Interviewer talking a lot

Gael23

When an interviewer talks a lot does that mean anything or is it just a sign of inexperience at conducting interviews?

callaway92

The interviewer should be talking very little in an interview bar answering the interviewee's questions at the end.

I'd put it down to inexperience or just generally being a poor quality interviewer.

You are trying to get everything out of the interviewee. Bombarding them with chat isn't going to help.

Gael23

callaway92 wrote: »

The interviewer should be talking very little in an interview bar answering the interviewee's questions at the end.

I'd put it down to inexperience or just generally being a poor quality interviewer.

You are trying to get everything out of the interviewee. Bombarding them with chat isn't going to help.

He was actually talking sense and not at all rambling.
It began with him talking about the company, then the role in question and finally we talked about me. Whole thing lasted around 25 minutes

callaway92

Gael23 wrote: »

He was actually talking sense and not at all rambling.
It began with him talking about the company, then the role in question and finally we talked about me. Whole thing lasted around 25 minutes

I'd have assumed that this should be what you should be talking about, to show the research you have done on them.

The role in question fair enough, he should be talking about that.

Talking about you, he should probably be asking 2 or 3 short questions and letting you do 90% of the talking.

I'd consider 25 minutes just about a slightly short interview.

My last one lasted around 50 minutes (which flew by) and I knew that I did well.

Eoin

It's kind of hard to say one way or the other, without being there. There are bad ways to interview people, but there's not just one right way.

Personally I think it's good for the interviewer to give a good background about the role and the company so the candidate can think about what they should focus on. Open questions are well and good, but there should be some context given first.

I'd agree that 25 minutes seems a bit short, but again, without us knowing what their normal interview process was - maybe it was just an initial screening interview - we can't say if it's necessarily a bad thing.

Stavro Mueller

Did he ask many questions about you? Did he seem interested at all? Because it reminds me of an interview I did years ago for a job I didn't get. I think the interviewer had made up his mind about me before before the interview even started. I remember sitting there wondering when he was going to ask me any questions - instead I found myself listening to him going on and on about the company, what they did and about the job I was applying for. When he finally got around to asking me some questions they were the equivalent of a limp, dead-fish handshake. So needless to say, when I got the word that I'd been unsuccessful I wasn't all that surprised.

Gael23

The job was advertised through an agency and the consultant told me it wouldn't be more than 30 minutes, which in my experience is roughly how long interviews have been. Having said that I haven't been offered any of them.
At the beginning he told me I was the first of four interviews, he also passed me over a copy of the job spec which has never been done before and was very useful to me because I could relate everything back.
His opening question was would I be able to relocate quickly, but then maybe I was the only person that wasn't local. Then as I said, he spoke about the company and the role itself before asking me the standard talk me through your CV question so I was nicely able to control the conversation.

Irish_Elect_Eng

A key background question to answering would be "What was the role?"

He could be inexperienced?
Had the agency assessed you already?

Gael23

Yes I met with the recruiter the previous day. The job was a junior finance role

druidhill

This sounds to me like a classic post interview over analysis.

Gael23

druidhill wrote: »

This sounds to me like a classic post interview over analysis.

I may be guilty of that:)
Ive gotten some post interview feedback. One of the 4 has been knocked out already.
He said about me I was a strong candidate and did a very good interview but I was a bit nervous. That was said as more of an observation than anything else/
I certainly didnt feel that way but I do really want the job so I was just trying to give it everything I have

As a rule of thumb in any sales or negotiation situation if the other person is talking it is a good sign. No different in a job interview.

In most cases if an interviewer talks a lot about the company and the role they are keen on you and want to ensure you remain interested. Despite what people tell you good candidates don't grow on trees and businesses have to compete for them.

Of course it could just be someone who is incompetent and doesn't know what to ask you.

Geniass

I remember interviewing for my first senior position outside of practice (accountancy) and the interviewer talked 90%, saying how good the company was, it's potential, what the people were like. It was the easiest interview ever. I stayed with the company for 7 years, and I'm still good friends with the interviewer.

You are one of 4 people they were considering, now down to three going by the agency. Of all the people that applied they want one of the three of ye to work out.

I think it's just this interviewer's technique/style. He was probably like that with the other three candidates.

Gael23

Im a bit worried that he saw me as nervous because it might make him feel I wouldn't be confident dealing with clients. The only thing I was nervous about was did I impress him enough to get the job.

Nollog

callaway92 wrote: »

It began with him talking about the company, then the role in question and finally we talked about me. Whole thing lasted around 25 minutes

I'd have assumed that this should be what you should be talking about, to show the research you have done on them.

People always say that, but I've never been in an interview where the interviewer hadn't explained everything I had researched in the first half of the interview.

The best I can do is usually squeeze in a "yes, I saw that when looking into the company" type statement while they finish a sentence.

allibastor

callaway92 wrote: »

The interviewer should be talking very little in an interview bar answering the interviewee's questions at the end.

I'd put it down to inexperience or just generally being a poor quality interviewer.

You are trying to get everything out of the interviewee. Bombarding them with chat isn't going to help.

What a bad comment.

In a good interview the conversation should be 45-55 in candidates favour. If a recuiter just sits there and gives you very little leading questions i would walk away.

If the recruiter talks to you, and talks with passion about the role and company, especially if they are internal recruitment that would speak Volumes. Unless they are great sales people passion for the job will ring though.

It is old school recruitment to just sit back and take notes, there needs to be engagement.