[mitchell_pgh]

I'm going to be interviewing a new park ranger this coming weekend for my hiking club and have never really conducted a formal interview. I was wondering what is the general protocol and how do I go from looking like an idiot to looking like a novice with a clue? He isn't expecting a network like interview, but I want to represent our organization in the best possible way.

I already plan on having a solid list of questions (primary and backup), but I feel like that's only 1/2 of the battle. I also have a tape recorder, notepad, camera, etc., but are there other things that I should think about? The idea is to keep the interview short under 20 minutes and upbeat... while being specific to his new job "Park Ranger"

What topics would the general public be interested in learning?

Any help would be wonderful.

Thanks!

[Randman]

Don't make the person nervous. Cameras and recorders are intimidating to those not used to it.
Don't ask too many questions, don't read off of a sheet and don't ask too many yes or no questions. Ask questions that elicit descriptions and let the person talk. Make sure you're giving attention feedback, nodding, saying uh huh, making eye contact even if taking notes.
Don't take too vigorous notes. People feel as if they are being judged. Smile a little but not too fake.

Often when doing interviews, I think of what I would need to know about the subject to explain it to my mom, not too technical but not condescending either.

Ask about stories, some things that stick out in that person's mind about the job. Funny experiences, etc. Ask how that person got involved in it.

Ask what people in a hiking club should know about rangers and maybe what a ranger knows that can help the hikers (or the environment).

Make the person feel as if you really care about the questions. An interview is more of a one-side dialogue rather than an interrogation.

If the person talks easily, give him or her free rein but be prepared to guide it back to the questions at hand. If the person doesn't say much, guide them into some discussion but don't push too hard.

Softball questions help put the person at ease. Make sure you get their name spelt correctly at first.

Enjoy the discussion yourself.

[AB^2=BCxAC]

I'm actually hiring right now, too, so this has been on my mind. I think my method makes people comfortable and creates some mutual respect, which I feel is the best place to start a new job relationship, but admittedly this is more for a standard office environment.

I find that I do 75% of the talking, or more.

When I conduct an interview, I start talking about the job first, at length. I describe the company, its role in the market, what the employee will be doing (almost all the tasks involved) and how that helps the company.

And then I ask the questions. I'll ask them to describe the skills they have that might be relevant, I'll ask about their long term career goals, and I'll ask about their requirements (I only touch on salary, because I mostly want to know if they're going to be commuting far, will need extra vacation time if they have kids, etc). The important factors I want to see answered are if the person can see themself in this new job with a sense of initiative to drive things forward, and if they can be honest with me about their abilities and needs.

The smart ones know to give answers that play up their ability to be an asset for the company as I described it to them. The dim ones need questions to keep talking and only give short answers. Essentially, I need to be given a small verbal essay by the candidate, about a minute long, to get the impression they're actually interested in the job. Short answers now mean short answers later, and that's not a good sign. For people to be accountable, you need to know that they will talk with you when they inevitibly have questions. I usually finish by asking if they have any questions for me about the job. Short answers or no questions for me are usually a sign that the person is too shy and nervous. It could mean they're out of their depth, too unfamiliar with the job requirements or over-confident about their skills, or just anxious to make a good impression. Long winded answers and strange questions can mean the candidate is full of hot air, smug, or a smart cookie. That's the call you have to make.

I never take notes during the interview, only after they leave. Also, when they first come in, I treat them like a privileged dinner guest who I'm glad to finally meet. It makes it more fun for me, somehow. I thank them for coming to an interview and taking the time to meet with us, and when they leave, I thank them for their time and wish them luck.

Also, if I get a thank you note afterwards, it's generally a plus for them.

[Randman]

Any interviewer who talks more than the interviewee, no matter the situation, is doing both a disservice.

[RAILhead]

When I interview people, I explain what we do, how stressful it can be, how difficult it can be -- basically, I try and scare the crap out of them. If they balk or I get the feeling they won't handle things -- they're a no-go. If not, I pick the best from what's been separated from the chaff.

Every person I've hired has become a stellar employee via my selection method.

Maury

[Randman]

I will say that interviewing a person in the manner mitchell is asking about is quite different than interviewing people for a job.

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Originally Posted by Randman

Any interviewer who talks more than the interviewee, no matter the situation, is doing both a disservice.

Not really, from my perspective. I've appreciated it when I was young and looking, and I can see how appreciated it is when I do it. If the candidate isn't predisposed to learning about my company's goals over a few minutes, that tells me more than if they lie about their qualifications. Besides, watching people react to what you have to say is equally important, as RAILhead pointed out.

