What is the Value of an AI-Generated Cover Letter?

Source: https://chatmaxima.com/

Cover letters used to provide insight to hiring managers and helped them identify which candidates to select for an interview. A well-written cover letter signaled something about the quality of a candidate. Moreover, a well-tailored letter also could signal that a candidate was serious about the particular job opening. Do cover letters still have signaling value in the age of AI?

Several months ago, Jingyi Cui, Gabriel Dias, and Justin Ye published a working paper titled "Signaling in the Age of AI: Evidence from Cover Letters." They studied over 5 million cover letters submitted to 100,000 jobs on freelancer.com platform.  The examined the impact of a new feature on the platform that uses AI to generate cover letters for job candidates.  Perhaps not surprisingly, "Access to the tool increased textual alignment between cover letters and job posts and raised callback rates."  

However, that is not the end of the story.  The key finding pertained to a substantial drop in the correlation between cover-letter tailoring and invitations to interview, as well as a significant drop in the correlation with job offers.  On the other hand, workers' review scores (a metric developed by the platform to evaluate past work experiences) became more meaningful.  The authors conclude "These patterns suggest that as AI adoption increases, employers substitute away from easily manipulated signals like cover letters toward harder-to-fake indicators of quality."  

Finally, the scholars examined whether people spent time revising or editing the AI-generated cover letter.  Many people did not.  Yet, those people who did edit the letters increased their probability of landing the job!   

Interestingly, another study by Galdin and Silbert also studied job candidates on the freelancer.com platform.  They found that the length of applications increased after the introduction of AI tools to help candidates.  At the same time, "employers had a high willingness to pay for workers with more customized applications in the period before LLMs were introduced, but not after."  In short, they discovered a drop in the value of the well-crafted application as a signal of quality.  That drop had important implications.  They write, "Without costly signaling, employers are less able to identify high-ability workers, causing the market to become significantly less meritocratic: compared to the pre-LLM equilibrium, workers in the top quintile of the ability distribution are hired 19% less often, workers in the bottom quintile are hired 14% more often." 

Interviewing Candidates Who Have Prepared Using Generative AI Technologies

Navio Kwok writes in the MIT Sloan Management Review that job candidates increasingly are utilizing generative artificial intelligence to prepare for interviews.  They are providing job descriptions and company data, as well as information about themselves, and then asking for help simulating the interview, anticipating questions, and generating strong responses to those queries.  Kwok sounds an alarm though:

However, there is growing concern among hiring professionals that candidates using generative AI are gaming the interview process. Research suggests that GenAI use has a material influence on hiring decisions: In one recent study, candidates who used such tools to prepare received higher overall interview performance ratings compared with those who were unassisted by GenAI.

This finding only exacerbates concerns about the job interview process. Several years ago, I drafted a post about Yale Professor Jason Dana's research on the flawed approach and poor results of many job interviews. Dana's work demonstrated that hiring managers often draw erroneous conclusions from interviews. He makes the case that people often hear what they wish to hear.  Reflecting on his research, he wrote, "The key psychological insight here is that people have no trouble turning any information into a coherent narrative....People can't help seeing signals, even in noise."

Kwok recognizes that we cannot stop candidates from using generative artificial intelligence to prepare for interviews.  However, we can take some steps to insure that we are not being duped by these candidates.  First, Kwok advises that in-person interviews are important, so that candidates cannot use AI in real time to generate responses.  Second, Kwok argues that the right types of follow-up questions are critical to assessing a candidate's qualifications and capabilities.   For instance, Kwok recommends asking the candidate to explain their thought process in detail, as well as their rationale, when explaining key decisions they have made in the past.  Kwok also recommends asking the candidate to explain what options were considered, but rejected.  Finally, Kwok suggests that hiring managers pose probing questions about the challenges and obstacles that the candidate faced, and how they addressed those unanticipated issues.  He also recommends asking the candidate to explain what he or she might do differently next time. 

