How Interviewer Behavior Can Make or Break a Job Offer Decision – What Are Your Thoughts?

Hi all,

Share your valuable ideas on this topic, i.e., "Interviewer's Behavior Affects Job Seeker's Decision on Job Offer."

Two-thirds of job seekers say that the interviewer influences their decision to accept a position. Job seekers identified a number of interviewer behaviors that adversely affect their willingness to work at the company, such as:
- Acting like they have no time to talk to me
- Withholding information about the position
- Turning the interview into a cross-examination
- Showing up late
- Appearing unprepared for the interview
- Asking questions unrelated to job skills

So, what do you say, friends? Does it really happen?

Regards,
Shilpa

It affects all that you have mentioned; projects the company's culture. The interviewer is not seen as an individual but as an organization. The candidate will surely have resistance to all these kinds of behavior and develop a different mindset. If they join despite not being comfortable with their first interaction with the company drivers (HR), then they may start following it and it is contagious. So, it's advisable not to project this behavior while conducting interviews, which will help in building a better organization in the long run. 😊

An interviewer represents the company or brand at that point in time. They cannot afford to act unprofessionally. Sometimes, what happens is HR schedules an interview, and the person supposed to conduct it goes haywire at the last moment.

Surya

Hi,

Thanks for sharing, Kalyan, Archana, and Surya.

Thank you, Archana, for your valuable advice. I agree with you and would like to share a small quote that I believe in:
"First Impression Is The Best Impression."
This quote emphasizes the importance of making a good impression as it can last even after joining the company.

Regards,
Shilpa

A tangent....

The last impression when an employee leaves is the most important. If the said person worked for N number of years for a company and if the company acts unprofessionally during severance, as most of them do, the bad branding runs forever.

Surya

Hi Shilpa,

Yes, to some extent it affects.

I had a few such experiences where the offer was really good, but after seeing the interviewer's behavior, I had to say no. In fact, in one case, I was left with no option but to clearly say "No."

And yes, I have no regrets for the same!

Hi Kavitha,

Thank you very much for sharing. During an interview, our body language should be good enough. Even laughing at a candidate, either face to face or on the telephone, can put the candidate in a dilemma about whether to accept an offer or not.

Regards,
Shilpa

Hi, following is my opinion. I usually REJECT because of:

* Withholding information about the position
I hate people who withhold information about the job position. Once, an interviewer was not ready to disclose details about the job and asked me to come for an interview in another city. I immediately refused.

* Turning the interview into a cross-examination
Some people really do ask questions like the POLICE.

* Showing up late
I dislike people who are not punctual and make me wait. If the appointment time is 10:00, I will be there by 09:30 at the latest. Once, an interviewer made me wait for more than 3 hours. It seemed unreasonable as he should have been available after giving me an appointment.

* Asking questions unrelated to job skills
For example, asking about family members' professions like what your sister or brother does. I mentioned my sister is an engineer, and then he questioned why I did not pursue engineering.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. It's important to have clear communication and respect for each other's time during the interview process.

You touched the Hornet's Nest. How true. The theme/thrust of Selection Interview is to create a positive impact on the applicant interviewee. Whenever the interviewers do bad homework (the instances you quoted), organizations lose. But is the Head-HR listening? Let HR rededicate to the aim of the interview.

Harsh
hksharan@gmail.com

Shilpa,

I agree, there is a lot of discussion on how an interviewee should act, but hardly anyone speaks about the other side of the story, i.e. how the interviewer behaves. As a soft skills trainer, I have a course on how to conduct interviews - ranging from fresh appointment interviews to exit interviews - and though a lot of HR middle managers are interested in such courses, most do not know that these are available.

In large organisations where a lot of interviews take place, if a course similar to the above were to be held for all regular and potential interviewers, it would not only improve the image of the organisation, vis-a-vis the interviewees, making them eager to join an organisation where the interviewers are so 'user-friendly', but it would also help the organisation as well, since if interviews are conducted the right way, the right candidates would be selected. Similarly, properly held exit interviews would be an ongoing process to keep a finger on the organisation's pulse and ascertain where problem areas have emerged or are emerging.

Jeroo

Hi Shilpa,

Thank you for your message. I would like to inquire about the course you mentioned. Are there any institutes in Bangalore offering it?

Since this is the beginning of your career, I understand that you would like to gather all the necessary information. Could you please guide me on this and provide some advice?