Lastly, these things only last about 10 to fifteen minutes. It's only a disservice if you're bad at it, more nervous than they are, or just totally anti-social.

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Originally Posted by Randman

I will say that interviewing a person in the manner mitchell is asking about is quite different than interviewing people for a job.

The one thing I've always wanted to know about Park Rangers: what do they feel about Yogi Bear and Smokey the Bear? Do caricatures like that make them feel better about their job, in some small way because kids identify with that? Or does it hinder educating the public because they have pre-conceived notions about what a Park Ranger does, what "wilderness" is, and play into the assumption that state parks are amusement grounds and relaxation areas, and that preservation is the same as "guarding"?

[mitchell_pgh]

I was going to throw out "What are all these rumors about Smokey Bear's involvement witht he 2004 Ohio election results? And is it true that 'Mr. Bear" spent time in a federal institution during the late 70's on drug related charges."

On a serious note, this isn't a job interview, it's a interview for a article I'm writing.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Randman

Any interviewer who talks more than the interviewee, no matter the situation, is doing both a disservice.

Depends on the industry.

Maury

[Randman]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Depends on the industry.

Such as?

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Randman

Such as?

Construction. Insulating. Pipe fabrication. Scaffolding. Heat abatement. Asbestos blankets. Timekeeping for 400 employees. Etc. Chemical plant work. Dangerous work.

Maury

[Randman]

If I'm interviewing someone for a job, "Dangerous" or not, I want to know what they think, their experience, their attitude. If I want someone to listen to what I have to say, I'll get someone already working.

[mitchell_pgh]

Any more interviewing tips for an article?

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Randman

If I'm interviewing someone for a job, "Dangerous" or not, I want to know what they think, their experience, their attitude. If I want someone to listen to what I have to say, I'll get someone already working.

More power to you, and to each his own. As I said, I've interviewed hundreds of people for all kinds of jobs in our company, and my method lets me separate the people that want a job from the people that want to work with an absurdly high success rate.

I don't give a rat's arse how qualified a person thinks they are, what they think their experience can benefit, etc. It doesn't matter. When you work for our company, you work for our company -- and we don't care where you come from or who recommends you. All that matters is whether or not a person can do the job we want them to do -- and do is safely, correctly, and equal to or above our standards.

In fact, I really like interviewing people for office jobs when they bring up their grocery list of achievements. Bully for them. I'm glad they got them back when they needed them. It doesn't take too long for them to understand I'm not impressed. Performance is all that matters, which is why our best people are usually those with no education but lots of hands-on, blood, sweat and tears work experience.

Anyway, it can be summed up with a sign every person sees when they enter one of the local chemical plants:

"You're in a chemical plant. It's different in here."

Lastly, to each his/her own. We coddle no one. We try and scare people away up front so we don't have to fire them in 90 days.

Maury

[Randman]

Sounds like a dreadful place. What's the turnover rate? Or do you pay enough to put up with such heavy-handed machinations?

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Randman

Sounds like a dreadful place. What's the turnover rate? Or do you pay enough to put up with such heavy-handed machinations?

You'd think that, I know. However, due to our interview process, we're able to pick out the best of the best, so our work force it top of the line and highly professional. The vast majority of our core company employees have been with us for over 25 years. We're a bit elitist, and we all know know it -- thus we work together perfectly.

As far as turnover, the only turnover we see is in the lower field hands, and that's simply because those people (helpers, apprentices, etc.) aren't put through the rigors to the same level as our other personnel during the hiring process. Years of experience has taught us that general field workers will either work or not work on their own volition -- so they weed themselves in a matter of days.

Some humans just aren't cut out to spend 12 hours a day on a 45 foot scaffold painting a furnace in protective clothing in 98 degree heat with 90% humidity. Those that are, come back to work --and they earn more money working for us than most people will earn in a "typical" professional job.

Maury

[Randman]

OK, but I don't think Mitchell needs your type of interviewing technique for his park ranger interview.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Performance is all that matters, which is why our best people are usually those with no education but lots of hands-on, blood, sweat and tears work experience.

I'm generalizing... but I would guess that you don't have a strong educational background.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I'm generalizing... but I would guess that you don't have a strong educational background.

Heh. Me? I guess some people would argue that having degrees in Theology, Philosophy and Religious Education don't count toward having an education background. But, I'm quite edumacated -- though I had no "formal education" in the field in which I now work as a main source of income.

Why?

