Adrian Furnham is Professor of Psychology at University College London. An academic, consultant on organizational behaviour, writer and broadcaster, he is particularly adept at communicating complex psychological concepts to a variety of clients. The author of 51 books to date and a regular contributor to The Financial Times, in the 1990s he was cited as the most productive European psychologist.

He spoke at over 40 conferences in more than 20 countries in 2006 alone.

There are many types of interviews. Appraisal and counselling, coaching and disciplinary, selection and assessment. Few selection exercises take place occur outside the ‘golden triangle’: of the application form, the interview and references. Candidates expect interviews. Interviewers want to see the applicants.

However, before the interview is an encounter with the dreaded application form or alternatively the much more welcome CV or résumé. Almost everyone hates the openended question on the application form : “Why do you want this job? ” as it takes hours getting the exact right turn of phrase to demonstrate one’s ability, motivation, loyalty and all the rest. Most candidates are happiest simply sending in their CV, more often an advertisement in its own right than a statement of historical facts.

CVs now have personal statements like : “I am a deeply motivated, ethically-driven and professionally qualified X with extensive relevant experience in Y. I am emotionally intelligent, conscientious, and able to cope with challenges….” Oh yes? Determining whether that is true is indeed the whole purpose of the interview.

CVs are so unreliable these days that you can pay a firm to “check up” on the facts presented in a CV. Has the candidate really got the degree they claim? Did they work at such and such for that period of time? How good is their Spanish or French they claim fluency in? This a reaction to all those companies that gave advice on how to write your CV. Action and reaction. Professional embellishment and demolishment.

There are a few giveaways on CVs. Rule number one: Less is more. Surprising that graduates have 4 page CVs yet CEOs can get all the information on one page. Rule number two: Errors of Omission. These include missing years or not recording obvious and job-relevant facts in the hope that you won’t notice. Rule number three: Errors of Commission. This is dissimulation or even more straightforwardly lying. It can be subtle or bold. Often it is job title and budget inflation ie “as senior manager I was responsible for 15 people, a budget of £2.3 million and the introduction of a new appraisal scheme”. Check it out and they were part of a team; that was the budget for three years and they were on the HR committee that tinkered around with performance management.

Some simple advice to employers: start the interview thus looking very carefully at the candidate. “At Acme Widgets we put great store by staff honesty and integrity. Can I start by asking you if everything listed in your CV is completely accurate and true?”

But in what way do interviews themselves advantage or disadvantage certain types of individual? You may be interviewed for your first school and for a CEO job. The importance of interviews is reflected in the number of interview skills courses available. There are books on how to interview as well as how to be interviewed. There are books on crafty questions to ask. And books on how to answer crafty questions. There is, in short, an interviewing industry.

The official line is that structured interviews are valid. That is, they provide accurate predictive information. They should be ‘competency-led’, meaning that interviewers have a list of attributes they are looking for. Trained interviewers are encourage to ask high-yield, penetrative and salient questions to obtain the information they are after.

But of course many other factors play a part. There is ample evidence of “lookism”. Attractive candidates are rated more highly on all kinds of dimensions quite unrelated to physical characteristics. We also know the personality of the interviewer may play as important a role as the personality of the interviewee.

We know that interviewers differ in their ratings of a candidates, sometimes dramatically so. Despite the fact that they supposedly have exactly the same data available one candidate gets the thumbs up and another the thumbs down.

What of interview ‘naturals’? Just as some people seem to be photogenic, so others are interview-genic. They interview very well. Rather than fear, or even bothering to prepare for an interview some people know that as a result of their personal characteristics that they will do well.

What is it about the charming, confident person who interviews well? What do they have? Call it social skills or social intelligence, call it interpersonal skills or emotional intelligence, the good interviewee is good at both “picking up signals” and managing emotions They are high self-monitors. They pick up the cues suggesting when to be serious and when flippant. More importantly they pick up through non-verbal behaviour who is really in charge; who is more and who less impressed. They read the interview well and have the skill to present themselves appropriately. Past masters at the skill of impression management.

By definition they are also highly adaptable. They know they have to be what the interviewers are looking for. If the interviewers want strong, leadership, boldness and courage they do the Charlton Heston. If they want sobriety, integrity and due diligence, they do that.

Good interviewees have the “gift of the gab”. They tend to be able to think on their feet, sound plausible (if only just) on practically any topic for a short while. They can think while talking. Indeed they are also quick thinking. So its about neural agility.

And those who don’t interview well? Serious minded introverts, techies, low self-monitors. It’s too easy to dismiss them as lacking in confidence, or socially unskilled. Given time, oneon- one interviews and an opportunity to think, they can and do appear highly skilled and from this they derive confidence.

The downside of the good interviewee can be their superficiality. If they can be “all things to all men”, who exactly are they? They can also be highly opportunistic rather than planful. And possibly impulsive.

Sales and marketing people interview well. So do psychopaths and narcissists. That’s indeed what makes them harder to detect. Actuaries and engineers don’t do as well. It’s an activity that doesn’t come naturally. Long distance lorry-drivers and research scientists may also come across as inadequate, even slow.

The trick is to think about the job and selection method fit. If the most crucial part of the job is persuasive sociability, then the interview may be the best way to assess it. If the job is all about perseverance, or monitoring, or detailed analysis, the interview may be much less important or useful. Beware the garrulous, mercurial, IT specialist. And beware too the ruminative, slow witted sales executive.

People who interview well have different profiles from those who don’t. But because we, often erroneously, put such store by the interview, we often make classic selection errors: selecting the bad rejecting the good.

The interview is a hall of mirrors and a theatrical encounter. It suits some very well because they can show off their skills: adaptability, charm, quick wittedness and social skills. For those with fewer of these, albeit important virtues, but with many and more important abilities, it can act as a serious impediment. If the core of the job involves interview-like skills, then interview them. If not, consider other selection methods.

© Vedior - All rights reserved. Disclaimer:- The views in the articles listed online are not necessarily the views of Vedior. If you have any questions, comments or would like to receive a hard copy, please contact Sarah Woodward on info@iremployment.fsnet.co.uk Stringent efforts have been made to ensure accuracy. However, due principally to the fact that data cannot always be verified, it is possible that some errors or omissions may occur, Vedior cannot accept responsibility for such errors or omissions. Details supplied by Vedior should only be used as an aid, to assist the making of business decisions, not as the sole basis for taking such decisions. Thank you.