Let me share a few thoughts from my own experience from both sides of the table. These are not distilled from a bunch of LinkedIn posts and blogs. Though what I say here will be found elsewhere too. I am not reinventing the wheel or rewriting the rules.
This is not a cheat sheet to “crack” an interview.
There are established practices like competency-based interviews. My hope is that interviewers are trained to use them well. There’s a practice of pulling just about anyone into an interview because it’s a technical or operations round. Being good at the job is not, by itself, preparation for interviewing someone else to do it.
Another corporate dogma that needs more attention is: past performance is a good indicator of future success. Competency-based interviews also ask us to establish past success, often with the hope of judging future performance from it.
In my experience, past performance gives us a ton of fodder to dive into, however deep we need to go. I have reservations about extrapolating it to future performance. Even when conditions are similar, outcomes can vary. What worked for a people leader in a particular team at a certain time doesn’t necessarily work across all teams at all times. Add geography and demography to the mix.
What worked for a people manager in a particular team at a certain time doesn’t necessarily work across all teams at all times. Add geography and demography to the mix.
Why do companies insist on establishing past performance? Is it to assess whether the candidate can quantify their contribution? To see if they fit the new role? These are fair questions. I am less sure about treating the answers as a forecast.
Fresher interviews
For the interviewer, the question you should have an answer to—or your organisation should urge you to have one—is: what attributes am I looking for?
If not, it’s going to be a monotonous day. Thoughts of what’s for lunch or plans for the evening start overruling the eager student in front of you. You may also be trying to meet a hiring number from a single college. Student CVs are going to look similar, and the academic project may be the one area you can probe.
Be it a technical or competency-based interview, the project can be a gold mine if the interviewer is willing to put in the effort. Otherwise, it’s going to be “what meets the eye”: spoken-language fluency, use of jargon, appearance and dress code.
Find a way to reset between candidates. That’s the honest thing to do for each candidate.
During hiring drives, I used to take a couple of minutes to write three to five points—the positives and the concerns. A quick word with another panel member helped too, unless either of us was trying to bias the other.
My mantra, be it a performance appraisal discussion or an interview: you should recognise the image being reflected back at you as the interviewer.
Some interviews slide into a hostile zone. It’s hard to put a finger on the exact reason. Though it’s not easy to admit, it may have been triggered by the interviewer. Instead of going the usual route of deciding not to select the candidate, use that reset button. See if the candidate has had a fair chance.
The other reflection in the mirror is extreme congeniality. It can be a good ego boost for the interviewer. Not too good for judgment.
The halo effect
This should be plain to spot for an experienced interviewer, but that doesn’t mean we always spot it.
The candidate might have done their legwork on LinkedIn or heard about the interviewer from peers. Sometimes the college placement team also builds a halo around an individual, hoping more candidates will be shortlisted. From the college’s perspective, that is understandable. A few students then seem trapped in front of a bright headlight. Their answers come liberally tinged with reverence for the interviewer or panel.
The halo is not always around the candidate. Sometimes the interviewer is the one enjoying it.
The placement team may have given a mile-high overview of their favourite topper. Such talent is genuinely refreshing to interact with. The question is whether I am responding to what I learn in the interview or to what I was told before it began.
For the fresher candidate, my suggestion is to approach the interview as a conversation. Don’t wait until the interviewer asks, “Are there any questions for us?” This takes practice. However good your communication may be, it is natural to feel nervous and let the interview proceed in a Q&A fashion. You should be able to pause before answering or ask for clarification so that you can give a more thorough response.
One question I would ask the interviewer is: “What are the skills or experience gaps that the team or organisation needs?” It may tell you more about the job than the job description does.
Experienced candidates and leaders
For an experienced candidate, I would start with brevity. In the CV, in the introduction, and when describing projects worked on in the past. Curiosity matters too: about the job applied for and the company. An attempt to understand what you might be walking into.
For the interviewer, don’t stick to your own tried-and-tested ways. Look for the similarity—or variance—between the CV and the person in front of you. I have seen candidates hired purely for technical abilities struggle with other aspects of working in an organisation.
We often say we want to assess potential. For me, that means learning speed and adaptability. With the advent of AI, its meaning a lot more than even a couple of years ago. People do not necessarily stay in the same role, doing the same work, for a fixed tenure. They may grow laterally as well as vertically. A technical skill that matters today may not be the only thing they need a year from now.
Leadership or people-manager interviews are a tougher ask than technical interviews. Both candidate and interviewer need to get into more of the person’s working principles. A sales manager may highlight targets met and consistency. Those matter, but I would not make a hiring decision purely on consistency in meeting goals. Goals shift; teams churn. You don’t want a leader seeking the comfort of old metrics and familiar team settings.
For the interviewer, try to identify dogmas and challenge them. Not a person’s religious or private beliefs—their beliefs about leading people and getting work done. Some leaders say, “I treat my team like my own family.” Others speak of team members as resources to be bent as per the leader’s or company’s whims. Both deserve more questions, though for different reasons.
I have worked for leaders with excellent track records of managing metrics. Damage to team members can long outlive the leader. That too should count for something when we talk about past performance.
“Culture fit” is another area where an interviewer needs to be careful. A company may have a documented culture code that acts as a compass for the attributes it seeks. But fit should not quietly come to mean subservience. Nor should “going the extra mile” automatically mean working at all times of the day, including weekends, with promotions and increments dependent on a manager’s whims.
There are always two sides to an interview, though the two sides do not have equal power. The interviewer makes a decision on limited evidence. The candidate is trying to decide whether the job and the organisation are worth joining. I don’t think either side gains much when we pretend the conversation can tell us more than it does.