Moving beyond these thoughtful suggestions, I would recommend requiring candidates to take on a challenging task, rather than simply answering questions.  Give them a problem and ask them to present on that issue.  Or, ask them to do some work that is similar to what they will encounter on the job, evaluate that work, and then ask them about how they approached the task.  Require people to DO, rather than SAY what they have done.  That is the best remedy for the challenges Kwok and Dana describe regarding the interview process. 

Being Concise and Interesting During An Interview, or A Networking Event

Source: www.agilitypr.com

Professor Craig Wortmann recently shared some terrific advice in a Kellogg Insights column titled, "How to Talk About What You Do (without Being Boring)."   Wortmann explains two key mistakes that people make either during job interviews or at networking events.  Put simply, many individuals either share too little or too much. Imagine someone asks, "What do you do?"  One person might simply state their occupation (banker, lawyer, professor, doctor, etc.).  Another might offer a lengthy treatise that puts others to sleep.  Both mistakes are commonplace and easily avoidable.  

Wortmann recommends responding to the question in a manner that sparks a lively dialogue.  Provide a concise answer that leaves them wanting more... more information about the work, about the people you serve, about your particular expertise, etc.  Find a way to spark their interest and their curiosity.   If you think you have been concise enough, think again.  Most of us overestimate how tight (and interesting) our responses actually are.  

I would add that it's generally helpful to demonstrate interest in the other party as well.  Be curious as to what they do, what motivates them, and why they are passionate about their work.  In short, don't just make it about you.   Ask questions, rather than just talking at the other person.   A good interview typically involves the interviewee offering some thoughtful, non-typical inquiries that demonstrate strong interest in the role, as well as a true desire to assess the fit.   In a networking event, great questions often make the conversation proceed much more smoothly, and you will learn so much more about the other person through these inquiries.  

The Wrong Way to Interview Customers

Source: Kaizenco

Consultant Katelyn Bourgoin recently posted an insightful Twitter thread highlighting the five key mistakes that market researchers make when interviewing customers.  Here are her five common errors to avoid:

1. Asking people what they want:  Don't ask them what product or service they desire.  They typically won't be able to invent a new product for you.   Ask them instead about the pain points they are experiencing with existing products and services.  Dig deep to understand their frustrations and any workarounds they may currently employ.  Then build on that to develop a solution to the customers' problems.

2.  Asking people about future behavior:  Customers often cannot predict their future actions accurately.  Therefore, avoid asking them what they might do in the future. Focus on what they are doing currently.  

3. Relying too much on opinions:  Focus on actual behaviors rather than viewpoints.  Remember that people often don't do what they say they do.  They say one thing and do another in many instances.

4.  Talking to the wrong people:  You often get more valuable information from actual consumers rather than people who you think may use your product or service in the future.   Be careful about the conclusions you draw from people in your desired target market who may have not ever purchased your product or service (or even a competitor's product or service). 

5.  Talking to people at the wrong time:  Talking to people who may have purchased your product several years ago may be problematic.  Memories fade over time.  The best timing occurs when you interview people who have recently purchased from you or a rival, or perhaps even better, are currently in the midst of their research/purchasing/usage journey.  

Hiring Etiquette for Employers

Source:  needpix.com

We've all heard the usual advice for job seekers as they prepare for interviews:  prepare thoroughly, be punctual, ask good questions, follow up promptly with a thank you note, etc.   How about for employers?  Are there rules of etiquette that should apply to the interviewers and the firms that are hiring?  Sue Shellenbarger examines this question in the Wall Street Journal this week.   She argues that some firms are treating job seekers poorly, and in so doing, are hurting their reputation amongst qualified and talented candidates.  Therefore, these firms could find it much more difficult to attract talented people in the future. 

