what does this interview question mean?

A reader writes:

Right now my current job is terrible and I've been lucky enough to snag an interview here and there. During the last interview, I was asked by the manager if I was currently applying for other positions at other companies. I was taken aback as the question could be taken two ways -- either the manager was concerned that I was applying everywhere in a desperate effort to get out of my current position or they were concerned that I was in high demand.

My response was two-fold. First I reiterated that I was leaving my current company because the small size meant I reported directly to a vice president and that there wasn't a path to advancement. Secondly I pointed out that I was applying very selectively to positions and that I applied to this specific position because I was impressed with the company values and that I was suited to the position at hand.

From your perspective, what is the purpose of that question, and was my response appropriate? Should I have mentioned other companies that I had interviewed or applied with to inflate my value? Or would that backfire in some manner?

The most likely reason the interviewer asked this is that she was wondering if you were actively seeking to leave your job (and thus conducting a full-scale job search) or were motivated solely by this particular opening. It's also possible that she might ask this routinely as part of her interview schtick (I think every interviewer has questions they love to use, some of them better than others), and that she wasn't getting at anything in particular about you.

Your response was perfectly appropriate. Explaining that you're applying selectively is good. And no, you don't want to mention specific companies you're applying at, as nothing good can come of that. (For instance, if you mention another company where she knows the hiring manager personally, she might decide not to "compete" with her friend for you.)

I wouldn't try to read too much into this question.

the magic interview question gets featured on ABC News

Regular readers know what a fan I am of this magic question to ask your interviewer:

Thinking back to people who have been in this position previously, what differentiated the ones who were good from the ones who were really great?

I have now spread the gospel about it to ABCnews.com, and it's mentioned in this story (at the end).

is this job going to be a nightmare?

A reader writes:

I applied for a position that looked great on paper - the organization, job duties, position, etc. I sent my cover letter and resume and within a week I had a call-back. I did a phone interview with one of my potential co-workers about my skills, salary expectations, and experience. Then, I was invited in to do a HR interview with a computer test before I met my potential co-workers and boss in-person.

The HR interview and computer test went well - no complaints. I was given the full job description packet, which had more detail about the position. Again, everything looked great and concise on paper. I then met with two potential co-workers for a face-to-face interview before I could meet with the actual boss. I felt as if the entire position had done a 180 on me. The two women had little information about the position and often contradicted what would be expected of me. They kept saying vague things such as "this position still needs to be defined" and "we need someone who is flexible." I assumed at this point that they were simply disorganized and perhaps new at interviewing. They assured me that the boss would have more information about the position.

A week later, I went in to meet with the boss. She talked at long detail about herself and how busy she was - how involved she was in different projects, what her weekly schedule looks like, etc. I tried to keep the interview on track by asking about the job duties and what the most important aspects of the position were. Again, I was met with more confusion and contradictions. Afterwards, I met with the first 2 people for another interview and some written exercises. I left confused again, and ever since then I have had this bad feeling in my stomach I shouldn't take the job if offered to me.

I was told that they would be making the final decision this week. However, I received an e-mail today stating that a completely different person wants a phone interview with me tomorrow. I was told that this person was in my job description and was mentioned to me previously. She was not. I have no idea who this person is or what my job relationship would be with her.

My question is - Is this job worth taking? Or am I creating unnecessary problems for myself? In this economy, and being a recent college graduate, I want to have a job. I want to work. However, this position seems highly inconsistent and I can't shake this feeling that it may be more trouble than it's worth. I'm not sure what I should do if offered this job.

It's not always a terrible thing to walk into a situation that's relatively undefined and to help define it. Sometimes it can be a great opportunity, in fact, because you can help mold the role and wear hats you might not have had a chance to wear otherwise -- and other times it can be a nightmare.

What you don't want to do is accept this job without asking a lot of questions. Things you want to know:

* While the job is still somewhat undefined, what's the range of areas it could end up encompassing?

* What will the process be for figuring that out, and what factors will come into play? What's the likely timeline for figuring it out? 

* What are the challenges and obstacles they're running into as they try to develop the role? (There must be some or it would be done by now.)

* Are there any directions the role might end up going in that you wouldn't be well-qualified for?

* What's the thinking behind hiring for the role now, before it's been fully defined? Are they looking for someone who can help in that process (or have they just not thought through how they're going about this)?

You want to go about this in a way that's collaborative and friendly, expressing sincere interest in getting a better handle on what to expect. You don't want to make them feel like you're passing judgment on them for being disorganized or contradictory (even if you are). But you do need to gather this information before you make any decisions. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that interviewing is a one-way street; you need to interview them right back.

Once you have this information, then you can decide if this is a situation you want to take on.

One other note: I'm a big, big believer in listening to your gut, so if you're still feeling dread after getting more information, pay attention to that. But get your gut some more information first.

should you end a job interview early if you realize you're not interested in the job?

