next »

[irhack]

Anyone had one of those?

I recently went on an (admin postition) interview, at an office I had formerly worked at, but for a new position with a new supervisor, and she only asked me two questions in the whole 45 minutes. I wasn't called for a second interview, and apparently didn't get the job either, since they said they wanted to make a decision by now. I'm wondering how I could have handled it differently. I came in with a list of "talking points" I wanted to mention (things in my experience I wanted to highlight) and I did bring them all up in conversation. I'm glad I  did, because there would have been a lot of awkward silences otherwise. But obviously my experience didn't impress them enough to even have them invite me back for a second round--and I'm wondering, if there were gaps in my experience--why they didn't ask me about them.

Anyone else had an interview like that? How did you handle it?

[sibyl]

First of all, take deadlines like "we're hoping to make an appointment by the end of December" with a grain of salt.  Delays happen all the time.  Unless you know they have appointed someone, and even if you know they have actually had second interviews, you might still get called.

Second, the fact that you have previously worked in that office changes the dynamic a lot.  Many interviews are about meeting the people with whom you'll work; if you've already worked with people they may not think you need to meet them again.

Now then.  Generally speaking, shorter interviews are less serious than longer ones; they show that they don't really think the interview will convey much useful information to you or to them.  This could be because they already know they don't want to hire you, or because they already know they want to hire you, or because they don't care that much about the position.  There's no way to know.  I have had those short interviews but I have never had a job offer from any of them, and I count myself lucky.

How much of that 45 minutes was her telling you things about the job, and how much of that was you answering two questions?  If she talked for 30 minutes and you brought up your talking points in two seven-minute answers to her two questions, then that doesn't indicate anything.  If she asked you one question and you talked for 20 minutes, and then she asked a second and you talked for 20 minutes, then she might have been reacting to a barrage of answers on your part.  If you kept interrupting her monologue to bring up talking points, then maybe she didn't think she had to ask you questions because you answered them.  Maybe she didn't ask questions because you had a normal, pleasant conversation and she only had to jump-start it twice.  Since you only talked for 45 minutes, what could you have possibly said to mess up?  Since you only talked for 45 minutes, how can you see that as a good showcase for your abilities?

Bottom line:  Yes, such interviews are unusual, though not unprecedented, and they don't really provide much fodder for reexamination.  Try not to worry about it.

[losemygrip]

Ohmigod, I've had one of these.  It was a conference interview the first year I was on the market.  I'll name names--it was Univ. of Colorado at Denver.  These two nice women met me in their hotel room, and proceeded to describe the position and the university to me for 30-45 minutes.  Never asked me a single question until . . they ended with, "Do you have any questions for us?"  I believe I responded, "No, do you have any questions for me?"  I can't quite remember now . . . .

I had to hurry along an interview one time where the kindly old dean was chitchatting about pleasantries for most of our appointment, until I finally said something about did he have any specific questions about my qualifications or anything?  He actually switched gears then and conducted quite a good interview for the last few minutes.

[dellaroux]

Most people don't get the "ask a non-leading, non-specific answer question, then listen for an answer," thing.

Journalists are often horrible interviewers because they frame the question as a long statement of their own ideas, then ask the interviewee to agree or disagree, instead of thinking how to ask an open-ended question that lets the other person have space to talk, think, answer, whatever.

People in other settings, especially those without much training in interview techniques--and even some with that training--are even more clueless.

It's also true you might have over-answered, but they might have let you if they didn't know how to frame open-ended questions (those that don't require a yes/no answer.

Example: "Do you like the current setup for the playoffs?"

     You can really only say yes, or no, or, if you do want to qualify, you have to say one of them first, with a qualifier just after. But even getting the qualifying info in can be tricky, since the other person, either in their own nervousness, or feeling pressed to get the next question out, can cut you off.

     The real issue is active listening--you have to be listening for something of interest in the answer to keep the interview/conversation going by following what the other person is saying.

Better Example: "What do you think of the playoff rota?"

And then pick up on something within the answer that maybe ties to your next question more generally.


Even Better Example, "How do you feel about the use of computer-run gaming sequences to set up the rota in national playoffs?"

