This blog post offers 10 essential tips for interviewers to conduct effective interviews.

Prepare Thoroughly
Define the Ideal Candidate Profile
It only takes a few minutes before an interview to review resumes, notes, assessment results and other documents. Importantly, these do not give you answers – resumes are, more or less, sales documents. And as with any sales document, there are things that are said, things omitted (not necessarily deceptively, but could be), and things between.
Resumes do not tell you the answers, but they can help you to pursue specific lines of questioning. This is important – if those documents told the answers, why waste time with an interview? Rather, it’s time to get curious about why things happened as they did. The resume and cover letter are great for that – and the more they say, the easier this can be.
There is no need to re-read every document many times over, as you risk forming opinions and drawing conclusions before you even speak to the candidate. There’s no point trying to remember it either – it’s not a memory test. Just be familiar, note down things of specific interest, look for gaps (chronological and logical) and patterns, and be ready to move around and explore as you talk. This allows you to have an informed conversation, and to make sense (or perhaps nonsense) of resumes and cover letters.
From the other side, would you like the candidate to view you as professional and respectful? Is it OK with you if the candidate is not prepared? What would that say about the professionalism and respect you can expect from them?
Develop Targeted Interview Questions
Interviews can be stressful for everyone. And you want to come out of a series of them with some objective comparisons too. To give yourself a base to work from, the best thing to do is have a template set of questions that is relevant to the job. Sure, you can have some generic stuff in there, but there are no special secret questions that will always reveal the truth like some sort of miracle, no matter what any guru says.
Apart from giving you some structure, and not having you feel at a loss for what to ask about next, a question template helps with objectivity, covering the most important bases with everyone for objective evaluation. If candidate A gets asked one thing, and candidate B another, how can you make a fair comparison?
The next thing is to use some of your question list as a guide. There are some basic things you need to check off with everyone, and it is appropriate you have some questions you always include and never change, perhaps about education, certifications and so on, so don’t leave them out. It’s OK if you let them know you have standard questions for things like this – the more you normalise it, the less they have to worry about.
The other questions, probably generally those that are more behaviourally and conversationally based, are a framework to refer to. I always have a list of questions, and I never use all of them. Instead, I use them to start conversations, and then follow the conversation, like any good journalist or therapist would.
If you come to the end of a line of conversation, you can go back to another question on your list, but pretty soon you’ll find that you have discovered many of the answers through a more comfortable and natural conversation anyway.
Create a Comfortable and Professional Interview Environment
You are about to talk with someone who might be an important part of your team’s success or failure, yet you rush in with 1 minute to spare, or perhaps even late, and allow yourself to be interrupted by calls, emails, texts or whatever else. Is that the message you want to send about how important your people are to you, for one of the most important meetings you will ever have with them?
Think about it this way. How much time and stress will it take if you make the wrong decision, or the candidate gets the wrong idea about the job, or you lose someone because they think you are a bit of a snob? Is the investment in not taking that call, or being distracted by that email, worth it as a payback? Unless the building is on fire, it’s not worth it.
I have to admit some candidates make this hard, as they can waste time rabbiting on about things that don’t matter, and the mind of the interviewer can start to wander to something – probably anything – else that is more interesting. When this happens, there are two useful options for the interviewer. One is to pay attention to what they are talking about and, perhaps more revealingly, not talking about, that perhaps all those words are hiding. The other is to gently take control and bring them back to the point if you are pressed for time. You have the power to do that – just do it nicely.
I had an experience some years ago where I was asked to attend an interview in the city, which was then going to involve a video conference with a senior manager in another city. The senior manager arrived last, then mostly looked down at her lap-top, phone and whatever else, not asking questions or even watching the screen before saying, “I’m not getting a sense of you”. I was speechless then, and still am today, apart from words like self-important, disrespectful and incompetent. Is that a good impression to create about self, culture and the prospective employment experience? Would a high-quality applicant want to work there?
