Job Interview Report

Abstract

This report bases on established facts with regard to job interviewing in order to provide an evaluation of the performance of both panel four and the undersigned interviewee. Primarily it underlies the importance of educating future employees in conducting job interviews and it shows why interviews play a crucial role in the hiring process of most companies. Later it moves to evaluation of the panel, providing some facts and theories from the current labour market. Then it continues with the evaluation of the interviewee, including also examples of personal and professional skills employers are searching for today. It has been found that both the interviewers and the interviewee performed at a decent level. Issues on teamwork and quality of questions were detected with regard to the panel and on both verbal and non verbal communication skills with regard to the interviewee. The report concludes that the job interview remains an important segment of the recruitment and selection hiring process, which is also the reason it should always be part of the education one receives during university.

Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………….……...3
Literature Review………………………………………………………….………..4
Evaluation of the Panel………………………………………………………...…4
Evaluation of the Interviewee………………………………………….………...5
Recommendations……………………………………………………….….…….6
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..6
References…………………………………………………………………………..7

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide appraisal of the performance of the interviewers and the interviewee during the mock job interview. Students were given the opportunity to practice with a variety of business communication genres and to understand the value of professional communication skills (Pope-Ruark, 2008). Interviews play a crucial role in the world of work. According to Adler et al. (2013), organizations use employment interviews to identify the best candidates for a job. However, a theory introduced by R. Winchester suggests that interviews are useless in the hiring process, since an employer cannot know whether the candidate is honest on their answers and there is a possibility of them being biased due to personal opinions and beliefs (Berkun, 2010). This is partially true. Interviewers may not know if they are receiving honest answers, but they can test whether the candidate is suitable for the job by using behavioural interviewing and hypothetical situation questions, where according to Broscio (2013) the interviewer tries to assess future performance by eliciting examples of how the candidate handled similar situations in the past or by creating a hypothetical situation to evaluate candidate’s critical thinking and leadership skills.

Literature Review

Evaluation of the panel

One of the first responsibilities of an interviewer is greeting and building rapport (Adler et al, 2013), which was accomplished with general questions regarding the interviewee such as ‘hello, how are you?‘’ or ‘’where are you from?’’. The panel adopted a professional attitude as befits the position and was appropriately dressed, which provides a good image of the existing work environment within the university. During the interview close-ended questions were used to make the interviewee feel comfortable. However, most questions asked were open-ended which gave the panel the opportunity to extort as much information as possible with regard to the candidate. Furthermore, most questions asked by the panel came from prepared notes, fact that defines the structured format of the interview. Finally, good eye contact, use of gestures, actively listening and taking notes, were some of the hints to prove excellent verbal and non verbal communication skills and also the ability to motivate the interviewee.
The interviewers failed to provide an overview of what was going to follow in order to make the process easier for the interviewee. Informing the candidate about the length and purpose of the interview is one of the basic responsibilities of an interviewer (Adler et al, 2013). Furthermore, questions were unequally delegated among the interviewers which came as consequence of inadequate teamwork skills. Meantime the panel seemed to lose its orientation and forget the purpose of the interview asking irrelevant to job questions such as ‘’what are you favourite sports?’’. According to Burtov (2014), one of the main mistakes interviewers make is going off script and making a discussion which is more similar to a friendly one. At the end of the interview the panel asked a hypothetical question which was irrelevant to the job position. The interviewers should have taken better advantage of the limited time given to identify whether the candidate fits in the job or not. Also they should have focused more on job related questions and used more behavioural and situational questions which test the skills of the candidate better.