Best regards,
Shilpa

Hi,

Yes, it matters a lot, whether it is an HR person or someone conducting an interview for a specific function. It becomes even more important when you are aware that you will be reporting to the same person or that person will be your superior.

Regards,
Hoods

Hello Shilpa,

I agree with those who say the interviewer's behavior affects the candidate's decision to accept or reject the offer.

I believe the interviewer is the first and the only person who represents his organization and can sell the company as well as the position to the candidate. At this point, if the interviewer has to act pricey, unapproachable, and thinks that throwing attitude means showing power, then I must say such people are sadly mistaken. In fact, if they do not have time, they should not be conducting interviews. Secondly, if they feel they can behave kindly and friendly enough, they should not be getting into a profession like recruitment because it is the HR, especially the recruiter's duty, to make the person feel wanted, important, and special in cases where the candidate is worth it. Moreover, even if the candidate is unfit, I'm sure there are kind, humble, and more diplomatic ways to handle the situation instead of psychologically disturbing the candidate.

I completely agree as I have personally experienced such rude and unprofessional recruiters who force the candidates to get a negative idea of the company.

Addon:

a) In monochronic societies, people focus on one task at a time, whereas in polychronic societies, people engage in multitasking.

b) In societies like Japan and India, it is perfectly normal to inquire about family; whereas in the US, it isn't normal. Therefore, what may seem normal in one society may appear wrong in another.

Surya

Hi Surya,

What you have told is right. What may seem normal in one society may differ in another. I have one query: "Some managers or interviewers purposely do things like neglecting or calling candidates in late, or behaving as if they are busy, to test the patience of the candidate for a certain position. This is to know whether they are cool or to test how they will react to that situation, etc."

Regards,
Shilpa

Dear Shilpa,

You are absolutely correct in my point of view because the interviewer's behavior plays an important role in the interview premises. At the same time, in my opinion, the interviewee, while going for an interview, also depicts his/her behavior. Based on that, the interviewee responds to the interviewer. Am I correct?

Regards,
Rajan

Hi Rajan,

I will agree with your point to some extent as I did not understand what exactly you are saying. I think you are saying that "depending upon the candidate's behavior, the interviewer will change." Is it so?

So, according to this point, both the candidate's and interviewer's body language should be correct.

Regards,
Shilpa

Yes, I strongly agree; it affects the decision. It's my experience. During one interview, the interviewer asked me to bring the data and formats from my previous employer. This reflects his mentality, and I have decided not to join him.

Hi,

Thanks for sharing. The same thing happened to me. During the interview, the interviewer was asking me about the passwords of job portals and whether, if I joined their company, I could bring clients from my current company to theirs.

As a result, I have decided not to join their company.

Regards,
Shilpa

As an interviewer, you are the face of the company. Most candidates know very little about your company culture (which is an important motivation to join). You should be aware that you are representing your company while handling a recruitment. Body language should be correct, clear, well-prepared, and structured.

It's about having respect for someone who is considering the possibility of joining your company. For them, it is a very important decision to make. It's their livelihood.

Dear Archana,

I agree with your thought process regarding interviewers' behavior at the time of hiring. Yes, it is true and can be effectively experienced by attending one interview conducted by the interviewer. I have experienced that it is the first impression of the interviewer's presentation and behaviors that distinguish among the different offers.

Thanks and regards,
Ramila

Hi Shilpa,

It's really good you posed this question. This is one factor that many companies and HR professionals overlook, especially in companies with high brand images. Nowadays, one thing that we don't realize is that an interview is a two-way process or has always been a two-way process. When the candidate is selling himself/herself, the company is also trying to sell itself to the candidate.

The interviewer thus becomes a brand ambassador and has to excel in factors like timely interview execution, asking the right questions, transferring knowledge about the company, providing feedback promptly, coordinating selections, etc. In certain cases, even if the company doesn't make much of an impression on the candidate, the dealings of the HR professional have led many candidates to join the organization as they feel that the negativity they have seen hasn't affected the interviewer, and therefore things may not be as bad as they seem to be.

1. It depends on how desperate the candidate is for the job when he is appearing for the interview.

2. Such instances may be rare when a good candidate reaches an interview in a bad organization wherein even the interviewing team doesn't match up to his expectations.

3. Usually, the candidate himself is so worried about his own performance that he may not notice something wrong about the team unless things are terribly wrong.

