplomacy and tact are executive traits that can be developed. Their absence is not subtle. Find a way to push back without being confrontational.

* Candidates don't know much about us. An organization wants the valuable feedback that executive candidates can provide in interviews. They are usually correct in thinking that candidates will take time to do research about them before an interview. Often, a physician executive candidate might say, "I don't really know your organization," when he or she means, "I've done my homework--read, gone on the internet, talked with colleagues--but, of course, I still have an outsider's perspective." Organizations don't expect candidates to be experts on their situation, but they do expect them to care and to pay serious attention. Many times, I've seen interviewers conclude that candidates were not interested, when they were actually just being extra careful.

The good things

Just as interviewers will be critical of what they perceive to be faults or flaws in the candidate's performance, they're often generous with praise for positive impressions. Interviewers are impressed when:

* Candidates project warmth and friendliness. Intellect is prized in physician executives, but individuals are rarely hired on that basis alone. I've seen interviewers respond to a less-qualified, warm candidate over one who is well qualified but cold. Develop charm.

* Candidates seem to understand them. How is this "understanding" communicated? It's simple, really--by the candidate's willingness to listen and to ask questions. It's essential to come prepared with some questions, as it shows you have interest and curiosity. Interviewers are likely to judge candidates as much on the quality of their questions as on their own personal presentation. They'll reflect, "He (or she) asked good questions."

* Candidates project a positive, executive style. Interviewers react and respond to a candidate's style and mood, perhaps not even on a conscious level. Body language is the subtle but reliable indicator for many interviewers. Crossed arms don't go over well, and fidgeting in a chair is distracting. Candidates who sit straight up and slightly forward seem engaged in the dialog. One qualified candidate did much better after he worked to control an unconscious habit of intermittently closing his eyes during interviews. A leg crossed with the knee up against a table does not create a feeling of openness; the interviewer senses a defensive posture. I have seen a number of candidates take this pose, and I can't recall one who ultimately got the nod.

A positive experience

It's worth noting that most interviewers are sensitive to the pressures and want to reduce interview session tensions. Ultimately, hiring organizations want all the candidates to do well, to have a positive interview experience. They've expended considerable time and money to select and bring in each individual for an interview. They respect the professionalism and reputation of each candidate. They know that while they are judging each candidate's merits, the candidates in turn are assessing their organization.

Although only one person can be chosen, many candidates are qualified and could succeed. They're all intelligent and possess impressive credentials--it's why they're being interviewed. What, then, makes the difference? Why is one chosen over others?

The answer is, the successful candidate has performed well in the interview process. Organizations generally choose their executives based on their personalities and the personal impressions they give in interviews. The individual who does best in this "test run" is ranked highest. The best advice for those who enter the arena as candidates is: maximize every opportunity to show your best self in every interview.

Mary Frances Lyons, MD, is a Senior Consultant at Witt/Kieffer, Ford, Hadelman & Lloyd in St. Louis.

KEY CONCEPTS

* Panel Interviews

* What Hiring Organizations Want

* Common Interviewing Mistakes

* Creating a Positive Impression

* Improving Interviewing Skills

Candidates always wonder what those in the hiring organization hove to say about them when the interviews are concluded. Now, become "a fly on the wall" and listen in as their comments and perceptions are disclosed in a special "debriefing session." Are they talking about you? Are you making some easy-to-fix mistakes in your interviews? The truth might hurt, but knowing it and making changes can also help you perform better in your next job interview. Same common mistakes include: not answering the question; being excessively nervous; taking too much or too little credit; telling interviewers that they're wrong; and not knowing much about the hiring organization. Interviewers are impressed when candidates: are warm and friendly; seem to understand them; and project a positive, executive style.

What Turns Off Interviewers?

Organizations are not favorably impressed by interviews in which:

* Candidates don't answer the question. Some candidates talk all around a topic but never actually answer the question.

* Candidates are excessively nervous and never relax. Interviewers don't feel they've gotten to know a tense individual. And they don't like the lack of preparation that is implied by nervousness, either.

* Candidates take too much or too little credit. When a candidate's every statement begins with "I," interviewers might wonder whether this is a team player. An equally damaging impression of not being a leader is left unless a candidate clearly "owns" his or her successes.

* Candidates tell us we're wrong. When the interviewers ask for a candidate's opinion, they want honest assessment--but no one enjoys being told they're wrong.

* Candidates don't know much about us. An organization wants the valuable feedback that executive candidates can provide in interviews.

What Impresses Interviewers?

Organizations are impressed by interviews in which:

* Candidates project warmth and friendliness. Intellect is prized in physician executives, but individuals are rarely hired on that basis alone.

* Candidates seem to understand them. This is communicated by the candidate's willingness to listen and to ask questions. It's essential to come prepared with some questions, as it shows you have interest and curiosity.

* Candidates project a positive, executive style. Interviewers react and respond to a candidate's style and mood, perhaps not even on a conscious level. Body language is the subtle but reliable indicator for many interviewers.