According to your professional opinion, based on your considerable experience as a recruiter, the interviewee crashed and burned during the meeting. Should you still consider hiring the incumbent or would it be more sensible to just write the individual off as utterly hopeless, and pray that the next candidate fares better?
As a recruiter, your job is to ensure that you scout and hire the crème de la crème, the best from the considerable pool of talent. If you’re good at your job and we’re assuming that you are, chances are the majority of the time you manage to succeed in your endeavour to only select and interview the top candidates – And those candidates life up to your expectations.
You give yourself a pat on the back for a job well done, and move onto the next hire.
However, there are some instances in which you hit a snag – where the top tier candidate performs so poorly during the interview you can help but be extremely disappointed.
So what does one do in such circumstances? Does a bad interview indeed translate to a bad hire, or should you still consider hiring the hopeful?
To make that all-important decision, here are a few essentials that will help you evaluate your candidate effectively:
If a candidate seemed like the right choice on paper, based on their resume, and did not perform as expected during the interview, it would serve well to honestly consider and evaluate the candidate’s behavior and demeanor during the interview.
Being overly calm, or sensitive, or overconfident or extremely talkative during the interview are all signs that can indicate to the issue at hand. By objectively viewing the candidate’s performance throughout the interview you can judge whether or not the candidate was just nervous, or naturally shy, or even just be having a bad day.
In some cases, a bad interview does not necessarily translate to a bad hire. To proceed in the right direction with a candidate who has underperformed at an interview, consider evaluating them solely on their strengths, skills, and expertise.
It’s counterproductive to take into consideration the downward curve of a candidate’s interview rather than their technical expertise, and how their knowledge can benefit the company.
It’s essential to evaluate a candidate objectively. Avoid creating quick judgments and allowing preconceived biases to colour the way you see a candidate. Instead of rejecting a potential hire on their inability to answer the questions you asked during an interview, factor in the applicant’s commitment to the institution.
Good examples of such include the candidate’s willingness to make an extra effort, by either traveling a distance or being well informed about the organization’s ins and outs.
If the candidates display potential, despite not living up to your expectation of answering the interview questions as anticipated, consider the possibility of evaluating the candidate again, either by scheduling a second meeting, or by testing and assessing the candidate’s skills of their field of choice.
All in all, it’s important to remember that a bad interview does not dictate a candidate’s performance and cultural fit within an organization. Maybe they were just having a bad day, or maybe they will perform really well in the role but are not good at interviews.
We are collecting data to better understand who is looking for work and what kind of opportunities jobseekers are searching for. This data is completely anonymous and non-personally identifiable.