What are some examples of bad etiquette described by Shellenbarger?   First, some firms simply do not inform finalists that they have not been chosen for a job.   Others never respond or respond very late to inquiries from interviewees.   It seems that some hiring managers simply do not want to have the uncomfortable communication with a candidate that they rejected.  However, avoiding that conversation can have damaging effects on a firm's reputation.   Second, interviewers themselves are unprepared in some cases.  They behave poorly during an interview, or demonstrate that they are not ready to conduct a professional interview with the job seeker.   In some cases, they rely on technology to conduct virtual interviews, yet the interviewers are not adept at utilizing the technology.  Third, firms draft poorly defined job descriptions at times, or they seem to change the role in the midst of the hiring process.  Thus, they confuse job seekers.   Finally, some firms conduct a lengthy series of interviews and then do not fill the position at all.   Because they do not explain their actions to interviewees, they leave the the impression that they have may have been manipulating job seekers.  Shellenbarger tells the story of one job seeker who was asked to deliver a presentation with an innovative recommendation for an organization.   The enterprise never filled the job, and never followed up with the applicant.  The job seeker wondered whether the organization was simply using the interviews to collect free advice. 

I loved this article because it made the important point that a company has to consider how the conduct of a hiring process shapes the image of the organization moving forward.  The missteps in that hiring process can make it very difficult to attract the best candidates moving forward.  Etiquette is not just important for candidates.  Firms and their interviewers have to be professional as well.

How to Avoid Choking During Your Next Job Interview

Sian Beilock, President of Barnard College, has written a good HBR digital article titled, "Why Talented People Fail Under Pressure."   She writes,

When the pressure is on, we tend to panic — about the situation, its consequences, and what others will think of us — and as a result we apply too much cognitive horsepower to what we are doing. We start overthinking something that usually comes naturally to us.  

How we can avoid panicking in these types of situations, such as a crucial job interview?  Beilock argues that we need to shift our thinking to other tasks in ways that use up some of our cognitive horsepower.  That prevents us from overthinking the challenge at hand.  She explains:

If you notice that you are starting to overthink, try singing a song, repeating a one-word mantra, or focusing on the three key points you want to get across to your audience. These approaches use up that cognitive horsepower that could otherwise be used against you.. Let’s say you’re preparing for a job interview. You know your resume inside and out, and in normal circumstances, you can easily recount your strengths and accomplishments. But when you sit down in the interview chair, you freeze up. If you take time beforehand to occupy your prefrontal cortex with unrelated activities, you’re less likely to overthink in the moment and more likely to be able to communicate your message effectively.

For more on Beilock's work on coping with pressure, see her great book, "Choke: What the Secrets of the Brain Reveal About Getting It Right When You Have To."  

What Should You Ask Your Job Interviewer?

Source: Pixabay

Adunola Adeshola has written an interesting article for Forbes about the types of interview questions that can help you stand out as a job applicant.  She points out that many candidates spend a great deal of time preparing answers to the questions that their interviewer may ask.  However, they often do not spend a sufficient amount of time coming up with distinctive and thoughtful questions to pose during the interview.  Joseph offers three suggested questions:

1. Ideally, if offered this role, what are the biggest priorities you’d like me to tackle immediately in my first 90 days?

2. I noticed that you all are big on collaboration and failing fast [or other aspects of the company’s culture], what other qualities are you looking for in the new hire that will make fitting in with the team a no brainer?

3. Is there anything that concerns you about my background being fit for this role?

The first question enables you to picture yourself in the role.  What will the work be like?   How much autonomy and responsibility will I have?  What are the expectations for me, and what will I need to deliver on during the early part of my tenure?  It helps the applicant determine whether they will be engaged and enthused, as well as to identify whether they can succeed in this role.  On the other hand, it also shows the interviewer that you are forward-thinking and doing your best to prepare to be successful in this new role.   The second question enables in the candidate to make a strong case for why they fit culturally with this organization, or perhaps to discover ways in which he or she might not be a good fit.  Finally, the last question is risky if you are not prepared to address possible shortcomings in your candidacy.  On the other hand, if you are prepared, it enables the applicant to discuss some possible worries that are likely to be on the mind of interviewers.  

