How to spot a Charlaton in an interview

Companies often hire our firm to replace employees who are underachieving, and in many cases it involves an employee who the company least expected to fail in their position.

Sometimes companies will place too much value on the corporate fit of an employee, or a person’s potential, or maybe the was a referral from a respected person, or sometimes it is because the person was able to impress the company with their stellar presentation skills in the interview process.

Sometimes there can be more “sizzle” than “substance” so my advice to companies is to always spend some additional time in the interview process, and ask more behavioral questions based on thought process, behavior and analysis.

The depth of the potential employee’s answers are paramount.

Too many hiring decisions are made on the basis that the candidate has been thoroughly “checked out” by other company employees.

Asking more of the above mentioned questions will help differentiate the stronger candidates from the weaker candidates.

The difference between strong candidates and weak candidates can usually be determined in their answers.

1.

Weaker candidates tend to generalize their experience and cannot draw out specifically what they have learned.

Stronger candidates tend to be much more specific.

Do not be fooled by someone who is confident and who will speak broadly about their experience so as to not bore the interviewer with minute details.

2.

Stronger candidates are more open and more in tune with their strengths, weaknesses, mistakes and limitations.

They are comfortable in their skill sets.

Someone who struggles to remember a mistake that they made is more concerned about failing the interview rather than answering the question.

3.

Stronger candidates tend to describe situations and events with more depth and analysis.

Press them on these issues throughout their experience and don’t just focus on one or two examples that are most relevant for the position to which they are interviewing.

4.

Weaker candidates tend to focus on “what” happened rather than “why” it happened.

Stronger candidates have a much better handle on cause and effect and tend to focus on eliminating or implementing cause’s in order to get the desired effect.

Farewell,

Mike