Even if you don’t have a lot of time, at least still make sure you are on time, be prepared, and then give the candidate and the interview all of your attention. 100% of it. Show them the person you are and reflect the culture you want to have. Most of all, model the type of respectful attention and courtesy you’d like to see them give to you.

Conduct a Structured Assessment
Establish Rapport and Put the Candidate at Ease
The number of times an employer has said, “They were very nervous!” as a mark against a candidate is crazy. The employer holds the power in the interview, so it is up to the employer to help the candidate “be themselves”. If not, you will probably see their flight/flight/freeze reaction, but little else. Is that relevant?
Nervous candidates can quickly fall into “surviving” the interview, which means they might go on and on trying to fill in the gaps, trying to appear confident but failing, or they might go quiet. Either way, the chances that useful information will flow easily are not great. This is because of science.
In fight/flight mode, the “smartest” parts of the brain are less capable, so answers may not be as thoughtful and considered as they could be. Pulse will be raised, they might sweat, and they will make honest mistakes while probably bluffing more than they need to. Is that the mode you expect them to generally work in?
Instead, what if you made them comfortable? Set out the room to minimise your power (such as not being behind a big desk or sitting on a higher chair), offer them a drink (and then get it yourself – or even better, have them accompany you to get it!) and talk about little things (this is called “social grooming”, and it creates trust). Then work your way towards some innocuous questions about their experiences and hopes?
Before you know it, you can have a really enjoyable and informative conversation that shows you how they will most likely behave and interact with others if they were to join your team. If you want to show your power instead, that’s probably more about you. It also tells the candidate what to expect if they choose to accept your offer.
If their intention is to be honest, this is your best chance of getting to know them and their story. If their intention is to be dishonest, they are likely to get overconfident and can be easily tripped up.
Manage your “gut feelings”
It is very common and natural that “first impressions” will rule candidate evaluation. We evolved to quickly form views of people and situations so we could estimate whether we are safe, and what we can do to protect our advance our interests. Stereotypes and “isms” and tribal behaviours are a part of that. It’s natural. But is it always helpful? Once we start putting more than a passing weight on first impressions and gut feelings, the interview risks becoming a useless but quite comforting confirmation-bias session. Unless your gut feelings are always right…
If our intuition or “gut feeling” was always right, we’d never make a mistake. Do people who use favourite numbers win the lottery more than anyone else? Why have any recruitment process at all other than an interview, or however one might divine this sense? Because it doesn’t work, and it cuts off other parts of our information gathering and processing capabilities. Effectively lowering IQ in this way doesn’t help our chances of making the best possible decisions.
On the other side, ignoring gut feeling would be as big a mistake as only using it, as we would be cutting off a valuable source of evaluation, whether or not we can put those feelings and processes into words. Gut feeling draws on subconscious knowledge and processing of things we might not be able to put into words, but it is not the be-all and end-all.
There is a limit though. Because gut feeling is felt rather than reasoned (implicit, if you like, rather than explicit, largely drawing on memory systems of the same names), forming an opinion and then being influenced by confirmation bias to support it is a very natural thing to do – we all do it, every day, about many things. We feel something is right or wrong, and then we find the “facts” to back that up. It feels very reassuring to do that.
Animals rely on gut feeling because they have limited rational processing capacity compared to humans. It’s pretty much all they have. We have this whole other level of processing that we can use too – so why not use it? And rather than simply have one processing system provide comfort for the other, what if we use one to inform, and perhaps even challenge, the other?
It feels great to go with gut feelings, as they are based on feelings – that’s a no brainer (well, a half-brainer). But, by definition, putting too much weight on gut feeling alone is not “smart”. Do you want to make comfortable decisions, or smart ones?
Stay away from too much talking
You are the interviewer. You have the power. You make the decision. You had control over the appointment time and place. You get to set the agenda. Yet, instead of making it about them, you make it about you.
I get frustrated when sitting with employers who feel most comfortable telling the candidate all about the company and the job – this can go on for 15 minutes or more. This makes it easy for the candidate, as when they finally get around to asking them a couple of basic questions they know what answers to give. The interviewer gets the few answers they want, and canny candidates will ask more questions to show or feign interest.