This definitely tells heaps about that hr person and the company.
* Acting like has no time to talk to me
-It portrays that HR doesn't value candidates.
* Withholding information about position
-It portrays that HR and company are not clear about the role.
* Turning interview into cross-examination
-This depicts that Hr professional is not mature and has not done enough preparation..
* Showing up late
-Gives an idea that person taking interview is not professional
* Appearing unprepared for interview
* Asking questions unrelated to job skills

-Not very erudite and knowledgeable
Hr professional needs to realize that he is face of the company and his attitude and the way he carries himself in front of employees goes a long run in embarking culture and values of the company.
Thanks,
Deepshikha Thapar
Assistant Manager - HRv
Angelz Technologies Private Limited
" None of us are as Strong as all of us….."

Dear Shilpa,

The interviewer's attitude does affect the interviewee's decision to join the company or not.

As most of the respondents have pointed out, he is the face of the company as far as the candidate is concerned. This is the reason why the venue for the interview, the questions (both technical and HR), the person(s) carrying out the interview (depending on the position), their own knowledge and language, etc., are so carefully chosen by most of the companies. Anybody and everybody should not be cleared to be the interviewers unless his/her credentials are up to the mark.

We have to ensure that the candidate does not feel intimidated or bullied at any time during the interview - the idea is to bring out the best in the candidate. Even if he/she does not answer a question properly, there are ways of responding - at no time is the candidate to be discouraged or snubbed.

When the candidate leaves after the interview, irrespective of whether he/she is selected or not, he must carry a good impression about the company. Please be assured that the word spreads and you will get a better response to your next Job Posting/Ad.

Regards,

Vasudev

Oh, yes.

Interviewer's behavior, how he/she conducts himself/herself, and their knowledge can have an important influence on one's acceptance for a job... or so I think.

Because the kind of employees a company has speaks volumes about the culture of an organization... that obviously doesn't mean that one person's behavior is a reflection of the whole organizational culture, but still... especially in cases where interviewers are HR people... because I personally believe that HR people are the window through which you look into an organization... so they must be extremely well-behaved and polite.

And I think it's not just about behavior but also about their knowledge.

I will give a classic example that I personally faced.

I went for an interview at PRINCETON REVIEW. You won't believe it, but the HR person who was taking my interview continuously used the wrong name of her company. She kept on saying PRINCETON REVENUE. I initially thought maybe I was wrong somewhere because even one more senior person was sitting there. Then finally, when I realized, no, I am sure it's PRINCETON REVIEW and not REVENUE, I said, "I think it's REVIEW and not REVENUE."

I think that's too big a mistake to be committed.

I obviously didn't join. I mean, the current employees don't even know correctly where they are working. Of all people, the HR people.

I realize that sometimes everyone makes a foolish or silly mistake here and there, but I think this was a bit... you know...

Definitely from empirical research literature, though there are views that it is an overstated construct (within limitations of research design).

Research on job choice and job acceptance behavior of candidates clearly indicates that "recruitment experience," not just the interviewer's behavior, has an effect on decision-making of candidates. However, there has been evidence that for candidates with work experience, the experience effect may be more moderate, implying they may not be very much swayed by the recruitment experience. In such cases, "job attributes" and its communication take a higher position. Definitely, the interviewer communicates the most with the candidate. Any experience viewed as personally insulting may be taken in a negative light and thus affect the decision. Few of the factors that have shown to affect job seekers' decisions are the opportunity to meet with multiple (and high-level) organizational constituents, impressive site-visit arrangements, and frequent and prompt follow-up. Exploding offers did not show a significant effect on decision-making.

There is sufficient anecdotal evidence to support the assertion. After all, first impressions do matter.

Dr. Biju Varkkey.

IIM Ahmedabad.

PS: For those interested, this is an area for research in the Indian Context.

It affects to a large extent when that particular company is not top of the list for joining aspiration, but at times it could be the best place, and a bad interviewer might just make the company lose out on the most potential candidate.

Regards,

Gargi

Having great interviewing and interpersonal skills is sine qua non for a good interviewer. In addition to HR knowledge, the interviewer should have a great deal of knowledge of the subject area for which the appointment is being made. A good interviewer is the face of the organization and leaves a lasting impression in the mind of the candidate about the overall organization.

Some of the positive traits and mistakes an interviewer can make are as follows:

NEGATIVE TRAITS OF INTERVIEWERS:

1. Not being punctual and keeping the candidate waiting just to test their patience and cover their own disorganized ways.

