I recently read about a survey of executives that asked what they considered the most important part of their hiring process, in other words what areas did candidates need to make the best impression to improve their chances of being hired.
The survey indicated, by some margin that the most import aspect of the process is the interview. In fact, reading the results of the survey one would almost think that having good references, a strong resume or even relevant experience are not really important at all, it's really just the interview that matters and that's it. As a job seeker this is information that's really good to know, why waste your time on other parts of your search if all you have to be good at is the interview. Right?
Well as straightforward as the advice gleaned from the survey might appear a better question to ask is, is it true?
One of the hurdles that candidates face when looking for a job is being able to select and use good advice. There lots of advice out there to be sure, but while all of it (or nearly all of it) is well intentioned that doesn't mean that all of it is actually correct. This case is a good example of that, well intentioned and no doubt from the perspective of the executives interviewed it is true, but that point of view is missing some huge gaps in the reality of the process.
Think about where an executive is likely to be part of the hiring process. To begin with do you think they are involved in every hire? No probably not. And of the hires they are involved with do you think they are more likely to be involved in the interview stage or the screening candidates by reading resumes stage?
The short answer is that executives don't think that resumes, or references are as important to the hiring process as the interview because they are only involved in the interview process. By the time an executive sees a candidate their resume was already selected, their experience vetted and their references checked. At that point in the process the opportunity, which may have had hundreds of interested candidates applying has been whittled down to at most 10 candidates (and usually far less) will actually be interviewed. At this point, somewhat obviously, your interview skills are critical to your chances but you can be the best interview in the world and if you're not making the cut from 200 applicants to the 10 interviewed candidates it won't do you any good.
This isn't to say that interviews aren't important. They are, but the same can be said for any step of the job seeking process, they are all important. A strong resume has a better chance of getting you to an interview, better networking improves your chances of getting in the door and the interviewing stage is the final key to the puzzle.
As a candidate when looking for work always keep in mind that while most everyone does want to give you advice that will help you out often times, as in this case, the advice can be flawed. Always ask yourself the obvious questions, how much is the person giving advice actually connected to the hiring process? At what stages in the process are they connected in to?
The answers to those questions can help you to determine the real value of the advice. Is this advice that will actually get you in to the job you want sooner or is it, while well intentioned, just as likely to be counterproductive to your search for employment?
The Competitive Advantage of Diversity Recruiting
12 years ago