It seems like a perfect match, but guess who got to learn about who? Guess who now has control? Even more, the interviewer usually likes them because they did the courtesy of listening to them talk on and on. There is an indebtedness from the interviewer now. How does that help objective, informed decision making?
The interviewer’s first task is to learn about the applicant. The best way to do that is to have the candidate do most of the talking. Encourage them to speak and tell their story. Ask questions, and then listen for and follow up on key gaps, answers and phrases to explore the candidates’ experiences and perspectives. Later on, the interviewer can talk about the company, the corporate vision, and the job in more detail if it is appropriate to see their reactions and interest, and to ensure they have a clear picture of what to expect. You can draw on that information-sharing to encourage them to consider whether they think the culture and role is a long-term fit for them.
However, this level of disclosure by the employee can be overwhelming and takes time so probably best kept for the next interview once you’re close to making a decision.

Make an Informed Decision
Don’t ask hypothetical questions and gimmes
“If this happened, what would you do” questions are so obvious as to be more wish-list or a “guess the right answer” game than relevant. The same goes for, “It gets busy here in summer, are you OK with that?” The answer is usually going to be the obvious reaction or simply the word “Yes”. To not give that answer would be to “fail” the interview – what do you expect them to say?
Instead, it is better to ask about similar experiences. Rather than “What would you do?”, the question can more helpfully be, “Have you ever been in X situation?”, “What did you do?”, “What did you learn from that”, and so on, which can lead into digging into those answers more deeply, and that’s where you really learn useful things about behaviour, initiative, resilience, people skills, sense of responsibility and all of that important stuff. If not, you may as well ask what they are going to do if they win the lottery, or rule the world – it’s irrelevant nonsense.
What subjects should you explore this way? Typically, these types of scenarios will arise from their experiences, your question list, or specific aspects of the role. And if you want to use your gut feeling, listening to these stories can be a good place to use it. Does the story sound credible? Does their reaction seem to take or shed responsibility? Remember, it’s not about “common sense” or what you’d have done – it’s about what they did and why they did it. If you understand that, in the absence of them reflecting and changing their habits which people rarely do) you can probably predict what they are likely to do next time. Isn’t that more useful than asking fantasy questions?
Reading too much into things – or not enough
Reading too much into things is similar to over-reliance on gut feelings as it draws on intuition and what we “sense” in what someone is saying or how they are saying it. The difference is that reading too much into things often comes from “hope” and “fear”. Overly fearing failure can have us exaggerate things that don’t “feel right”, where being a little desperate can have us hope for things to the extent that the odds count against us.
When someone answers a question, or rubs their chin, or looks uncomfortable, it might mean there is more to the answer they are giving or story they are telling. Or it might not. That someone didn’t look at you when they answered might mean they were lying, but it could mean they needed to gather their thoughts. Looking at a face is a sensory input that can create some stress, especially with unfamiliar people and environments, and get in the way of clear thought for some people, especially introverts. I often look away while I am trying to think clearly or put a sentence together. I’m not lying, I am actually trying to be as accurate as I can be.
Our favourite fictional detectives might be able to accurately infer important details from small movements and mannerisms, but let’s face it – you and I can’t. Sometimes we can, but not often enough. Police can’t, judges can’t, psychologists can’t. We can take educated guesses, but we cannot reliably jump to the accurate conclusions we can so easily feel.
On the flip side, it’s good to not ignore those feelings either. but instead of jumping to a conclusion then or later, why not delve further? If something comes up that raises a feeling, go further. What? Why? What next? Once you have all of that, you can be in a better position to qualify or discard that feeling you got.
Don’t ignore the feeling that something is right or wrong, as that is valuable feedback you are providing to yourself. But don’t simply make an assumption that one thing means another, just because it might.
Encourage people to tell you their story
Our memories are somewhat chronological, with one thing leading to another. To allow someone to talk that way allows them to tell their story and feel heard. You don’t have to believe it all of course, and you should expect that at a minimum that some things have been left out, intentionally or not. And that’s fine – we all do it.