A reader writes:

In a recent interview, I learned some things about the job that hadn't been in the job description, and those things were deal-breakers for me. (I had not known about these things until the interview, so I wasn't just wasting everyone's time just getting some interview practice.) There had already been other things that made the position less than ideal (pay, location, etc), and the new information told me definitively that it wasn't for me.

If something is brought up during the interview and your honest reaction is, "This position isn't going to pay me enough to put up with that," is it a good idea to just tell them right there that you are no longer interested if that task is a regular part of the job? Or should I just wait until I send them a thank-you note to let them know?

Go through the rest of the interview and stay friendly and engaged, and then let them know afterwards that the position isn't quite what you're looking for. 

Why should you bother, when you've already determined the job isn't for you? Because these people may have a job opening you like better in the future, and if you impress them now, that'll give you a leg up then. And also because if you impress them now, they might refer you to another company that's a better fit. And because the world is small and people talk, and you don't want to be "the guy who abruptly announced that he'd never take a job that involved ___ and got up and left."

Think of it as networking and/or interview practice, so that you don't feel like you're wasting your time.

And when you contact them later to let you know that the job isn't the right fit for you, you might consider letting them know why. For all you know, they'll come back with, "Oh, if you hate doing ___, that's no problem -- we can easily structure the position around just X, Y, and Z instead." And even if they don't, it's still useful for them to know your thought process, so they know whether the next opening that comes up is one that would interest you or not. If they don't know why you withdrew, they won't know if it was their entire company culture that you disliked or something specific to just that position.

But you've got to be pleasant when you do it; don't word it like you did here! For example:

Good: "I'm actually looking for something that doesn't involve significant customer contact; my heart is more in behind-the-scenes work, and it sounds like you really want someone to work with customers."

Bad: "I won't take a job that involves that much customer contact."

As a side note, last year we addressed this same issue from the other side of the equation -- whether the interviewer should cut an interview short if she realizes the candidate isn't right. It raised different, but related, issues and it's here if you want to check it out. (The comments are especially interesting.)

is it bad form to joke in a job interview?

A reader writes:

I was wondering what your thoughts are on joking in an interview. I recently had a phone interview that I thought went very well. I was well prepared, am very qualified for the job and had competent answers to all questions. I even threw in a few well meaning jokes (none having to do with sensitive topics) that I thought showed my personality. 

It's been a week and I have not heard back (they said they would contact in-person interviews by the end of last week). I am starting to think that my jokes may have put them off. One that stands out occurred when I was speaking and got cut off. They called me back and I said, "I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you heard last." The main interviewer seemed to have a hard time remembering and I joked that they must have been "listening with rapt interest." I thought it was funny and well meaning, but perhaps it was not in good taste? Your thoughts are appreciated!

This is tricky. Senses of humor can be wildly different.

Now, I'm a big believer that you should be "real" in an interview, so that you find out right up front if you and the employer just don't mesh very well. And a joking remark can establish rapport, if it's the right joking remark, delivered at the right time. But you also need to remember that things can come across differently when said by a stranger than when the same thing is said by someone you know.

And you have to be careful about how someone else might take it. For instance, the "listening with rapt interest" joke might have come across as sarcastic, which is a type of humor that not everyone likes or gets. It could also have come across as a dig at the interviewer, rather than in the self-effacing way you probably meant it.

For what it's worth, it's taken me years to accept that not everyone finds my sense of humor as amusing as I do, particularly in situations where people barely know me. In some situations, it doesn't really matter; if they're not entertained, so be it. But there are certain situations where it's worth turning it down.

All that said, it's entirely possible that this has nothing whatsoever to do with why you haven't heard back -- that they have other candidates who are a better fit for unrelated reasons, that they're just moving more slowly than planned, and so forth.

What do others think?

employer wants me to shadow an employee as part of interview process

A reader writes:

A colleague of mine with whom I’ve previously done business recently recruited me for a job at his company. It’s a VP position reporting directly to him. It’s an important position in the company and it would be an awesome job for me. He said he feels like the position was made for me and he’s sure I’ll be a fit, but he needs the rest of his staff to think so, too. Fine, then. Let the process begin. And I do mean process.

First, I came in for an interview with him. Normal. We ended up in the interview for over 3 hours. Relatively normal, considering I know this guy already and the nature of the position.

Then, I came in to interview with HR and another VP. Again, fairly normal. They did go on a bit about the culture and how it’s very different (but good, they assured) from other companies and it takes a special person to work there. Okay, fine. I’m special.

But here’s where it starts to veer off into an episode of The Apprentice. They now want me to come in for a few hours during the day this week and shadow another member of management with whom I’d be working closely, so I can “get a better feel for their culture.” Of course, I’ll have to take time off from my current job for this, but I’ve done that before for interviews, but shadowing? Is this normal at the VP level? I’ve never heard of such a thing and I’ve never been subjected to it at lower levels.

What’s your take on this practice and what it says about the company? Should I do it?