2. Not making the candidate comfortable and immediately firing questions.

3. Not offering tea or coffee if the candidate has traveled a long distance.

4. Asking questions about religion, past bosses, or irrelevant topics.

5. Using innuendos, behaving in a derogatory manner, or insulting the present organization of the interviewer.

6. Making misrepresentations about the job or profile that contradict reality.

7. Making negative remarks about the current incumbent or the person resigning, leading to the vacancy.

8. Making negative comments about the organization and its politics, which can immediately deter the candidate.

As a good interviewer, we should avoid these and many more negative traits that are likely to signal a warning to the candidate, who may then decline the offer.

CA Sanjoy Banka

Hi,

Good topic to discuss on!

For the candidate, it's the interviewer who represents the behavior, style of the company. Candidates have a strong perception that the company would be as good/bad as the interviewer. This holds true for all recruiters as well.

From the first point of interaction with the candidates, you are helping them frame a mental framework on how the company works. Recruiters are somewhat similar to Air Hostesses/Ground crew. It's how these crews treat you as a passenger that molds your opinion about the airline!

Keep Learning!

Prasanth Nair
www.nnair.8m.com

Absolutely true! I faced a similar situation where the behavior of the HR head affected my decision, and I refused the offer. I believe the interviewer is the face of the organization to the candidates, and one can have an idea about the company culture from that.

According to me, an interviewer is the first interface between the company and the job seeker. The behavior and attitude of the interviewer reflect the principles of the company.

Myself, as an interviewer in MSSL, strongly support the notion that good behavior of the interviewer is essential for the company's progress. Sometimes, a good candidate could be deterred from joining the organization simply due to a lack of satisfaction with various questions arising in their mind.

Yes. The interviewer's behavior does play a vital role in the decision-making process for the candidate when considering accepting a job offer. The interviewer represents the organization, and if they behave oddly, the job seeker may have reservations about the position.

I can share something out of my own experience. I have had the opportunity to learn recruitment under a boss who believes in keeping the mood light during interviews. Apart from making a candidate feel at ease and thus giving us the best they can offer, it also helps in branding as the candidate feels the organization has a positive work culture.

Ya, it happens, but not in every case.

Candidates do give emphasis on the Interviewer's Behavior.

Hi!

I don't think that unexpected or bad behavior affects the interviewee's decision to join a company. In the case of interviews, what happens is 'something that ends well.' If the interviewee is selected, he would not think much about what happened in the interview. If someone on the panel of interviewers has grilled him/her more during the interview, he/she may form an opinion about that particular interviewer but surely not form an opinion about the company. If the candidate has a good job and is still looking for a better opportunity, then he may decide not to join the company. But otherwise, one who needs a job would, by hook or by crook, try to be his best in the interview, despite whatever the attitude of the interviewers.

This is what I feel.

Mrinal.

Dear All,

This was an interesting post to read through, but there is one aspect which most of us have completely ignored.

The particular kind of behavior described can be viewed in two ways:

1. The interviewer is not apt for conducting interviews.

2. The organization uses the stress interview technique wherein the idea is to put the interviewee under undue stress just to adjudge his reaction and his behavior.

Therefore, I feel, not taking up an offer purely on the basis of the interviewer's attitude is not a very wise decision. There are other criteria which influence this decision. These include:

1. Growth potential of the organization

2. Whether the job fits into an individual's career growth and development path

3. Compensation and Benefits offered by the organization

4. Work timings and location

Let's face it, we all encounter difficult people at the workplace, be it internal customers or external customers. The principle idea behind conducting interviews in a way that they create some level of stress is to check whether the potential employee is capable of dealing with such a situation without losing his cool or appearing hassled.

These kinds of interviews should not come across as a shock to the majority of us who went through GD/PI's for entrance to management schools, because these are the kinds of interviews most well-reputed management schools use.

Shilpa,

This is an important topic to be discussed largely because industries play double standards while recruiting manpower at any place. The behavior of an interviewer is very important for any interviewee. It is not only a question of a career, but it also marks the self-respect and dignity of any individual. If an interviewee is made comfortable at the time of the interview, it is easy to understand the quality of that individual, and at the same time, it shows the courtesy of the interviewer. If things turn different or another way, it makes it very difficult for both the interviewer and interviewee.

With Regards,

Om Prakash