How to recover when interviews go “off track”

Some interviews just don’t go as planned. They get off track and you need to take action to recover and return the focus to gathering the information you need to make your hiring decision and hire the right person.

During my Interview Right to Hire Right workshops, participants discuss how to recover from at least eight ways that interviews go off-track. A previous article focused on what is likely the most common reason—candidates begin to talk about what they would do, and not what they have done.

They take your inquiry about what they have done and turn it into a “what-would-you-do-if” question. While the response may be in-line with your thinking, the candidate provides no evidence of having dealt with the situation in the fashion described in the answer. 

You need to interrupt the candidate to remind them that you do not want them to speculate on what they might do but to describe what they did when faced with circumstances similar to those you described.

In this article, I will focus on four other reasons interviews go off-course and how to get back on track:

The candidate says, “I don’t know” or “That’s never happened to me” Encourage the candidate to take a moment to search their memory for an example, no matter how small. Restate the question, followed by a “sympathetic persistence” statement (“Your answer to this question is important. It will help us decide who to hire.”) and a calculated pause to give the candidate time to formulate a response.

This pause should be no longer that 15 seconds, after which it is likely that the candidate will just become frustrated with the failure to come up with an example, which may make it difficult to continue the interview and to gather any useful information.

Tell the candidate, “That’s OK. We’ll move on to our next question, but we can come back to this question any time if you wish.”

Related Article: How do I assess candidates who say, “That never happened to me?”

The candidate focuses on what “We” did, not what “I” did – Certainly teamwork is important, but you only have one vacancy to fill. You’re not hiring a team, so you need to know what the individual did when faced with circumstances similar to those your staff deal with regularly. 

When candidates begin their response with the word “we,” interrupt to remind them that you want to know what they did personally—not what the team did. How did the candidate contribute to what the team did?

The candidate attempts to avoid your question – Rather than responding directly to your question, candidates may attempt to divert the conversation toward a topic with which they are more comfortable.

If this happens, interrupt the candidate to remind them of your question. “We may touch on your approach to customer service later in the interview, but right now I would like you to describe how you plan your workday.” Then wait for their response. If they don’t respond within 15 seconds, move to your next question.

The candidate attempts to bluff – Usually, this means that the candidate lacks any experience that is relevant to the circumstances that form the basis for your question. Rather than admitting to having no relevant experience, the candidate describes a situation that never actually existed.

You can respond in two ways. You can use the followup questions you prepared prior to the interview to seek more specific details about what the candidate did. Or you can “TORC” the candidate—with the threat of a reference check. “Is there someone I could contact to learn more about how you dealt with situation?” [This is a threat of a reference check.]

Because even the best organized interviews will go off track occasionally, here are three points to keep in mind when you interview:

Be prepared—Know what you are going to ask, including followup questions to gather the information you need to make the right hiring decision.

Be consistent—Require the same information from all candidates and use followup questions to fill gaps in the candidates’ responses.

Be alert—An interview can go of- track at any time. Respond quickly when it happens.

Grab this tool to navigate your way through the interview journey

There are some managers who are like early explorers when it comes to interviewing. They head off not knowing where they are going and are unsure where they are when they arrive.

Without the benefits of navigational charts, Google maps or GPS back in 1492, Christopher Columbus can be forgiven for his erroneous conclusion after sighting a Caribbean island that “This must be India. And those people over there are Indians.”

Or, in the words of our modern-day wandering interviewer, “That sounded like a good answer. Let’s hire her.”

There is a better way. You can create a tool that will help you find your way through the hiring process. For every question you will ask, contemplate how candidates might answer. What would an unsatisfactory answer sound like? An acceptable answer? An outstanding answer, such as what you might hear from a top performer.

Do more than imagine what they could say. Write down what you believe an unsatisfactory, acceptable and outstanding (top performer) answer would include. Involve members of your interview panel in this process, debating what would be unsatisfactory, acceptable and outstanding, before agreeing on criteria prior to interviewing the first candidate.

Assign a numerical value to each criteria statement: 1 for unsatisfactory, 3 for acceptable and 5 for outstanding. The 5-point scale enables you to give a candidate credit for an answer that is better than unsatisfactory, but still not up to the acceptable standard (score it as a 2) or not outstanding, but more than acceptable (4).

By defining what is unsatisfactory, acceptable or outstanding before meeting with candidates, you will make the process more objective. Responses can be measured against the pre-established criteria. By focusing on the criteria, you are better able to assess the content of the candidates’ answers and less on how it’s delivered. Candidates who do not interview well (shy, nervous, reluctant to blow their own horn) but have done the right things the right way (i.e. how your top performers do it) will be at less of a disadvantage when compared to other more articulate and outgoing candidates.

Here is an example of a question and its criteria-based rating scale:

“Describe a time when several people or tasks required your attention at the same time.”

1: No defined process for setting priorities; relies on others to set priorities.

3: Able to set priorities based on established criteria, but unable/unwilling to revise priorities based on new requests.

5: Sets priorities, but understands that interruptions occur and that there will be a need to reset priorities. Accepts this and is able to reset priorities without “stressing out” about it. If needed, will renegotiate timelines with boss.

==

During my Interview Right to Hire Right workshop, participants journey through the process from determining what competencies new hires should possess, to writing and asking questions the right way to gather evidence that leads to making the right hiring decisions. i.e. Has the candidate done the right things the right way in their previous jobs? Additionally they’ll receive information that will strengthen their interviewing skills: how to avoid asking illegal questions, how to keep interviews on track, how to probe for additional information and how to gather useful information when conducting reference checks. Contact me now to schedule an Interview Right to Hire Right workshop for your leaders. (780) 433-1443 or nmscott@telus.net.