This type of investment of time in the hiring process isn't necessarily a red flag; it says they care about making sure they're hiring the right people, which is smart (and will probably impact your quality of life positively if you end up working there). But the shadowing element is unusual -- not necessarily troubling, just unusual.

My question would be how this "shadowing" is going to work exactly, and what you'll really learn from it. Frankly, a better use of the time might be to have you come in and actually do some of the work you'd be doing in the position, or meet with the people who would be your new team. That can give both sides a lot of insight into whether the fit is right. Shadowing, though -- well, I'm not sure how much insight that's going to give you. (I also wonder if they really mean "shadow" in the normal sense -- i.e., are you just going to watch this guy answer emails and go to meetings, or is it going to be more interactive?)

On the other hand, there are plenty of people out there who wouldn't have accepted their current jobs if they'd been able to peek behind the curtain for a couple of hours and see how things really worked at that company. You're getting that peek, and it's hard to think that's a bad thing. In fact, more information when you're deciding whether or not to spend a huge chunk of your waking hours somewhere for the foreseeable future is pretty much always a good thing.

So I'd say do it, keep an open mind, and see what you think of the whole experience. (And then come back and tell us, because I'm curious now.)

Overall, the biggest point I'd take away from this is that they clearly think there's something unusual about their culture and that not just anyone will be a good fit. And when people emphasize culture in the hiring process, there's usually important information there for you -- about how happy you're going to be in that workplace and how happy they're going to be with you. So pay attention to what they're telling you, take advantage of the chance they're giving you to look behind the scenes, and figure out whether or not this place feels right for you.

informational interview when you've already applied for a job

A reader writes:

I recently applied for a job with a closing date of a week and a half ago. A colleague of mine also applied to this organization (for a different position) and was told by a representative from this organization at a career fair today that the best way to "keep himself in the running" was to email the department he was applying to and ask for a 20-30 minute informational interview. I've always thought that an informational interview was only for when you weren't directly asking for a job, not once you've already applied.

Should I follow my colleague's tip and email the department I've applied to, or would I ruin my chances by requesting a short informational interview?

That's really odd. You're right; informational interviews are normally not for when you're applying for a particular job, but rather for learning about a field you're new to or otherwise want an insider point of view on. (Of course, lots of people try to use them as a back door to a job, but that's a different rant.) And if a candidate asked for an informational interview while also being considered for a job, it wouldn't come across much differently than "I'd like to schedule my job interview now, please."

So either this company has an unusual way of doing things (which is entirely possible), or the person who advised your colleague didn't really know what she was talking about (also entirely possible). Either way, your colleague should take the advice -- since it very well might be good advice for this company -- but should specifically say that Jill Smith or whoever advised him to request the meeting. That way, if Jill Smith was misinformed, the employer won't blame your friend.

You're in a different boat though. First, you can't attribute your request to Jill Smith, because she didn't make the recommendation to you. And second, Jill Smith's advice might have been specific to the department your friend is applying to. So then you're back to it normally being a really weird request in the middle of an application process. Thus, I would err on the side of safety and proceed as if your friend had never told you this -- i.e., don't ask for the informational interview.

Anyone want to argue this one differently?

how to answer employer's worry about your previous self-employment

A reader writes:

I just called a hiring manager to see what the status of my application is. He informed me that I made it to the next round, but that his concerns about hiring me stem from the fact that I have been self-employed for the past five years, and he is not sure how I will settle into a strict 9-5 job where I have to answer to other people. What is the best way to address his concern during the next interview?

To some extent, the best answer to this stems from your own thoughts on his question. Why do you think that shouldn't be a concern for him? For instance, maybe working for yourself has given you a ton of insight into the burdens and challenges of being a manager, and you expect to be especially sensitive to and empathetic about that once you have a manager again. Or maybe you'd absolutely thrilled to work a 9-5 schedule, after years of having to work at all hours to drum up business for yourself, and can't wait to get back into a more traditional routine. Maybe you're more business-minded than ever after being in a position where you were entirely dependent on your own efforts to generate income.

Basically, the employer is seeking to make sure that you're not going to have problems accepting someone else's management and management style, and that you're not going to realize that you hate the switch after a few weeks on the job.

How do you feel about having a boss again, and working a more traditional schedule in a more traditional setting? Your answer lies in there.

should you tape-record job interviews?

A reader writes:

I have two related questions that I'd be interesting in getting your take on:

First, is it common for interviewers to record the interview so others can listen to it who would be affected by the hire but were unable or uninterested in interviewing? Would that be helpful, do you think, to the hiring process, or just nerve-wracking?

Also, do you think it would be considered weird for a person coming in to be interviewed to request to record the conversation? After all, these are two parties discussing a possible partnership, so it seems reasonable that someone being interviewed should record the conversation. But again, would that be helpful for candidates trying to determine which offer to accept?

First, on interviewers recording the interview: It's definitely not common; I've never heard of it being done, in fact, although I'm sure that somewhere out there, some company is doing it. And probably making many of their candidates significantly more nervous in the process.

