Job Interview Culture

Can I call job interviewing a “culture”? Why not; Everything else is a culture these days. After being on interview committees for my current temporary job and preparing myself for professional interviews, I have come to view the process with skepticism and disdain. There are few processes that are as poisonous as job interviews, at least in the way they appear to be approached by most.

The toxic environment of job interviews and the culture that surrounds the creation of the environment appears to be born from false assumptions, establishment of hierarchy, and intimidation. While the job interviews that I have contributed to running have been placed in casual contexts in casual clothing with an intentionally upbeat vibe, I have guttural reactions to the modes and ways others approach the interview process and the interviewer position.

The first point in a long list that will not be covered here is choice of questions. There are pre-made lists to choose questions from, professionally phrased questions that sound good to some, and functional questions that help isolate a candidate’s competency for a particular role. After seeing the way some think of and their motivations behind asking certain questions, I have come to absolutely detest questions that specifically seek a falsified response. I am talking about questions that will almost certainly result in a lie. The problem does not arise from pushing someone to lie – that can be very valuable – the problem lies in not knowing that the question you’re asking is going to illicit a bold faced lie.

Here’s an example of the above: “Will you be happy entering data 20 hours per week from data sheets gathered in the field?” The applicant has three options here: 1) Realize that this is an asinine question and challenge it, 2) Tell the absolute truth, or 3) Lie their face off and tell the interviewer what they want to hear. Options 1 and 2 will almost certainly eliminate the candidate. Option 3 will likely get a passing answer. Congratulations; You have just witnessed a bold faced lie from your potential employee and you likely had no idea they were lying. Instead, you lapped it up and called it a “professional” answer. Given a spectrum of happiness where nails on a chalk board is unhappy and eating gelato on a summer day is super happy, does entering data 20 hours a week EVER fall nearer to eating gelato on a summer day than to nails on a chalk board? Absolutely not. If you want to see how someone lies, ask them a question like this.

The second point will be questions that just aren’t your business. Like the question above. Someone’s projected happiness when talking about a job isn’t relevant. Sure, it’s good to know if someone is going to hate their life if they accept this job, but it can be assumed that by applying to a job, the person has implicitly admitted and accepted that they are willing to do the job, regardless of their happiness. At certain levels, it is important to know if someone will be happy working 60-80 hours per week instead of 40 doing executive work, but asking someone if they will be happy doing certain other jobs is… none of your business and instead triggers a lie.

My third point about job interview culture is that it is based on establishment of hierarchy throughout the entire process. Not only is the interview committee in a position of power, inherently, by offering a job to begin with, but those on the interview committee get to circle, sniff butts without consequence to them (all new candidates are easily replaceable), and bite at will. The interviewee is in a position lacking power and ability to answer honestly without consequence, even on questions that are irrelevant to their willingness to do a job and do it well. The establishment of hierarchy is built into the process as a gateway into a job and it comes by the way people in the room orient themselves in relation to the candidate, the way each member presents themselves, and the way in which comfort or discomfort is manifested through body language, spoken language, and choices of questions.

I guess my final point for this medium on this topic is the intimidation factor. Born from questions that make you lie, aren’t your business, are irrelevant to the job itself, and the way an interview committee establishes hierarchy either over or in partnership with their candidate, intimidation is a part of interviews and it gains little. Of course nobody wants someone who can’t handle a little intimidation on the job, but intimidating someone in the cockamamie environment and culture of job interviews will not get the needed information about how someone will work in a group. Instead, it shows how well a person can fleece you, kiss your ass, and handle superficial presentation of themselves. It is unfortunate that some interviewers cultivate an intimidating interview environment when it isn’t called for.

Strangely, this all came out of being on interview committees for new employees. I was an interviewer, not an interviewee. What I realized is that many interviewers do not take into account the context of the job being applied for, the nature of some question styles as lie creators, and the fact that some questions are irrelevant to hiring someone who can do a job and do it well. Will someone be happy doing data entry 20 hours per week? Sure, it might not make them want to bleed out in a public place, but when compared with walking barefoot on the Italian coastline, the answer is a resounding no.

The typical American culture of job interviewing is not only broken, it’s preposterous. Screening applicants for a job needs to come from an understanding for the context of the job, whether the candidate will do the job well, and whether the person will be a good fit for the group culture.  Finding answers to these questions will not come out of a typical job interview. Instead, interviewers trigger a lot of lies, canned ass kissing, and irrelevant details for finding good candidates. Instead of asking, “Will you be happy doing data entry 20 hours per week?” tell the candidate the job overview in simple, understandable terms, then let them process it as part of their decision-making process to select or reject the job after the interview. Then show interest in their history as it applies for the job, look for lies on their resume, and have a human conversation with them. Ask them what their favorite color is, what made them choose their college degree, what they like to do in their free time, and what they hope to gain from this position.

Be human and allow potential candidates to be human, too. Posturing, false pretenses, and traditional professionalism are a disease of prior generations and it is time to abandon them.