Rethinking the Job Interview

Professor Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic wrote a terrific Fast Company column recently titled, "What If We Killed The Job Interview?"  He summarizes the argument against relying so heavily on interviews to evaluate job candidates: 

  

The most comprehensive scientific study to date on the predictive power of different recruitment tools suggests that the typical job interview provides very little valuable information over and above psychometric tests, which tend to be both quicker and cheaper to administer.

For example, once you know a candidate’s score on a test of general learning ability, a typical job interview will only improve your ability to predict their performance in a given role by 4%, the analysis found. Interviews are more useful when they’re totally structured and standardized, to the point of resembling a multiple-choice questionnaire; this can increase their accuracy by up to 13%. Yet very few real-world interviews follow a rigorous format. Interviewers usually prefer to go with the flow, stubbornly relying on their own intuition.

Most of the attributes interviewers try to evaluate by gut feel–a candidate’s competencies, skills, personality, values, “culture fit,” and so on–are more rigorously inferred from other data like resumes, simulations, tests, and past performance ratings. Interviews certainly create opportunities for candidates to make claims about these qualities, but as I argue in my latest book, there’s little reason to believe them. Indeed, there’s not much overlap between the talents people saythey have and the ones they actually possess. (Plus, interviewers often use the idea of “good culture fit” to justify hiring people from their own in-groups.)

As Chamorro-Premuzic points out, though, many business professionals can't let go of the interview as a principal tool for evaluating job candidates.  Why?  People THINK that they are awesome talent evaluators, and that they can conduct an interview much more effectively than most others can.  Our supreme self-confidence clouds our judgment about the validity of interviewing.  If we kill the interview, though, how can we judge talent?  We have to find other ways for people to demonstrate what they have actually accomplished, rather than simply asking them to describe their skills and capabilities.  We have to see them in action, rather than letting them simply talk about themselves.  It's time to rethink the hiring process from start to finish.  

Picking the Right Job for You Based on an Interesting Interview Question

Christa Quarles, CEO of OpenTable, described her favorite job interview question recently in an interview with CNBC. She likes to ask candidates: "What part of this role do you love and you can't stop doing? And what part do you hate doing?" Quarles knows the most important facets of the role she is trying to fill. If someone loves those critical facets of the job, then Quarles feels comfortable with that candidate. In short, she wants to make sure that the candidate's passion matches the needs and demands of this particular role.

However, the second part of the question is important as well. What do you hate? As she says, everyone has certain work that is less desirable to them. Quarles goes on to ask the candidates how they will manage those aspects of the job... work that must be done, but understandably, may not be the type of activity about which the candidate is passionate. 

I'm struck by this question, because I think every job seeker should ask themselves this question during the search process. The candidate should be trying to understand the job description and the demands of the role, and they should be asking themselves if they will be excited about enough of that activity to make the work meaningful and fulfilling to them. The candidate also has to think about the negative aspects of the job and whether they can handle that work without becoming frustrated or disengaged. No one wants to work diligently to land a job that they will, for the most part, hate doing.

Unilever: Algorithms Replace Humans in Hiring Process

Kelsey Gee wrote about Unilever's "radical hiring experiment" in this morning's Wall Street Journal. Gee explained that, "To diversify its candidate pool for early-career roles that are a fast track to management, Unilever has ditched resumes and traditional campus recruiting. Its new process relies on algorithms to sort applicants and targets young potential hires where they spend much of their time: their smartphones."  

Algorithms have analyzed 275,400 job applications to date and chosen 1/2 of those candidates to advance to the next round of evaluation.  At that point, applicants "play a set of 12 short online games designed to assess skills like concentration under pressure and short-term memory."  Roughly 33% of those candidates move on to the next round of evaluation:  a video interview analyzed through artificial intelligence tools.  Finally, the top 300 candidates or so traveled to Unilever for in-person interviews.   The company claims that they saw top notch applicants in this final round, and they hired many of the candidates. 