On the question of the candidate asking to record the interview: First, let me note that I'm answering this in terms of how employers are likely to react, not necessarily how they should react, so I don't want anyone haranguing me in the comments about how I should be more accommodating of a perfectly reasonable request from a candidate.

The reality is, I think it would make most employers very, very uncomfortable, since they'd worry the intent was adversarial in some way -- i.e., the candidate thought they might do something illegal and wanted to capture that on tape (or simply use the the presence of the tape recorder to deter it), or use the recording later to say "you said the job would include X, Y, and Z, and never mentioned I'd also be doing W."  

Unfortunately, while there could be a perfectly innocent motivation to ask to record -- the one you suggest -- it's so outside the normal range of interview behavior that asking it would be close to announcing, "I'm litigious and/or high maintenance."

And even though the majority of employers have no intention of screwing you over, legally or otherwise, they'd still worry about this, because no one wants to hire an adversarial, litigious, or high-maintanence employee.

(I suppose someone might have a disability for which recording for later playback was a useful accommodation, but that's about the only time I can see most employers being comfortable with it.)

In both of the cases you ask about -- the employer recording or the candidate recording -- I think it's one of those things that might be reasonable and useful in theory but is so far outside the convention of what's normally done that it would be very hard to do it without making people uncomfortable. Sort of like how it might be useful if you could ask your boyfriend if you can record your break-up conversation so you can reflect on it later, but it would likely make him think you were slightly crazy.

Anyone ever try asking to record an interview?

what's the goal of multiple 30-minute interviews?

A reader writes:

I recently applied for a support position at an academic institution. The phone interview went well and I was invited to come in for an in-person interview. The interview is scheduled for 2 hours and 15 minutes and consists of two thirty-minute interviews with high level researchers, two thirty- minute interviews with HR staff, and one 15 minute interview with an Executive Assistant. 

A succession of five interviews with five different people crammed into two hours and fifteen minutes does not seem like enough time to have a thorough, two-way conversation with each person. In my experience with job interviewing, the interviews have always been for a longer amount of time and with fewer people. Can you please tell me a little bit about what is expected from rapid, thirty-minute interviews and what the goal of these conversations should be?

Yeah, they're not going to be able to do an in-depth assessment. They're just going to be able to have five people get a general sense of what you're like, whether you seem initially crazy or not (which is always more of a concern than you might think), and whether they have a generally positive response to you. They're not going to learn much about your skills or experience that they haven't already learned from your resume.

This isn't that uncommon though. In fact, I'd say that more employers lack rigorous hiring processes than have them -- which is why so many employers end up hiring the wrong people.

Your goal in all this should be to be pleasant, to be prepared to answer basic interview questions multiple times, and to ask your own questions so you can get enough of a sense of the job and the culture that you can determine whether you'd be a good fit -- since they're probably not going to be equipped to do that for you.

should an employer pay travel costs when inviting out-of-town candidates to interview?

A reader writes:

I've been invited to an interview for a senior-level job by a potential employer who is only willing to cover part of my travel costs to the interview. Because the invitation was silent on this topic, I had to raise the reimbursement issue. I was surprised about this based on my prior experiences as a job seeker and on my own HR experience. Based on my application materials, it should have been clear that I would have to fly to the the interview. 

I initially responded asking about whether they wanted me to make travel arrangements and submit receipts or have them make the airfare purchase directly. They responded that I should make arrangements directly, and that I should send them the cost so they could decide what portion they could cover. I submitted my projected costs and they replied that they could cover 60%.

I've already accepted the appointment, since delaying to negotiate wouldn't work in my favor as an applicant, and could make my share of the expenses go up if fares increase. But I'm concerned that if the interview goes well, it may spell trouble down the road. (E.g. have I put myself at a disadvantage during salary negotiations by signalling desperation? Once on the job, will I be working in an institution where reasonable expenses aren't built into budgets?) Obviously, I haven't gotten to that bridge yet, but these concerns are real. Is this a red flag, or just par for the course in an employers' market?

Here's the deal with interview travel expenses:

When an employer has a ton of good local candidates, there's no incentive for them to pay to bring in candidates from out-of-town. So if you want to be in the running, you may need to assume the cost of getting yourself there (and possibly of relocation too).

For instance, I recently hired for a position where I had two out-of-town candidates come in for interviews. I never even raised the issue of reimbursement and neither did they.  I simply said, "We'd love to interview you next week if you can get to D.C."  It wasn't a specialized job, I had more qualified local candidates than I could interview, and while I was happy to consider them as candidates, I didn't have sufficient financial motivation to pay to do it.

Now, in other cases, where my candidate pool is more limited, I assume from the start that I'll probably have to pay to bring in non-local candidates. It really comes down to the nature of the job and the depth of options facing the employer. Remember, this stuff is all business transactions.