Evaluation of the Interviewee

The interviewee dressed properly for the job interview. According to Pearman (2006) people make visual impression, so it is important to choose clothes carefully especially when searching for a job position. Furthermore, the candidate had conducted research on the University and the job position, which was made obvious to the interviewers. As stressed by Habeeb (2000) two of the most important things one has to do before the interview is to find out everything about the company and the job itself. Although a recent university graduate, the interviewee took advantage of previous experience and skills, provided clear, honest and detailed answers and demonstrated good communication skills by actively listening and maintaining good eye contact. Finally, the interviewee concluded by thanking the panel for the opportunity. According to Adler et al (2013) a good closing for an interview is expressing appreciation, concern or talking about what follows next.
As stated by Kusenbach (2002) the interview is ‘’an emotionally challenging endeavour’’ for most job candidates. During the interview this was made obvious by the interviewee to the panel by actions such as moving the chair back and forth or frequent use of ‘’um’’. Furthermore, the interviewee failed to adopt a professional body position and did not take off the jacket which although a minor detail, it is a sign of anxiety and feeling uncomfortable. According to Lyons (2000) one of the most common mistakes made by the interviewees is lack of enthusiasm. In this case the candidate failed to show excitement about the job position. Finally, the interviewee hesitated to ask any further question about the University and the job position itself. According to Waxer (2012) and Morgan (2003) the interviewee in order to ensure the job is the perfect fit, should ask questions such as ‘’What would constitute success in this job?’’ or ‘’Where do you see the organization in five years?’’. One should not forget that the purpose of the interview is for both interviewer and interview to see whether the candidate is good fit in the company.

Recommendations

The panel should have initially provided an overview of the interview, boosted teamwork skills by equally delegating questions and focused more on job related questions.

The interviewee should have shown more enthusiasm with regard to the job, more confidence on answers and tried to extort more information about the organization. Conclusion

It can be concluded that although job interviews are considered to be emotionally challenging, they are very important for the interviewer and the interviewee, since both can be able to figure out whether the organization and the candidate will make a good match. That is why companies still insist on conducting job interviews and the reason why job interviewing should be included in university education.

References
Adler, R.B., Elmhorst, J. & Lucas, K. (2013). Communicating at Work. Seventh edition, USA, McGraw Hill.
Berkun, S. (2010). The Winchester job interview theory [online] Available at: < http://scottberkun.com/2010/the-winchester-job-interview-theory/> [Accessed on December 16, 2014)
Broscio, M.A. (2013). Behavioral Interviewing: "Back to the Future" Healthcare Executive. 28 (2), 56-57.
Burtov, M. (2014). Mistakes Interviewers Make: And Seven Techniques for Better Results. CPA Practice Management Forum. 10 (2), 20-21.
Habeeb, K.. (2000). Doing your interview homework. InfoWorld. 22 (2/5), 103.
Kusenbach, M. (2002). Up close and personal: Locating the self in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology, 25, 149-152.
Lyons, M.F. (2000). Winning the Interview Game. Physician Executive. 26 (3), 72.
Morgan, N. (2003 ). How to Ace an Interview. Harvard Management Communication Letter. 6 (2), 3.
Pearman, H. (2006 ). Dress to impress. Design Week. 21 (2), 10.
Pope-Ruark, R. (2008 ). The Interview Project: Reinforcing Business Communication Competence. Business Communication Quarterly. 71 (5), 63-67.
Waxer, C. (2012). 6 Questions To Ask Before You Take The Job. PM Network. 26 (4), 56-59.

References: Adler, R.B., Elmhorst, J. & Lucas, K. (2013). Communicating at Work. Seventh edition, USA, McGraw Hill. Berkun, S. (2010). The Winchester job interview theory [online] Available at: < http://scottberkun.com/2010/the-winchester-job-interview-theory/> [Accessed on December 16, 2014) Broscio, M.A Burtov, M. (2014). Mistakes Interviewers Make: And Seven Techniques for Better Results. CPA Practice Management Forum. 10 (2), 20-21. Habeeb, K.. (2000). Doing your interview homework. InfoWorld. 22 (2/5), 103. Kusenbach, M. (2002). Up close and personal: Locating the self in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology, 25, 149-152. Lyons, M.F. (2000). Winning the Interview Game.  Physician Executive. 26 (3), 72. Morgan, N. (2003 ). How to Ace an Interview. Harvard Management Communication Letter. 6 (2), 3. Pearman, H. (2006 ). Dress to impress. Design Week. 21 (2), 10. Pope-Ruark, R. (2008 ). The Interview Project: Reinforcing Business Communication Competence. Business Communication Quarterly. 71 (5), 63-67. Waxer, C. (2012). 6 Questions To Ask Before You Take The Job. PM Network. 26 (4), 56-59.