What are the benefits and risks of this approach?  For Unilever, it enabled them to branch out beyond the usual small number of college campuses from which they recruited.   More and more companies are realizing that they are missing out on top notch talent by relying only on a few "prestigious" schools for recruiting.  This approach also tries to mitigate some of the bias effects from in-person interviewing.  Much has been written lately about the biases and other problems with usual job interviews.  What's the downside?  Perhaps certain types of candidates don't do well with techniques such as video interviews.   What about those online games?  Are you measuring the right types of skills?  What about "soft" skills that are harder to measure?   Companies will have to monitor such efforts to be sure that they aren't filtering out certain types of talented individuals because of the methods chosen.   

How Should You Handle The Impossible Job Interview Question?

University of Texas Professor Art Markman has written a good column for Fast Company about job interviews.  He offers some good advice for how to handle the challenging interview question that has you stumped.  His advice boils down to three key ideas:

1.  Don't try to BS your way through an answer if you are clueless about the subject matter.  You will do far more harm than good with this approach.  You will be much better off acknowledging what you don't know, while demonstrating an eagerness to learn quickly on the job. 

2.  Make the interview a conversation.  Ask questions for clarification if you are stumped.  Probe to learn more about the interviewer's intent with the question that he or she has posed.  Sometimes initiating that conversation will make things much clearer for you, while also building rapport with the interviewer.  In many cases, a reframing of the question will spark a thought for you that will help you provide a thoughtful response.  

3.  Remember that the interviewer may have asked a very tough question with a clear purpose in mind... namely, he or she may want to evaluate your ability to handle adversity and to navigate a difficult conversation.  Keep your cool in these situations and remember that you don't have to knock every question out of the park to get the job.  Focus on the big picture... explaining why your skills and capabilities will benefit the organization.   

I would add one other key piece of advice.  If the question is technical in nature, be ready for the topic to come up in a second or third round interview.  Be sure that you have done your research and are prepared to answer the question in a subsequent interview.  That type of good follow-up will be viewed very positively by most organizations.  

Are Job Interviews Utterly Useless?

Jason Dana, Assistant Professor of Management at Yale, wrote a thought-provoking piece for the New York Times this past week.  The title of his article: "The Utter Uselessness of Job Interviews."  Dana argues that people draw conclusions from interviews based on a variety of factors, yet in many cases, these conclusions are unwarranted or flat-out wrong.  In his article, Dana explains the findings from his experimental research. He began by conducting an experiment in which people were asked to predict a student's future GPA.   They had an opportunity to review each student's past GPA as well as the student's course schedule.  The research subjects also had an opportunity to interview these students.  The research subjects also tried to predict future GPA for some students who they did not interview.  Amazingly, they predicted GPAs more accurately in the case of the students who did not participate in interviews.  In a second experiment, they instructed half of the interviewees to answer each question posed by the interviewer honesty.  The other half of interviewees were told to answer the questions randomly.   Dana reports a startling finding: "The students who conducted random interviews rated the degree to which they 'got to know' the interviewee slightly higher on average than those who conducted honest interviews."  What's the lesson here? Dana argues, "The key psychological insight here is that people have no trouble turning any information into a coherent narrative....People can't help seeing signals, even in noise."  

Great Interview Question!

On Friday, I moderated a panel discussion at Bryant University's 20th Annual Women's Summit.   One audience member asked the panelists to describe their favorite interview question.  Gerardine Ferlins, founder and CEO of Cirtronics (a contract manufacturer based in New Hampshire), explained her favorite line of inquiry.  She asks job candidates to think of someone that they admire professionally... perhaps a former manager or colleague.  Then she asks the candidates to describe the characteristics and qualities of that person.  Ferlins explained that this question tends to tell you a great deal about the candidate.  In short, they often describe themselves!  They select someone who has the types of qualities that they think are most important.  You learn a great deal about someone's values, beliefs, and priorities when you ask this question.   In short, this interview question builds on the old adage:  You can tell a lot about a person by the friends they keep.   