All that said, if you do end up in a situation where you'd have to cover your own travel expenses, it’s completely reasonable to say something like, “I’m happy to cover my own expenses, but would it be possible for us to conduct a phone interview first to make sure that I’m a strong match?” (They may say no, but you're entitled to ask and you're entitled to decline to fly out.)

It’s also reasonable to say, “I’m extremely interested in this job and happy to pay my own way out there if you think I’m likely to be a strong match. However, given that money is tight for everyone right now, could you give me an idea of how strong a candidate you think I am?”  Their answer may help you decide, since there's a big difference between "you're our leading candidate" and "we're interviewing six people and you're all about evenly qualified" in terms of the risk you're paying for.

So, back to your questions -- have you put yourself at a disadvantage during salary negotiations by signaling desperation? No, I don't think that flying yourself out signals desperation. You've simply signaled that you're interested in the job, which you'd also signal by, you know, applying and interviewing. (I hope you've first ascertained that the salary is in a range you'd accept though -- you don't want to fly yourself out and then discover later on that you're wildly out of their price range.)

And once on the job, would you be working somewhere without reasonable expenses built into budgets? Again, I don't see reason to assume that, for the reasons I explained above. But if given a job offer, you could certainly ask about budgets and resources.

Ultimately, travel expenses are -- in many but not all cases -- one of the many casualties of this bad job market. If you want a job outside of your local area, the large number of candidates competing with you means that there's a good chance the employer isn't going to be motivated to cover your costs.

do I have to wear pantyhose to an interview?

A reader writes:

Perhaps my question is a bit trite, but do I have to wear pantyhose to an interview? I hate pantyhose. So much so that I haven't owned or worn any in at least 10 years. I usually just wear slacks to an interview, but I bought this killer new suit, and it has a skirt, so the issue has come up again in my life.

In general, no. But there are some industries -- fewer and fewer of them -- where women are still expected to wear pantyhose.  Are you interviewing in a particularly conservative industry? If not, bare legs are fine these days. Go with a closed shoe though.

If you're not sure if the office is particularly conservative or not, you could play it safe and err on the side of pantyhose. (Or you could decide that if they have a problem with you not being squeezed into waist-to-toe nylon, it's not the culture for you anyway.)

how do you answer "tell me about yourself" in a job interview?

A reader writes:

The interview question that stresses me out the most (besides the what are your weaknesses question) is the tell me about yourself question...or statement...or request, whichever it is. What do employers really want to hear? I'm assuming that this isn't the time to regale colorful stories of my childhood in the deep south, but what should I be talking about?

"Tell me about yourself" in a job interview really means "give me an overview of who you are, professionally speaking." There's a reason this is asked at the very beginning of an interview -- it says "give me the broad background before we dive in to specifics."

You want to be ready with about a one-minute answer that summarizes where you're at in your career (generally with an emphasis on your most recent job), what you do, and what the strengths of your approach are.

For instance: "I got into technical writing because I found that I have an unusual mixture of technical aptitude with writing skills. I'd worked as a software engineer for the first few years of my career, but when I saw how rare it was to find people with that kind of technical background who could also write, I started moving into technical writing. I've found that I love translating complicated technical information into words that a non-technical person can easily understand, and the fact that I come from a software background means that I can communicate well both with the tech team and my intended audience. My last boss told me that I was the only employee she'd ever had who mixed those two skills to the extent that I do! Being able to bridge those two worlds so comfortably is the reason I was especially interested in the position here."

For someone who's more entry-level and doesn't really have a career to describe yet, the answer would be more forward-looking. For instance: "I've always been a news junkie and I spent my last two years in school preparing myself to work in communications when I graduated. I sought out internships and extracurricular opportunities that would expose me to media relations work, and I'm excited to continue on that path. I've been told that I'm particularly good at coming up with creative story pitches, and I love pitching, but I really want to learn every aspect of this business from the ground up. I'd like to work in-house rather than in an agency, and I'm especially interested in advocacy work, so I'm particularly excited about this opportunity."

As you see in these two examples, you want to keep this focused on your professional persona. Don't bring kids into it, or your spouse, or where you grew up. That's not to say you can't say anything personal, but make sure there's a relevant reason for raising it. For instance, you could add something like, "And I grew up in this area and still have family here, so I'm really excited about the prospect of moving back." (Hence signaling to the interviewer that you're not going to be flighty about relocation.)

Whatever your answer is, practice it out loud over and over so it flows right out of your mouth in the interview. Don't try to wing it!

interviewing again after a prior unsuccessful interview

A reader writes:

A few months ago, I interviewed for an auditor position with my local county government. The interview didn't go all that well (I tend to get nervous and babble too much, also I was ultimately not as good a match for the position compared to other candidates) and I wound up not being selected. I was in contention for the job due to an examination I took earlier in the year. I scored well enough on the exam to be pretty high on the candidate registry, which apparently means that anytime an accounting type job is open, I am contacted for an interview.

