As a library manager, I regularly hire new library workers in entry-level positions -- library assistants who work on a casual, on-call basis. When permanent positions open up, casuals are internal applicants, awarded positions based on seniority. In other words, once someone is a casual, there is no interview process to becoming permanent -- so we need to be very selective about who we hire for casual work.
We get quite a few applicants who crack the threshold for an interview. Most jobs in our region are either strenuous, outdoors, physical labour, or professional work that requires an advanced degree. Our work is neither of those, which makes it attractive to many people. In addition, many people believe a library would make a nice work environment. It does -- but usually not in the ways that they imagine.
There's a lot wrong with the interview process. Does it actually yield the best library employee? Sometimes, but not always. Are we hiring the best potential worker, or the best interviewer? Despite that, this is the system we're stuck with for now.
In my old library system, there was a huge amount of internal movement, and I interviewed almost continuously for two and a half years. I learned that interviewing is a skill that can be studied, practiced, and improved. I also learned that the supposedly objective system, based on numerical scoring, is in reality very subjective.
I wish everyone could learn good interviewing skills. There are resources to help, but you'd have to know that you needed it. However, I can easily draw up a short list of what not to do.
- Don't say negative things about yourself. If this is a habit of yours, learn to keep it in check.
- Don't give one-word answers.
- Don't say "you know what I mean" instead of explaining something, even if it's difficult to explain.
- Try not to use jargon from another field.
- Try really, really hard not to babble. Try even harder not to rant.
- If you are asked, "Why did you apply for this position?", do not say, "Because I needed work," or "Because I couldn't find anything else," and especially not "Because it seems like an easy job."
- Don't make ageist, racist, or other bigoted comments! Obviously the people who do this don't realize they are doing it. So here's an easier way to think of it: don't bring up the age or ethnic background of anyone in any story. There is no way to do this and come off sounding good. From the interviewer's point of view, we're grateful to hear these comments. The interviewee has now disqualified themself, ensuring that we won't have to deal with their misguided attitudes on the job.
5 comments:
I used to do a lot of interviewing as the interviewer. I did a fair amount to get jobs also, but that was early on. I also used to advise students on how to succeed at interviews. One trick I learned from being interviewed was to get the interviewer to talk about themselves---whether it was asking what they liked about the job or why they took a particular job or what a typical day was like or something even more general. People like to talk about themselves. And I always said to go in with questions. When I interviewed people for jobs and asked them if they had any questions, if they said no---that was a definite negative. To me it said either that they weren't really interested or they lacked a curious mind.
These interviews are very structured. The questions are written in advance, so that everyone who applies for the same level of position, anywhere in the system, is asked the same questions. We do ask "do you have any questions for us," but that's not part of the scored questions, it's just for the applicants' own information.
The interview questions are all the "tell us about a time when..." variety. You have to tell stories. That's a Whole Big Thing. I could write a lot about that!
I did a lot of inteviewing when I wrote professionally, and yes indeed, people love to talk about themselves. Working writers and researchers count on that fact!
I was involved in a lot of interviews for college administrators and teachers, all useless for predicting job performance IMO.
Potential adminstrators are all deeply armored and rehearsed. They all say the right things, and so all the interviewers are left with is a personal impression. Is the person charming? Plenty of charming sociopaths out there, and we hired one or two! Is the person a doofus? We turned down a college-president candidate once because his necktie was flamboyant. Not a reasonable decision!
It's even harder to gauge potential teachers. After the interviews we would have them give the hiring committee a model classroom lesson--a useless exercise in artificiality. Some people, and I would know, only come into their own when faced with the challenge of actual students. And some people--and I would know this too--die with a neat lesson plan and only live when reading the room and thinking on their feet.
Not practical but in a perfect world: candidate and I come into my classroom; I hand out a poem--'Addlestrop' would be my choice because it is very simple and very mysterious. Students read the poem, maybe one recites it. We talk about it briefly and I hand the discussion over to the candidate, again briefly.
"Take ten minutes and write a vignette,' I say, "Cuz that's what 'Addlestrop' is." And they write and I write (always part of my unspoken contract with students--I wouldn't ask them to do something I wouldn't do.) And the candidate writes too. After ten minutes, the candidate is on. How do they handle the next part? I know what I would do and what comes next. What do they want to do?
So, yeah, my idea of the ideal method of choosing a teaching candidate is to create a scenario that would play into all my strengths!
I can't think of a very good answer to 'Why did you apply for this position?'
At various times I would immediately have thought in answer: "I'm desperate." "I have two little kids at home." "I'm broke." "Where I work now is toxic." "I fucking hate my fucking boss." "My fucking boss fucking hates me." "You pay better than where I am now."
None of the above came out of my mouth! I might have tried this, the truth but not the whole truth: "I like to teach, and I like to teach the kind of students you attract, so your needs and my skills are a good match."
In this situation, the interview is usually a good predictor of success on the job -- but not because of the supposedly objective scoring. I usually end up matching scores to the feeling I get from the person, the sense I have from their approach, for their understanding of the transferable skills involved (customer service, willingness to learn, not afraid of technology). It's not great.
In this case, the correct answers to "Why did you apply for this position?" are things like: I love the library, the library is a community hub, I want to serve my community, I use the library a lot and would like to be part of it.
>>"I like to teach, and I like to teach the kind of students you attract, so your needs and my skills are a good match."<< This sounds perfect to me.
Post a Comment