Because I've proved I didn't need it. My performance and willingness to learn put me where I am, and so did years of hard work and discipline. One our best estimators (he's retired now) was actually "schooled" as a nuclear physicist.

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Randman

OK, but I don't think Mitchell needs your type of interviewing technique for his park ranger interview.

No, he doesn't. I think both jobs are heavily performance-based, but on different ends of the spectrum. Our industry is different in that respect when compared to most industries -- and that's one of the most fulfilling things about working where I do. We get to take single moms and dads or young adults with no education other than high school, GED, or less, and we mold them into this awesome employee that has a bright future, a steady job, excellent benefits, etc.

We have no pre-conceived notions, expectations, etc. We take them in and give them a chance to succeed -- and most do. This is also why our interview process is so "bad" or "rough". We don't want to waste any time with someone who can't handle the pressure three months from now, so we nail them to the wall and try to break them before they even come on board.

If they can handle it, we take care of them as long as they do their part. Rarely does anyone get to say that their job/company can literally change someone's life -- but we're blessed to be able to do so for so many people.

Maury

[trip]

I always start with "So give me the readers digest version of your background, the things you have done and how you got to where you are today".

I found to work for the following reasons.

1. Generally they have to be consise so they have to determine what is valuable to say in short order and you know the good candidates by what they choose to say.

2. It's not an intimidating question.

3. After they have been talking for 5 min they are always more comfortable and not so on edge.

In essence I am saying get them talking quickly and make the first question open and easy.

Then they're prepared for more difficult stuff.

[AB^2=BCxAC]

My last advice: avoid any of the following as cliches...

The Proust Questions:

What is your most marked characteristic?
What do you consider your greatest achievement?
When and where were you happiest?
What is your greatest regret?
What is your idea of perfect happiness?
What is your most treasured possession?
Where would you like to live?
What is your greatest fear?
What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?
What is the trait you most deplore in others?
What do you consider the most overrated virtue?
What is your greatest extravagance?
What is your favorite journey?
What is it that you most dislike?
What is the quality you most like in a man?
What is the quality you most like in a woman?
What do you most value in your friends?
If you were to come back as a person or thing, what do you think it would be?
If you could choose what to come back as, what would it be?
How would you like to die?

The Baba Wawa Question:

If you were a tree, what tree would you be? And why?

[Randman]

Originally Posted by AB^2=BCxAC

My last advice: avoid any of the following as cliches...

The Proust Questions:

What is your most marked characteristic?
What do you consider your greatest achievement?
When and where were you happiest?
What is your greatest regret?
What is your idea of perfect happiness?
What is your most treasured possession?
Where would you like to live?
What is your greatest fear?
What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?
What is the trait you most deplore in others?
What do you consider the most overrated virtue?
What is your greatest extravagance?
What is your favorite journey?
What is it that you most dislike?
What is the quality you most like in a man?
What is the quality you most like in a woman?
What do you most value in your friends?
If you were to come back as a person or thing, what do you think it would be?
If you could choose what to come back as, what would it be?
How would you like to die?

The Baba Wawa Question:

If you were a tree, what tree would you be? And why?

Oh god, please none of those. Please.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Heh. Me? I guess some people would argue that having degrees in Theology, Philosophy and Religious Education don't count toward having an education background. But, I'm quite edumacated -- though I had no "formal education" in the field in which I now work as a main source of income.

Why?

Because I've proved I didn't need it. My performance and willingness to learn put me where I am, and so did years of hard work and discipline. One our best estimators (he's retired now) was actually "schooled" as a nuclear physicist.

Maury

Maury,

I wasn't criticising you and I hope you didn't take it that way. Generally speaking, people value things that are similar to their situation. People that go to a college that costs $60,000 a year generally feel it's important. People that never go to college generally feel it's important to have more experience. I guess because I went to a crappy state college, I see both sides (and consider them both wrong )

[Randman]

Boy, this topic went off-target fast enough.

Mitchell, after the park ranger, I suggest you interview Maury.

[mitchell_pgh]

How about these questions:

1) When preparing for this interview, I discovered that we both graduated from [VERY small college]. How did you get from [the university] to your current position.

2) How does the 3 million dollar finanical shortfall of the DCNR impact your park.

3) I'm amazed that the dumping of illegal materials is still happening in 2005. Have you had any experience dealing with this problem?

4) How can our organization help strengthen our state park program?

etc. etc. etc.

[Randman]

4 is good. The first three are not right. You're not grilling the Secretary of the Interior. Keep it personal.