Interview Techniques

Noel Gallagher is the guest on both the talk shows I will be comparing. Although the styles used by Jonathan Ross and Michael Parkinson differ, they both manage to retrieve elements of the same information from Noel. Both interviews have different outcomes in the depth and tone of the answers and this directly corresponds with the communication styles both interviewers use.
Both interviews come in around the 17 minute mark and are disrupted by advert brakes. The adverts brakes seem allow both interviews to return to subject matter that Noel had perhaps not been as forthcoming about beforehand. Parkinson leads more to towards the style that would be beneficial to those in organizations; he uses a selection of questioning techniques. He tends to use more reflective questions in order to register interest and to try and get more information from Noel followed by probing questions to ensure that he does indeed get a more well-rounded answer. Ross on the other hand is a fan of multiple questions which sometimes flummoxes Noel, and leaves him wondering how to answer. He also uses leading questions, this helps Ross ensure Noel gives the type of answers he is expecting (Huczynski and Buchanan (2007).
Nonverbal communication is used by both interviewers in different ways. Non- verbal cues can influence the outcome of interviews and also display hidden messages that aid the outcome (Slocum and Hellriegel 2009) Michael Parkinson manages to get more gritty information from Noel, mainly about growing up and the struggles and violence he faced. He always seems genially interested; he leans forward with his body open and using open hand gestures. This shows interest in his guest, he never seems defensive or does anything to make Noel feel like he is not the focus of his questions. Parkinson actively listens to the answers (Robbins, DeCenzo and Coulter 2011). He rarely talks over his guests and uses pauses along with lubrication in the right places to emphasise that they are being listened to and throughout the interview he never interrupts. Although he is the one driving the interview he manages to give the impression that Noel is speaking freely. Ross although open with his body language also appears to sometimes partake in some power tells. Both Noel and Ross sometime appear to be fighting more male dominance. The posture adopted by both is to lean back in their chairs, with chests puffed out, giving off an air of arrogance. Sometimes this can appear although he isn’t as interested as perhaps he should be. Ross uses Noel as a tool for his own humour and sometimes his quest for the next punch line dulls his guest’s sheen (Huczynski and Buchanan (2007).
Ross doesn’t appear to show the same level of social intelligence as Parkinson. (Huczynski and Buchanan (2007).Perhaps the humour in the interview stops him from picking up on Noels unwillingness to continue talking about a specific subject. Ross still presses on for an answer about the possibility of an anniversary reform of Noels old band Oasis, this results in him getting a joke as an answer rather than the yes he was very clearly after. In contrast, Parkinson seems able to read Noel well. Although at time he does appear to make Noel uncomfortable whilst talking about the more turbulent parts of his upbringing, specifically about his father. During these questions Noel appears to be squirming in his seat, however he never shirks off the questions and although he takes his time he gives clear and detailed answers although they do seem to be filtered (Robbins, DeCenzo and Coulter 2011).
Despite this both interviews flow quite freely and there are no major problems and both interviewers return to the subject matter they are most interested in. Parkinson really presses with his questions sticking to the same subject to make sure that Noel doesn’t veer too far off course. Ross covers a bit more in his interview and appears happy for Noel to veer off course slightly as it allows for banter and jokes but it does appear that rather than having a direction for the interview per say. Ross more has an intention of what jokes he wants to make and tries to make the interview fit that. From the outset it was clear from the Parkinson interview that he was going to be delving into the life of Noel, in particular his pre and early oasis days as opposed to the new album. He manages to keep Noel engaged and as such he managed to get a more comprehensive interview.
Both interviewers focused in on the sibling rivalry in Oasis. Both received different answers, perhaps this shows better than anything how their differing styles and how it affects the interview. Dialogue requires both senders and receiver to play in the dynamics of communication (Slocum and Hellriegel 2009). Parkinson adheres to this. By being an active listener he is able to hear the whole message without misinterpretation thus allowing him to press on and get Noel to share information. (Slocum and Hellriegel 2009) Noel gives a reasonable explanation of why he and his brother don’t get along, taking care over his answer. In contrast, his answer to Ross is simpler; he simply states that they do not get along. The Ross interview does not seem to be as much of collaboration as Parkinson’s. Although the interview is light hearted and they clearly get along the discussion seems empty. Ross shows little diversity in his viewpoints. Although the interview does cover more it is all superficial and lacking real integrity. ‘In diversity, there is strength, adaptability, and insight (Groff and Jones 2003 pg57). This allows for an entertaining interview but does not bring out any new information or really show any particular skill.
Although they styles of the interviewers are different they both fit the function of their own shows. Parkinson uses well researched platitudes and customary clichés as a prelude his questions but sometimes it can come across that a group of researchers have fed him lines rather than him being interested and finding out for himself. This can sometimes appear contrived, whilst it is beneficial to show and interest in his guest, it sometimes appears un-genuine. Ross also tries to show interest in his guest, but rather than having lots of well researched leads he likes to let the guest know he is a ‘big fan’ and ‘would love to see them perform that album’. This can come across insincere. Ross could try toning down the humour; remembering that his guest is the star during the interview, not him. Sometimes his comic dexterity can intimidates guests and lead to the interview being a monologue of Ross’ part with the lack of any real dialogue (Slocum and Hellriegel 2009). Parkinson could also benefit from showing some empathy towards his guests. Whilst showing social intelligence he struggles with emotional intelligence (Huczynski and Buchanan (2007).Perhaps it is just a question of cultural and generational difference between himself and Noel but it could help alleviate any tension and intimidations guests feel.
Interviewing is a good process in order to get more information from an individual. One has to take care with the questioning used in order to get the type on answers required (Huczynski and Buchanan (2007). Although both interviews used here was for entertainment purposes they both showcase the highs and lows of the process. Finding the right level of formality can prove difficult , ultimately the interviewer knows what they are looking for from the interviewee and it hopefully use their skill that will hopefully extract it. This however to the determent of the interview process. An interview is not a reliable tool, the interviewers bias predetermines the way the interview will go leaving the interviewee little is no chance to showcase additional or valuable information. The interviewer will tend to favour those who have similar attitudes or play along with their line of questioning (Robbins, DeCenzo and Coulter 2011). It is best at showcasing someone’s personality and furthering the knowledge you already have as should be used mainly in this manner, rather than trying to retrieve any new information.

Bibliography
Groff, T and Jones, T (2003) Introduction to knowledge management, Butterwornth Heinmanm
Huczynski and Buchanan (2007), Organizational Behaviour, 7/e, 2010 Prentice Hall / Financial Times,
Robbins, DeCenzo and Coulter (2011) Fundamentals of Management, Pearson
Slocum, Hellriegal (2009) Principles of organizational behaviour, South Western.

Bibliography: Groff, T and Jones, T (2003) Introduction to knowledge management, Butterwornth Heinmanm Huczynski and Buchanan (2007), Organizational Behaviour, 7/e, 2010 Prentice Hall / Financial Times, Robbins, DeCenzo and Coulter (2011) Fundamentals of Management, Pearson Slocum, Hellriegal (2009) Principles of organizational behaviour, South Western.