Long story short, this office apparently has another vacancy, and I have an interview with them next week. I am thinking there is a good chance I may be interviewed again by the same people who turned me down back in the spring. If so, they of course will know that I have a good deal of advance knowledge of what they will ask (they have a standard interview with four or five questions the candidate must respond to, then usually brief period to answer candidate questions). They may not even change the questions from last time.

I am not positive, but I think this may be for the same job as before. If so, do you have any advice how to proceed? I don't feel like I did well at all in my prior interview, and am already a little anxious that the interviewers will be the same as before and will have some kind of bias based on my prior performance. And it is not as if anything has really changed as far as my qualifications for the job, the only thing I can really do is improve how I present myself.

Well, the good news is that you did well enough last time that they're still interested in talking to you. You're thinking they may have a leftover bias from last time, but it's likely just the opposite -- they remembered you as potentially being good enough to fill the job, which is why you have another interview. So that right there is a good sign that will hopefully shore up your confidence.

Things that I think will help:

* Think back to the last interview and try to remember everything you can -- what were you asked? What kind of stumbles did you make? Were there ways in which you could have been better prepared? What do you wish you'd done differently? Take that knowledge and use it to prepare this time. Think very deliberately about how you want to come across, and then practice that -- as in, sit in your living room, pretend you're in the interview, and practice answering questions in a way that will reinforce whatever impression you want to give.  For instance, you felt you babbled last time, so practice giving more concise answers. You'll feel ridiculous, but you'll find yourself way more prepared when you're in the real interview.

* On the babbling issue ... long, rambling answers usually have one of two causes: (1) You're either someone who rambles in normal life too, possibly because you're not paying attention to the other person's cues, or because you don't make a point of organizing your thoughts as you speak, or (2) You're nervous. In your case, it sounds like #2. 

I think nervous rambling often stems from feeling that the interviewer can't possibly be satisfied with what you just said, so you'd better keep on going until a better answer comes out. Resist that feeling! You can always ask at the end of a shorter answer: "Does that give you what you're looking for, or would you like me to go more in depth about this?" If the interviewer wants more, believe me, she'll say so.

* Read this post on not being so nervous in interviews. Read the comments too.

Finally, as someone who has been on the other side of this, I don't think you have to worry too much about being permanently tainted by your earlier interview. Interviewers know that people get nervous. I've done interviews where I've thought, "Damn, this candidate is so nervous that I'm not able to see what she'd be like to work with day-to-day -- I can't hire her because her nerves are getting in the way of us having a real conversation, but I wish there were a way to talk to her without the nerves because for all I know, she could be great." If that candidate then reappeared a year later with the nerves under control, I'd be glad to get a chance for another conversation, and I wouldn't hold the earlier interview against her.

Remember:  You scored very high on the exam. They've wanted to interview you twice now. You have the benefit of the previous interview informing your preparation for this one. It seems to me that you're pretty well positioned for this, as long as you don't freak yourself out. So prepare, prepare, prepare, and good luck!

is my dental problem scaring off employers?

A reader writes:

I've been troubled by a recent dental accident that's left me with a noticeable piece missing from a front tooth.

I've been unemployed (except for temp work) for almost two years due to a layoff and have been rejected by several companies because I am "overqualified" (with a possible factor of being 58). Now I have this physical defect to add to my nervousness if I actually get to the interview stage. I am barely scraping by on my bills and have no insurance to cover a dental repair. The occupations I'm most qualified for are those involving face-to-face contact with clients and I can't help but think that my current appearance is detrimental to my chances of employment.

How can this be explained or downplayed to a potential employer? It's not one of those no-one-else-would-notice things. I'm worried that it marks me as someone who doesn't care about their appearance or is unprofessional, or that I represent an undesired load on their health plan because I would have the work done as soon as possible.

I once interviewed a guy who was missing an entire front tooth. He told me as we were shaking hands that he was in the midst of having dental work done and that he was embarrassed about the tooth. And I didn't really think anything about it after that (aside from "that sucks, poor guy"). We've all had dental stuff happen or known people who have suffered through it.

I would take the same approach this guy took and just address it right up-front. Say something at the outset like, "I'm a bit embarrassed about this, but I had a recent dental accident and the work to fix it isn't finished yet." There's something about saying you're embarrassed that makes people want to set you at ease and prove to you that there's nothing to be embarrassed about. In fact, I suspect it actually makes people who otherwise might have been judgmental less likely to be.

I wouldn't worry at all that employers are calculating the impact of that dental work on their health insurance. The ethics of that calculation aside, something like that is unlikely to impact their rates anyway.

By the way, I do wonder if your self-consciousness about the tooth is affecting your confidence and the way you interview, or even making you less likely to smile, so pay special attention to that. Good luck!

interviewer gave me a typing test for a non-clerical job -- and then canceled the rest of the interview

A reader writes:

I'm job hunting again and recently had a really embarrassing experience during an interview. The interview was for a job in the industry I work in, but in a very different role. The day before the interview I read up on the company and the industry and I went into the interview feeling fairly confident.

