Interview and Its Limitation
What is an Interview?
One man, asked if he does much interviewing, thinks of the time he chose his secretary and of the day he had to counsel one of the management trainees- and answers practically none'. Another man with a similar job thinks of the many informal discussions he has with his superior and with customers, with colleagues and subordinates- and answers that he is interviewing all the time.
The difference lies not in their work but in their interpretation of the word interview. The interviewer must use the same skills, whether he is concerned with formal pre-arranged meetings typified by the selection interview, or with unprepared discussions with staff or visitors. Basically all these situations involve two people meeting to solve some problem. If they are to achieve anything one, and often both of them, must exercise various skills. For instance, they need to think clearly about what they are trying to do- whether they are concerned with selection or with an apparent injustice or with a failure to carry out some task. Then, if they are to exchange useful information, they must be able to inspire each other at least with some confidence and preferably with liking. Essential in formal interviewing, this skill is no less important in informal discussions. One party at least, preferably both, must be able to listen.
The quality of relationships established in this way does much to establish the effectiveness of communication in an organization. Is traditions of relationships, its levels of morale and industrial peace are, establish or profoundly influenced by the many hundreds of brief meetings and discussions that are taking place within it all the time. Some interviews are so important that they have serious and long-term consequences for a company and for the personal fortunes of the individual concerned. The skills needed in all these types of communication are required everyone who has responsibility over others. They make for healthy
One man, asked if he does much interviewing, thinks of the time he chose his secretary and of the day he had to counsel one of the management trainees- and answers practically none'. Another man with a similar job thinks of the many informal discussions he has with his superior and with customers, with colleagues and subordinates- and answers that he is interviewing all the time.
The difference lies not in their work but in their interpretation of the word interview. The interviewer must use the same skills, whether he is concerned with formal pre-arranged meetings typified by the selection interview, or with unprepared discussions with staff or visitors. Basically all these situations involve two people meeting to solve some problem. If they are to achieve anything one, and often both of them, must exercise various skills. For instance, they need to think clearly about what they are trying to do- whether they are concerned with selection or with an apparent injustice or with a failure to carry out some task. Then, if they are to exchange useful information, they must be able to inspire each other at least with some confidence and preferably with liking. Essential in formal interviewing, this skill is no less important in informal discussions. One party at least, preferably both, must be able to listen.
The quality of relationships established in this way does much to establish the effectiveness of communication in an organization. Is traditions of relationships, its levels of morale and industrial peace are, establish or profoundly influenced by the many hundreds of brief meetings and discussions that are taking place within it all the time. Some interviews are so important that they have serious and long-term consequences for a company and for the personal fortunes of the individual concerned. The skills needed in all these types of communication are required everyone who has responsibility over others. They make for healthy