Why Do You Want to Work Here?

We've all faced this question in a job interview:  "So, why exactly do you want to work for us?"  The question seems very straightforward, yet it trips up many candidates.  I'm shocked by how many times I've heard responses that indicate a lack of in-depth research about our organization.  Doing your homework, though, is only the first step.   You have to go much further to answer this question effectively.   In a recent article for Fast Company, James Reed explains how to approach this question successfully: 

CONNECT WHAT MOTIVATES YOU TO THE JOB DESCRIPTION

Some hiring managers will ask you directly what motivates you to do great work in order to see whether you’re just in it for the paycheck. This is a great opportunity to explain why this job at this company, and not just a job at any company, is what you’re after.

Most of us go to work each Monday morning, at least in part, so we’ll be paid by the end of the month. But as both you and your potential employer have probably discovered, people who are motivated solely by the money are rarely the most enthusiastic, productive, or successful members of the team. The jobs you excel at will be ones that really get you buzzing—that you find you enjoy in some way and have some intrinsic motivation for. Your interviewer wants to know if this job will be one of those jobs for you.

I think there's a danger here though.  I've seen many candidates try to connect what motivates them to the job description.  However, they don't quite get the skills and capabilities dimension of this question right.   Most candidates are eager to argue that they have the right skills for the job.  They wan to explain that they are highly qualified.   However, the best candidates also argue for why this position will be challenging in some respects.  In what ways will it help them grow and develop? Where's the stretch in this position for them?   Being able to argue that you are highly qualified, yet there is also some opportunity to grow and develop, is essential to answering this question effectively.  Otherwise, the interviewer will wonder:  Will this person be ready to move on after only a short period of time?  Will this position be engaging enough to keep them interested and intrinsically motivated?   It's a delicate balancing act, of course.  You don't want to portray the position as too much of a stretch... but on the other hand, you don't want to make the case that it will be a piece of cake either.  The best candidates walk that fine line, and in so doing, they make a powerful case for landing that desired position.  

Does Your Firm Conduct "Declined Offer" Interviews?

In a blog post for Harvard Business Review, executive coach Ben Dattner makes the case for conducting "declined offer" interviews at your organization.   He argues that organizations should interview job candidates who are made an offer, but who choose to work somewhere else.   Why did they take another offer?  What made your firm less attractive than another organization?  Was it simply money, or were there other key factors in the decision-making process?   Here's how he describes this technique and the reasons for employing it: 

Successfully competing for top talent involves both selling jobs to the best candidates and retaining the highest performing incumbents. In order to be seen as an employer of choice with a compelling value proposition for employees, many companies measure turnover and conduct exit interviews with departing employees to gather feedback about the experiences people had working there and the reasons why they’re leaving. But a less common practice is to track how many people turn down job offers at your company, and an even less common practice is to actually gather feedback from candidates who receive offers but don’t accept them. Like “exit interviews” these “declined offer” interviews can yield a lot of information about your own organization as well as valuable data about your industry and competitors.   While academic institutions often gather feedback from students who are accepted but do not matriculate in order to improve student recruitment and retention and to better compete with rival institutions, doing so with job candidates in a systematic and consistent manner is rare in the corporate world. As with other kinds of selling and marketing, you may learn as much, if not more, from the feedback of customers who choose not to buy as you learn from those who do.

Funny Take on Interview Mistakes!