When I got there, the hiring manager met me and escorted me an empty cubicle and told me to take a typing test, and then she would meet with me and the head of the department I'd be working in. I was startled. No WPM requirement was listed on the job posting, she never mentioned any type of testing when we scheduled the interview, and the job was not presented as a clerical position in the ad. I have to confess, I'm not a good typist, but it's never been a requirement for any of the jobs I've had. Long story short, I bombed the test, the interview was cancelled and I was escorted out of the building. I was rattled, but thanked her for her time and left.

Since then, I've done some online typing tests to improve my skills. Here's my question, is it acceptable for me to ask when scheduling other interviews if tests will be given? I don't want to make a bad impression before an interview, but I want to be prepared.

That's ... weird. I'm curious about what type of job it was. I'm a big fan of having candidates simulate the work they'll actually be doing on the job, but I can't imagine giving a typing test for a non-clerical job. 

I think you can ask about this beforehand, but you want to be careful about how you ask. If you don't use the right wording, you might come across as less than confident in your skills. I would say something like, "I'd like to prepare for the interview ahead of time. Can you tell me how many people I'll be meeting with, whether there'll be a period for skills assessment tests, and so forth?"

That said, I don't think you're likely to run into this a ton.

how can I stop being so nervous in job interviews?

A reader writes:

I have approximately ten years of administrative and clerical experience. On the other hand, I interrupted the career trajectory in order to pursue a baccalaureate degree. Now that college is over, I am rusty with interviewing (my skills are not due to temporary assignments). During the couple of interviews I have received, if an EMT read my physiology, I probably would be rushed to the emergency room. In addition, my nerves affect my answers. My answers are rambling and lack expansion.

I am not sure how to solve this issue. I am ready for a career position, yet I feel a sense of capitalistic urgency due to student loans. I seek your wisdom and advice.

I know of only two solutions to this:

1. Practice. Practice the crap out of it. This could be anything from writing down interview questions and making yourself answer them out loud, over and over and over, until your answers fly off your tongue automatically, to practicing with a friend playing the role of your interviewer, to seeking out professional help from a job coach who will coach you on your interviewing skills. I think that the more you practice, the more comfortable you'll feel.

2. One of the reasons that some people get really nervous in interviews is that you feel like you're being judged ... and worse, judged by someone who holds all the cards, someone who has something that you really want (a job opening) and who may or may not deign to give it to you. The power dynamics are all screwed up. That's nerve-racking. You can combat that a bit by changing the power dynamics in your own head -- by remembering that you may not want to work for them, for all you know, and that part of the point of the interview is to allow you to collect your own information and decide if you even want this job or these coworkers.

By the way, doing this may even make you a more attractive candidate, totally aside from the issue of your nerves. As an interviewer, when I can tell that a candidate is interviewing me right back -- and isn't just hoping for an offer without truly considering whether or not this job is right for them -- it's really appealing.

What other tips do people have for overcoming interview nerves? 

was this interviewer out of line?

A reader writes: 

At a recent interview, I was asked to explain a project that I completed at my previous employer.

I used the website redesign project as an example since it was an important and valued project for the company. I explained that I did 75% of the project, re-wrote content, and created three possible designs using a web design vendor. Then, per my supervisor’s instruction (my supervisor was #3 in charge of the company, Chief Sales Officer), I gave a detailed presentation to the entire management team of 15. During the meeting, the management team provided 15 different opinions. So, I returned to the drawing board and made some changes. Then, my supervisor and the CEO reviewed everything and provided final approval. As the head of marketing for the company, I had to follow these procedures for many projects.

The interviewer asked why I needed to present my project to a large team and gather so many opinions. He judged me on the management style and operational structure of my previous employer. Since I was not the CEO of my previous employer, I did not establish the operational procedures or review procedures – since I did not have ultimate authority. Don’t you think the interviewer was out of line?

What would you have done?

Well, so much here depends on tone and context. Sure, he might have meant it as criticism of you (which would have been unfounded, I agree). But he also might not have meant it that way at all. I can imagine it being more of a sincere request for more information, or even just a musing on why your company structured it that way. So the question alone, without context or tone, isn't inherently out of line.

Now, if he was judging you for your employer's procedures, and seemed immune to your explanation that you didn't control those, that's a bit unfair. On the other hand, it's also possible that he's specifically seeking someone who has experience doing that type of work with more autonomy, who knows.

Overall, though, this doesn't sound too horrific to me. I wouldn't focus too much on it.

did I blow my chances in this phone interview?

A reader writes:

I received an email on one of my job applications around 4:45pm. The HR Manager asked that I called back to her in regards to the position because she would like to "discuss the position and my qualifications." As I applied through a generic job board, I had not left a phone number for her to call back.

I was at a very busy coffeeshop, but looking at the time-constraint in the evening, I called her back immediately anticipating that we would schedule an interview at the company sometime the next day.

