Interviews - Rant

I hate interviews. I have done more than any person walking. If you count the summer I directed a play and consider an audition an interview of sorts, one summer I did better than six hundred interviews. Even if you want to be a purist, that particular summer I did almost three hundred sit-down, why-are-you-looking-for-a-job interviews.

As a candidates I have probably interviewed for about fifty positions, with each position averaging three interviews. For one job, I interviewed with nine people. The last person I interviewed with turned into an argument. Later, after I got the job, I looked through my file and found that he gave me the highest marks. Ultimately I hated the job.

In interviews I've been asked if I'm gay. If I'm Jewish. How old I am. If I have any diseases, and how much I weigh. Of course all of these questions are illegal. I smile and answer them honestly.

One interviewer kept me waiting for nearly an hour, not because of some emergency, but because "lunch ran long." I let her ask me all the questions she wanted, which weren't many, and then I turned the tables on her. I put her through the toughest interview of her life. "How would you describe your managment style?" "What would you say has been the biggest challenge you've faced in your current position and exactly how did you overcome it?" "What is the turnover rate with this company, and how does your turnover rate compare? Do you have any idea as to why your employees take new positions?" Needless to say, I didn't get the job but it was very clear at the end of the interview that the job wasn't up to my standards, nor was the interviewer really qualified to work with me.

That said, I'm not always a total prick in an interview. One interview kept me waiting two hours, and again it was because she forgot about the appointment. But she was gracious and funny and very smart. I accepted the job and it was one of the best jobs I've ever had.

Because interviewing candidates is one of the most heinous, tedious jobs ever, the least experienced people do the initial interviews. These generally happen over the phone, and there's nothing like having a twenty-two-year-old bubbling in your ear that your qualifications aren't exactly what they were looking for, but they'll keep your resume on file...

I admit it. I'm an ageist. At twenty-two the human brain isn't even completely formed. And yet some of the most important decisions a company can make are left to a new graduate whose biggest issue is a) where he's going to get wasted the following Friday night, or b) if she's too bloated for that new tube top she bought. (The answer to both questions, if you're interested is generally, a) wherever there are dollar shots and b) yes.)

Interestingly, I believe the ration of men to women doing interviews is something like four to one. Certainly at the intitial stages. I think this is in part because of the tedious nature of the first interviews and because human resources is maybe the one profession that is singularly dominated by women.

But I think there's more to it than that. The prevailing thinking in most organizations I've been with is that women tend to be more intuitive, making more emotional decisions. And when it comes to hiring, most companies hire the person they like over the person with better qualifications. Women, I think the thinking goes, have an intuitive understanding of the type of person who will fit within the organization.

What's worse, I think most women buy that theory as well. For all the talk of equality in the work place, I find myself wondering how women who will take every opportunity to talk in generalities about what dogs men are, are capable of sitting down in a business meeting across from a man and not have that personal bias become a factor.

The fact is, bias is a part of business. I'm biased. I am biased toward experience over formal education. While I myself want pedigrees from the finest educational institutions, I've found that in hiring those pedigrees comes a ego and entitlement that can almost be suffocating. I'll take a state grad with ten years of solid experience over a Harvard grad with five years of experience any day. But, in my experience I stand alone in that assessment.

While the Harvard grad may have a more nuanced understanding of situations and approaches to problems, the trick is getting him to apply that understanding. And God help you if the problem doesn't resemble something that came out of their textbooks. Yes, they may be capable of creativity and complex problem solving, but most of them feel that once they received the diploma the world owes them something.

The state grad usually understands that his education is incomplete and isn't afraid of a new situation. If he's bright and has a history of success, he'll view every situation as a blank slate and come up with an innovative solution. For him knowledge isn't something to be acquired, it's something to be built. And he's not afraid to build it.

And ultimately that's what an interview is, building knowledge: knowledge of the organization, knowledge of the vacant position, knowledge of the business's needs, and knowledge of the candidates. An interviewer isn't just someone who gathers facts, looking for tab-A candidate to slip into slot-B job. And interviewer is a builder of an organization. Innovation happens in the recruiting process.

And that's why I get so frustrated with talking to Chip and Brandi about my professional life.