Register early and save on ERE Expo 2010 Spring in San Diego from March 15-17.

Blog Network

How to turn off a candidate AND lose business follow this blog post

A business friend called last week to share an interview horror story. He has managed a $50 million business unit for a major brand and is very highly regarded.

His story was funny and sad at the same time. He was absolutely turned off by the interviewer, the president of the company; was extremely glad not to get the job or even get invited back for a second meeting; and he will probably never buy that company's products because of the downright discourtesy and rudeness of the president.

NOTE: Identities and product categories have been obfuscated to avoid harmful blowback. Don't want my friend to get hurt. Just hope other interviewers learn the obvious lesson: Interviewing is an exchange of information and a chance to build good will. Use the interview wisely and well.

Company X is a popular nameplate of consumer goods looking to expand their brand equity into another item. My friend was very well (perhaps over -) qualified for a category manager position. The president and owner of Company X flew the candidate into his city at his expense.

My friend's $50 million business unit was in the same category at a very large company with a household name. His category at that time was probably as big or bigger than the total size of the company at which he was being interviewed.

My friend met the president at the designated spot in the airport in the president's home city. They exchanged a few social pleasantries.

Almost immediately, as the meeting progressed, the president and owner of Company X proceeded to denigrate and belittle two of my friend's previous companies. Then he went on to dispute several of my friend's statements in a churlish, competitive fashion.

My friend said that he thought to himself, "Why did he bring me into town and ask me these questions if he already knows all the answers?"

Because of the kind of person he is, my friend had done a little research on Company X. He had discovered an issue he wanted to share with the owner in the interests of improving his business. My friend's approach was, "Hey, here's a situation you might want to know about ... because it directly affects market penetration in the category under consideration."

At an appropriate time, my friend said, "I was in [one of the top five US markets] last week. I called your customer service department and asked where in that city I could buy your product at retail.

"The Customer Service Representative said, 'I dunno. Could you call back tomorrow? Or ... why don't you just buy the product online?'"

The president and owner of the company said, "Well, you should have bought the product online." Showing that he wasn't really listening and totally missed the point.

My friend didn't want to buy the product. He wanted to go to a retail venue and see the merchandising. He wanted to understand the product range and line segmentation and to look at competitive products.

Here's the lesson for all interviewers: Represent your company with professionalism. Avoid critical or negative comments about a candidate's previous employers ... or ANYTHING.

Think about it: If a candidate comes into the interview setting and says something cutting about their current company or challenges statements by the interviewer, that would pretty much end the meeting.

Same rules apply to you as apply to them.

And if the candidate makes a gracious suggestion on improving your customer service, make a note and say, "Thank you."

13 comments

Log in or register to post a reply.

  • 1 point 8 months ago

    Sounds like company x is making money in spite of itself. This and the fact that some managers (presidents included) could really benefit from an interview/recruiting 101 course.

  • 1 point 8 months ago

    Dennis: "Names have been changed to protect the innocent... " as the old saying goes. Have to omit details to avoid "outing" my friend. Sorry to obfuscate for confidentiality reasons.

  • 1 point 8 months ago

    Well at least the candidate got the "real story" instead of the glossed over, amped up version that most companies want a candidate to believe - then they take the job and lo and behold the boss is a complete jerk.  (Not that I've ever seen that happen!)

    Better to find out early with less wasted time or effort on the candidate part.

    The second part of this is the bad advertising the company / product(s) will get from the candidate and everyone he knows or communicates this story to - they may have a good product but this most likely has lost the company some potential sales as well!

  • 1 point 8 months ago

    Eric, you're obviously more informed about that case than us (readers of that article).

    So there is a good chance you are right.

    But unless us readers learn these details -- we cannot make any reliable conclusion about that story.

     

  • 1 point 8 months ago

    Dennis: Given the employee turnover in Company X; given my conversations with current and previous employees of Company X; and given my friendship with and knowledge of the interviewed candidate, I suspect there were not many "nuances" to miss. The president operates in one mode only ... without subtlety or empathy. I believe this situation is cut and dried.

  • 1 point 8 months ago

    It seems everybody here on ERE think that president of hiring company was definitely wrong. But from the story it's not that obvious.

    Please, consider the following:

    1) Being competitive in discussion may help to learn something from that discussion. Learning from competitor could help to imrove business.

    2) Poking into each other weaknesses may help to diagnose these weaknesses better and is an imprortant step in fixing existing problems.

    3) From the story it seems that both candidate and interviewer (president) pointed into each other complanies problems. That could have been productive discussion for both of them, even if they decided not to work with each other.

    4) How do you know that President didn't learn about problems with local representation in one of the branches? He might defend his company in discussion, but as a follow-up he could do something to fix the problem.

    On the other hand -- there is no excuse for being personally rude. Even in a heated discussion. But how do we know that the president was rude and allowed personal attacks?

    Bottom line: without knowing all little nuances in that story it's hard to tell if the president was right or wrong.

  • 1 point 8 months ago

    Hi,

    Unfortunately, from experience, It occurs to me that had the "President" been held to the same standards as those of us that specialize in the interview process, this disaster would not have happened.  The skeptic in me says "Here is yet another example of a double standard" that so often comes from the top.  I am willing to bet this same "President" would fire one of his own for "poor performance"had they represented his company in this way.  This leader and visionary President  has just made his own recruitment staff's job more difficult...Ugh!

  • 1 point 8 months ago

    Belva, you are closer to the truth than you know. I have watched this company from a distance and seen the turnover caused by the president's style. The president doesn't use a recruitment staff ... probably because he's not willing or interested in modifying his autocratic and idiosyncratic behaviors.

  • 1 point 8 months ago
    The  advice I provide interviewers on this subject is:  Even if your company doesn't want the candidate, the candidate should always leave the interview wanting the company.  A rejected candidate will still think well of the company if they believe the company is a "class act" and they will pass along their positive comments.

  • 1 point 8 months ago

    Yes, Fran. Totally agree with your advice. Especially when one is meeting with the president ... because the person at the head of the table sets the tone.

  • 1 point 8 months ago

    It appears the interviewers were not interested in the candidate once they had him face to face. However, they need a lesson in customer service and employer branding. You were kind to camouflage the guilty because bad news travels on the autobahn. If this is the etiquette top executives exhibit your friend is better off with a story to tell than working with them.

  • 1 point 8 months ago

    Karla, you are right on the money. This individual does need a lesson in customer service and employer branding ... but, unfortunately, the president is unable to hear the message.

    Another business friend commented in a slightly different way: " I learned from one of my masters a while back not to try to save/help/change anyone who doesn't want to be saved/changed/helped.

    "If you do you'll only make yourself mentally or physically sick. Obviously the interviewer really doesn't want to be helped."

     

  • 0 points 8 months ago

    Dennis: "Names have been changed to protect the innocent... " as the old saying goes. Have to omit details to avoid "outing" my friend. Sorry to obfuscate for confidentiality reasons.