Instead of thoughts, you're asking for feelings, which elicits a greater range of possible answers and gives the interviewee more room in which to shape their own answers. It also lets them open up about their passions, if any, in the situation (I couldn't care less about playing rotas, but my dad and brothers can--and do--go on about such stuff ad infinitum).

I think of it as creating a voltaic difference between myself and the person I'm interviewing, allowing that they know much more than I do about something and inviting their creative mulling-it-over in my hearing. But that's just the issue that unskilled interviewers have to overcome.

The ones that tell you all about the job and don't listen or ask questions may in fact have such serious control issues that you might just as well be glad that you don't appear to be about to be working for them.

Because I, in fact, take that kind of interviewing as a sign that they are quite possibly so micro-managiing that we'd both be miserable, and after that polite thank-you note for their time, move on.

[madhatter]

Ohmigod, I've had one of these.  It was a conference interview the first year I was on the market.  I'll name names--it was Univ. of Colorado at Denver.  These two nice women met me in their hotel room, and proceeded to describe the position and the university to me for 30-45 minutes.  Never asked me a single question until . . they ended with, "Do you have any questions for us?"  I believe I responded, "No, do you have any questions for me?"  I can't quite remember now . . . .

I had to hurry along an interview one time where the kindly old dean was chitchatting about pleasantries for most of our appointment, until I finally said something about did he have any specific questions about my qualifications or anything?  He actually switched gears then and conducted quite a good interview for the last few minutes.

Hmm. I had a phone interview with UCD (or CUD, or however they abbreviate it). It was noteworthy because they had about three questions for me, but the search committee consisted of a dozen people. They spent more time introducing themselves than asking questions.

Never got a campus visit. The position was frozen, then unfrozen, then frozen again, then I got an update that they were deciding whether or not to unfreeze it, then it dropped off my radar.

[anthroid]

Yes, I've had interviews like this, and I think Dellaroux's take on this kind of interview "technique" is spot on.  Someone who talks and talks and talks either feels very awkward interviewing and doesn't quite know what or how to ask (not a good sign if this is your potential supervisor though largely irrelevant if the person will be your colleague) or will be the micromanager from hell (also, of course, not a good sign).

And conference interviews are a completely separate species, not useful for comparison with other kinds of interviews (though good for a few laughs!  Poor U of CO Denver!).

[irhack]

To clarify, the interviewer didn't talk much at all, maybe because I'd worked in the office and was very familiar with it and the open position. There were a lot of silences. Based on your responses I guess it just wasn't a serious interview and the lack of questions indicated a lack of interest. Maybe it was just a courtesy interview, because of my ties to the office. I just wonder if there was any way I could have salvaged it.

[mended_drum]

I had an interview like this during my first year on the market.  There were two questions:  "Tell us about your dissertation"--which I answered briefly--and "So, do you have any questions for us?"

I was disappointed then.  Now I'm mildly amused.

[anthroid]

To clarify, the interviewer didn't talk much at all, maybe because I'd worked in the office and was very familiar with it and the open position. There were a lot of silences. Based on your responses I guess it just wasn't a serious interview and the lack of questions indicated a lack of interest. Maybe it was just a courtesy interview, because of my ties to the office. I just wonder if there was any way I could have salvaged it.

Oh, weird!  I think your take on it is right.  I don't know if there was anything you could have done, particularly if it was simply a courtesy interview (though those are becoming less and less common, I think).  This person sounds downright rude, in fact. 

[irhack]

Update: I just received a very kind rejection email. It was about the nicest rejection I've ever gotten, complete with talk about "keeping the door open" for future opportunities, so I guess I didn't blow the interview completely, anyway.

[gabriellejobadvice]

Hi irhack!  This is relatively a common scenario.  Though you did well in answering the interview questions, you are still not emitting the right response to the interviewer.  Apparently, the interviewer did not like your body language.  Be aware that a job interview is not about how you speak fluently your answer.  It is about how you display your character.  Though you are responding intellectually and giving information on how credible you are, your body language can still say the opposite thing.  Probably, the interviewer read your body language and was not liking what she saw.  Do you get me?  If you have question on this, I am willing to elaborate more.  I'll be checking on you once in awhile.  Good luck!

[irhack]

I'll be checking on you once in awhile. 

Please don't.