Interviews are tricky times for clients. Many, who come to me defeated after an interview rejection often wonder, how despite their strong responses to ALL interview questions, they did not pass the muster and get that offer they were so sure that they would receive.
There are so many factors that enter the selection calculus that it is difficult to predict what exactly causes the decision maker(s) to pick someone else, despite your stellar performance throughout the interview process.
First, there are three factors that govern interview success: Chemistry, Compatibility, and Competency (the 3Cs). Alternatively they are called Ethos, Pathos, Logos, which are Greek equivalents of the same formula. Chemistry is something that happens almost within the first few moments of starting the interview, sometimes, even before it begins as you enter and shake the interviewer’s hand. But, if you do not win on that vector right away, there are still the other two vectors (Cs) that can compensate for the missing chemistry to certain extent.
So, the best strategy, as you take in the energy of the interview, is to first assess what is working and what needs work. If you are relaxed and present in the moment (this is a practiced behavior) then it is easy to make this assessment and dynamically steer your focus in the right direction to move positively ahead. Overcompensating on any of the remaining vectors can also land you into trouble, so be careful in how you regroup after making the assessment of what is working and what needs work.
One of the key factors that get in the way of a successful interview is what comes across to the interviewer as a relatively obvious observation about the candidate’s weak spot. In most cases it is observable or easily detectable. So, when the interviewer spots this vulnerability they tend to assume that to be a fact and probe in the direction to validate their assumption. With a few data points they can quickly come to the conclusion that their assessment was correct and then they find ways to reject the candidate. This is a critical point in the interview process and your job is to thwart it before it takes effect and obviate it.
I want to illustrate this point by giving concrete examples:
A candidate goes for a program manager job at a product development company. The company develops software applications using local and offshore teams and none of the teams is directly under the project manager, but is matrixed to her. So, the hiring manager is going to look for telltale signs that make you vulnerable to the typical shenanigans of the metrixed teams: avoiding accountability, finger pointing, miscommunication, and ensuing confusion, among other things. So, if you are a physically small person, with a weak voice, and a physical energy to match then the assumption the interviewer is going to make about you is that these team members will walk all over you and thwart your efforts to keep your project on track and merely assume that you will do nothing about it.
So, to preempt this perception you must actively neutralize this conclusion before the interviewer gets a chance to probe in that direction and confirm it in their own ignorant and bigoted ways.
So, here is my strategy:
Early in the process divulge how most team members make a mis-judgment about your ability to manage a complex project because of your physical appearance and how you project your voice. “Both these attributes belie my ability to manage a large project because many team members mistakenly assume that they can get away with sloughing-off on the project and then finger pointing. Here is how I counter that….” Then go on in detail about how you structure your project, how you communicate clear responsibilities and then hold everyone accountable. If you do that well and early then the interviewer is NOT going to probe in that direction and give you extra leeway to make your case. By doing this preemptively you have obviated the need for the interviewer to make a wrong judgment about you. This single move will quickly increase your credibility and make you more desirable as a candidate.
Yet another time to bring this up is when they ask you about your “weaknesses,” if that comes early enough in the process.
Another example is when someone has a strong accent, many interviewers just assume that your English is not up to par and that you have a communication problem. You can neutralize that perception by stating it and using good diction in your conversation with correctly used language and reiterate that you can communicate well despite your heavy accent.
What I have suggested above is not a panacea for a bad interview. But, often this strategy will save you from someone misjudging you because of some misperceptions that are inevitable during a short interaction with an interviewer who are quick to find reasons to eliminate good candidates and choose safe ones, instead. That part is now in your hands.
Good luck!