There are several issues that can have an effect on the objectives of an interview that may not relate directly to the process of eliciting information. A few of these issues will be discussed in a little detail to provide a flavour for this topic. In each case the issue will be outlined, what its effect could be, why it should have this effect and how it may be possible to do something about the effect.
Where it is everyone’s only intention to uncover information concerning the interview topic, then truth will depend on what people believe. Information gathered will be true if the beliefs held by the interviewee are correct. An interviewer should consider the likelihood of eliciting only the truth from interviews from the outset. This likelihood may depend on the experience of the interviewee, on how many interviewees are able to answer the same questions (verification) and on whether the questions have been asked in the correct way.
There are many bother reasons that truth may be sacrificed in an interview. These reasons relate to the motives of those involved. For instance, in a job interview, the interviewee may be strongly motivated to gain employment or promotion. This may mean that the interviewee is prepared to add to the truth about what is said about his or her own capability and experience for instance. In other words they may lie in order to increase the likelihood of achieving their goal.
Truth may also be deliberately sacrificed in situations where other issues such as risk and trust are significant.
From the point of view of the interviewee, that person may feel that revealing information may have an effect such as threatening the person’s future employment or promotion prospects etc. This effect is particularly evident in organisations that have a recent history of staff losses through redundancy etc. The effect can be further aggravated when the interviewee feels that the information they are about to reveal is the thing that is also acting as their job security. They may feel that their continued employment or chances of promotion depend on aspects of their knowledge. They may feel that revealing this knowledge makes them more dispensable.
This is really all about whether the interview has a hidden agenda. The purpose of an interview should be clearly stated but it should be realised that if the interview is really threatening to an interviewee then full cooperation cannot be assured. If the situation is really one of capturing knowledge before redundancy for instance then this objective should be stated and some incentive for the interviewee to reveal their knowledge when the objective is clear, should be created. If an organisation is known for things like hidden agendas then it would be difficult to assure cooperation in interviews.
It may not just be the interviewee that has concerns however. The interviewer may be concerned that the very interview process may reveal something to the interviewee that should be kept secret. This may influence the way that the interview is conducted. Any risk of revealing secret information through the normal interview process should be carefully evaluated and possibly an alternative to interviews be carried out, such as a well designed questionnaire.
Section 5.1 raised the issue of an organisation that is known for its hidden agendas. As well as creating risk, this situation has a serious effect on trust. If interviewer and interviewee cannot trust one another then interview objectives are the likely casualties.
When an interviewee fails to answer a question is it because they don’t know the answer or because they don’t want to revel it? If an interviewee answers a question ambiguously, is this really because they don’t know the answer but don’t want to admit this? The answers to these questions are related to trust and in many cases also to risk.
When an interviewee and interviewer are new to each other, then it may be difficult to established trust between them. Any trust that is established in such circumstances is likely to relate to the context of the interview. For instance if a trustworthy but new interviewer is to interview a person that is already suspicious of the process because of past experience, then this lack of trust will also be applied to the interviewer even before a meeting takes place.
It can be very difficult to re-establish trust in an environment where trust has failed. It may be simpler to make operational plans when it is known that there is no trust. This may mean verifying all information from multiple sources etc.
Trust is an issue at the core of organisational management and attempts to fix significant problems in this area are probably a long way outside of the scope of an interview. However, where there is no underlying mistrust, then encouraging a trusting interviewee / interviewer relationship will help the interview process.
An interview, like a meeting, needs someone that will take charge of procedures and processes. It can make a big difference to a meeting or interview if the people there know that there is someone who will protect the environment and manage the resources, particularly time, in an agreed and acceptable way. Often such a person needs to possess qualities of good and strong leadership.
It is certainly not respectful if an interview that was set to last one hour, is left to go on for twice as long or is subject to constant interruption. Interviews in particular demand concentration and interruptions should be managed out of the proceedings before the interview starts and any unexpected interruption should be dealt with firmly and decisively.
Decisive action is often required to control the interview process itself. This may involve managing the time effectively and making decisions as to how to deal with unexpected situations such as the disclosure of completely unexpected information that could lead to prolonged investigation. Decisive management may also be needed to ensure that an interview that is supposed to focus, does this and an interview that is supposed to be well structured, sticks to the structural framework imposed.
Procedure is a particular issue where interviews are to be highly structured. Creative and adaptive qualities are often required of an interviewer but where the interviewer is also expected to control the interview, complying with a laid down procedure may also be necessary. It may be felt that creativity and adaptability are in conflict with a requirement to follow procedure in some cases. However, this is something that must be managed well if interviews with such complex requirements are to be successful.
As an example, suppose a well structured interview was floundering because the interviewee seemed to be having difficulty weighting parameters etc. The interviewer may then feel that a card sort exercise may overcome this problem but it is not part of the structured procedure for this interview. In this case, the decision may be to defer the interview until another time and re-plan the new event, taking into account the new situation.
The main point here is that the issues related to procedure and possibly a need for creativity and adaptability need to be known in advance and typical scenarios prepared for.
Each party at an interview (or meeting) should have respect for the others there. This respect means attempting to see the situation from their point of view and not simply proceeding with ones own agenda.
Where interviews or meetings involve differences in seniority it can happen that the dignity of the subordinate may not be respected. Even if the subordinate is perceived to be at fault in some way it is probably counterproductive to humiliate that person in front of others. The situation being discussed is an interview after all and affording respect and dignity is not something that is likely to cause problems to the outcome of the interview. Indeed. It is likely to have a positive influence.