The Final Interview Question

We've all faced that final job interview question: Do you have any questions for me?  We've heard the advice.  Be sure to ask questions that show you have done your homework about the organization.  I agree completely.  I think another question is equally crucial: If I joined the firm, what do you think a successful first year would look like?  What would we have accomplished?  That question can really help you determine whether their expectations are reasonable, and whether you have the capabilities to meet those expectations.  You can also get a sense of the culture.  Did they respond by simply citing some metrics you must achieve, or did they talk about building relationships, developing a team, etc.?  If different interviewers give you radically different answers to this question, it tells you the organization is not on the same page about this role.  That's not good news.  

Great Interview Question

In this week's New York Times Corner Office column, Lew Cirne - CEO of New Relic (a software analytics firm) - describes his favorite interview question.

One question I ask more often than others is, “Describe a day where you’ve just had the greatest working day of your life. You’re driving home and you’re on cloud nine. What was it about that working day that made you so happy?” If you’re doing what you love to do and it gives you that tingle down your spine, you’re going to execute at a high level.

I like the question for two major reasons. First, it helps the interviewer understand what drives that particular applicant, what motivates them.  You are trying to understand the sources of intrinsic motivation for that person.  Second, it helps you evaluate whether the job roles and responsibilities fit with what this person gets excited doing.  Perhaps they are a great candidate, but they won't be able to do what they love in this particular role.   This question helps you identify whether that fit exists or not. 

The Thank You Note After the Job Interview

Maureen Dempsey has written an interesting article about job interviews for Fast Company.  She aims to debunk five key myths about the factors that drive success in the job application process.  While I don't agree with all her points, I think she makes a very strong argument about thank you notes after an interview.  Here's an excerpt:

Rather than simply thanking hiring managers for their time—something that doesn’t add value to the decision-making process—Hawley says to make sure your note contains meaningful information that proves you were paying attention and are still interested in the position.  "Think about the conversation, and write something both personal and business-related," she suggests. "Tell them how much you appreciated discussing a certain business topic, then thank them for sharing their insights about something personal."

 

I would agree wholeheartedly on this point.  Be specific in the thank you note. Show that you listened to the interviewer, that you learned something new about the company.   What should you not do? Try to make an expanded case for why you should get the job.  You don't want to be writing a long novel.  However, you can express your continued interest in the job.   If specific concerns arose during the interview process about your qualifications, you could politely offer to provide evidence to address those questions.   In a recent interview situation, my colleagues and I were incredibly impressed with a candidate who very politely offered some additional evidence that was quite compelling.  However, the person was concise and to the point, and most of all, expressed gratitude for the opportunity to compete for the position.  

Do You Have Any Questions For Me? Tackling This Key Job Interview Question

You are attending a job interview, and you are asked: "Do you have any questions for me?"  What should you say?   You really should have four objectives in mind when formulating your questions.  First, you should pose inquiries that demonstrate you have done your homework about the company.  Show that you have investigated the company's history, strategy, products, culture, and performance.  Doing your homework means going beyond Google searches and the 10K report.   It means visiting the company's stores, talking to a current employee, and/or testing out a firm's products or services.   Second, you should avoid questions that clearly could be answered through such homework.   Asking a question whose answer can readily be found on the web is a signal that you have not done your homework properly.   Third, ask a question or two that enables the interviewer to talk about their own experiences.   Let's face it... people like to talk about themselves.  Ask them why they chose to join the firm, or how the firm has helped them develop and enhance key skills.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you have an opportunity to learn whether this company is truly a fit for you.   Here you want to learn more about the organization's culture, beyond the statement of values that you may have found on the website. 

How can you learn more about a company's culture?  Jason Hanold has posted an article on LinkedIn that articulates two good follow-up questions, beyond simply asking an interviewer to describe the culture in general terms. 

1. “When thinking about your best of the best talent - the most distinctive people at all levels of the organization - are there three or four traits that they share?” (Three to four traits in common well above all other traits)
2. “Has anyone who possessed those most admired traits ever failed, and if so, why?”

With this brief primer, hopefully you are more prepared to tackle the question: "Do you have any questions for me?"   If readers have other ideas as to how to address this interview question, I would love to hear them.