The call did not go to the voicemail and she picked up the phone immediately. She asked me if I have time for a few question, which I said yes to. Minutes into the conversation, I realized she was giving me a full-blown interview, asking me questions like "Why do I like this industry?", "When was the last time you turn a customer's experience around?"

I was so taken back that my answers were less than impressive. Furthermore, everyone around me sitting at their laptops were looking and listening to me, causing me unnecessary stress by these personal questions.

I apologized and told her I was not prepared and not in the correct state of mind for the questions, suggesting that I would much prefer to meet face-to-face. She seemed very annoyed, saying "You were the one who called me" and "You said you have time for questions". She also stressed that this was not an interview but only a few questions to know me better. (?)

In the end she said she would take my call again the next day. Although I did the best I could for her questions, admitted mistake, learned from the experience yesterday and apologized repeatedly, I have a feeling she would not call back. When asked the time frame I would get a hear back, she said she could not tell, and there is a chance I won't hear back at all.

I had read all about stress interviews - getting seated in a broken chair, pretending to be completely uninterested, etc. Yet, I feel that I should have a right to be prepared to better connect my strengths and ability to the job.

This struck me as a very bad experience. Any chances of recovery? Should I give up or avoid this company altogether?

I'd move on. It's clear that there was a miscommunication here, but I can understand why she expected you to be ready to answer questions when you called her back; it sounds like she had asked you to call to talk about the position, not to schedule an in-person interview. (Many employers, myself included, do phone screens first and don't want to spend time on an in-person interview until that initial screening has indicated it would be worth the time.)

I don't think this was a stress interview (although it clearly ended up having that effect, unintentionally!). Rather, she assumed that if you were returning the call, you were prepared to talk. At that point, the best thing to do -- if you didn't feel you could proceed with the phone interview -- would have been to apologize and say that you had misunderstood, thought that she was calling to schedule an interview, and that you weren't currently somewhere where you could talk for long.

You said you feel that you "should have a right to be prepared to better connect your strengths and ability to the job." In hiring, you don't really have a right to anything, other than to not be subjected to illegal discrimination. Aside from that, employers can be as fair or unfair as they want (assuming they're non-union, non-government). But in this case, I don't even think that you even confronted unfairness -- just a misunderstanding. And as I've written before, little things necessarily take on disproportionate importance during these screenings, because the employer has so little information to go on.

The best thing you can do here is to move on with a better understanding of how to handle this in the future. Good luck!

asking for feedback when you were hired as the second choice

A reader writes:

I wondered if I could ask you a question about feedback after not being hired (a subject I know you have covered before); I am in a somewhat interesting position regarding this issue.

A bit of background: I worked for nearly a decade in the entertainment industry, before deciding to completely change careers; I went back to school for a masters' and a PhD in a particular branch of history. I then found a part-time job listing at a museum where I had spent quite a bit of time as a student. I applied for the job, and was granted an interview, which I thought went quite well. But two weeks later I received a curt email from the HR department saying only that my application had been unsuccessful. Disappointing, but fair enough.

Then two months later I received a phone call asking if I was still interested in the position. Apparently they had hired someone else, who had either quit or been fired quite abruptly. I was still very keen on the job, and accepted it. I have been with the museum for nearly 18 months now, and have done very well, I think. I have established a very good relationship with my supervisor (who was one of the people who initially interviewed me), my hours have been extended significantly, and I have received consistently excellent evaluations for my performance. In the past few weeks I have been made aware of several new full-time positions that will open up in the department, which I would like to apply for. Because of the policies of the institution, these openings will require an entirely new set of applications from me and another round of interviews, and hence my question... My next performance review is in a few weeks, and I am considering whether I ought to ask my supervisor about why I was initially turned down for my current position.

I am concerned that this not come across to her as me complaining about why they didn't 'love' me at first sight; I am more interested in any advice that she could give me about how to improve my chances in the future. Working in entertainment had probably not adequately prepared me for the kind of formal interview system they use at the museum (they have checklists and a very elaborate points system using the STAR method of evaluation, apparently), but I'm wondering if there's something else that put them off.

Well, it's likely that you didn't do anything that put them off in that initial interview, since they called you and offered you the job down the road. It's more likely that the other person simply seemed like a better match. A lot of times, people feel like they must have done something wrong if an interview doesn't lead to a job offer -- but I can't tell you how many times I've had to reject candidates who I would have been perfectly happy to hire, but someone else was simply a stronger match.

That said, go ahead and ask for advice, because maybe there is something that would be helpful to you to hear. That said, I would couch it less in terms of "why didn't you hire me originally" and more about how you're planning to apply for the new openings in the department and would love her advice on the interviews. Within that context, ask her to think back on your original interview and whether there's anything you could have done better there.

Remember too that you now have a very significant advantage that you didn't have back then: not just more experience, but more experience with them. You're now a known quantity with a great track record. That's a huge leg up when you're interviewing. Good luck!