When listening to someone tell their story, if you pay attention you will find that questions come up for you. There will be gaps in chronology or explanations. Don’t worry about the little stuff, as our memories aren’t great at the details. But you should worry about the big stuff – the big discrepancies and reasons that don’t make sense. The key is to listen.
The key in asking the questions is to be conversational, not inquisitorial. Be interested, be sincere, smile and genuinely seek their perspective. What happened? And then what? What did you make of that? You know it’s not the whole story, but it’s a story. The more interested and relaxed you are, the more likely they will speak up.
There are some parts of the story to be careful about. The first concerns personal issues. There are things that simply aren’t your business, so don’t pursue them. And if someone tells you something personal, they have put you in a position of trust in which you are morally, if not legally, responsible for treating respectfully. If it is not relevant to the role, you cannot consider it.
The second is where they go off track to tell you what they want to tell you, rather than address the question you asked. It’s one thing to listen and be inquisitive, it’s another to be wary of allowing them to avoid answering questions and take over the agenda through generalisations, changes in topic and dismissive assurances.
Our autobiographical memory is critical in telling us who we are and how we fit in. This is expressed in the stories of our lives and the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves and others. As with lyrics in a song, the stories we keep in our memories are like chains, with one thing leading to another. If someone asks you if the 5th line is a song, chances are you don’t know it. If you can sing the first 4 lines to yourself, there’s a reasonable chance you’ll get the 5th. So allow the links of chronology to help your candidate give you the most accurate answers they can.
Don’t allow the candidate to run the interview
We have to expect that the stories and claims we hear are somewhat inaccurate and biassed, if not exaggerated or missing important details. Hey, the candidate is selling themselves, what did we expect? If a job didn’t work out, in their story it was probably the fault of the boss, or the equipment, or something else.
Funnily enough, in my experience candidates seem to often be generous in attributing success, crediting their manager or teams or luck for things going well. Sometimes though, people try to take more credit for team achievements than they really should, saying I did this and I did that, when really they were part of a team that did this or that, or they got help, or they just followed instructions, or maybe that’s not what happened at all. I trust those who are generous in sharing credit the most.
The big thing I have found is that some people are used to getting their way by taking over the conversation. This is obvious for sales roles – after all, it’s what they do, but many others are great at selling themselves. (Hint: If they come across as confident, and seem to change jobs or c0000areer often, there’s a good chance they are better at getting a job than performing it. It’s not a conclusion, it’s just a symptom.) A big sign that you are being sold to is when you ask a question and the answer is to something else, vague, or generalised. The answer can be very convincing, but did they answer the question?
Once you detect a pattern of avoidance and diversion, you know to doubt everything you’ve heard, especially any claims about what they have done before and what they will do in this job. You might also assume they are hiding things, or why else not simply answer the question? It’s not as if you’re not going to let them express their views, talents, accomplishments and aspirations at some stage.
The interviewer went in with a clear picture of the role and cultural requirements. The interviewer prepared questions. The interviewer set the time and place, and knows what they need to see to believe the candidate is capable and willing. Of course, they should talk the most, but that doesn’t mean they are in control of the conversation. The person asking the questions is.
Which brings me to my next point: If a candidate too quickly jumps to asking questions about the job before they are invited to, they are trying to take control. If a question is minor and quickly answered as a statement of fact, it is OK to answer it, but for that to be followed up with a question immediately. It might be a follow-up, such as “Is that important to you? Why?”, or I often, and honestly, let the candidate know that I am most interested in them and what they are looking for, as we can discuss other things later. From there I go back to encouraging them to tell their story, to discuss their hopes and aspirations, the things they don’t want, and so on.
Interested in recruiting better? Talk to us about NEURO-M Candidate Assessments, behavioural interviewing & advanced skills training
Ready to Improve Your Hiring? Let’s Talk
Subscribe
Don’t miss out on our latest insights. Subscribe today and stay in touch!