In this reflective report, I will outline and explore the experiences that I encountered during our team’s mock interview. Our team comprised of three members and each had the opportunity to be interviewed, interview another member, and be an observer. Additionally, I will examine how the experiences obtained from three roles; interviewer, observer, and interviewee. Finally, I will recommend how various players can improve their strategies in the future.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
In the preparation for the interview, I had to develop active listening to deduce important information from the setup. Additionally, I had to communicate with the members to express myself. Moreover, attentiveness was essential to pick up nonverbal communication characters from the other parties.
I was being interviewed for the position of HR administrators in the Olympic Delivery Authority. I was prepared for the question posed by the interviewer since I was able to give an appropriate response without much difficulty. Moreover, I was in a position to expound in areas questioned. This is attributed to the fact that I had studied possible questions that could be asked in the interview in advance and I had developed some answers. However, the questioning was quite intensive as the interviewer did not feel that I gave sufficient response to some of his questions.
On the question of my greatest strength, I was adequately prepared to answer since I am self-aware. The answer given was appropriate and convincing as I highlighted my strength and gave supporting examples i.e. that I have been successful in my current sales job, having always exceed my sales targets and keeping deadlines. Further, the strengths I gave to the interviewer are essential and in line with the position, I was being interviewed for, hence indicating that I could meet the organization’s goals. Therefore, this sold my abilities to the recruiting personnel. Generally, the answer I gave regarding my strength was supported by a corresponding illustration of how I have utilized that ability in the past and the outcomes.
About the question of how my greatest strength will facilitate my performance in the HR administration position, I was able to express how my strength will interplay with my roles and duties in the named position. However, I was not sufficiently prepared for this matter, as can be shown by the kind of response given. Although the interviewer had sought to know how my already named strength would facilitate my performance, I gave another strength that had not been indicated in the previous question. Therefore, the answer given was not convincing, as I did not correctly emphasize how my strengths would interplay or facilitate me to perform duties as an HR administrator. Moreover, the response indicates that I was not passably informed of the roles and duties of the position entailed.
Subsequently, I performed well in the question on myself. I gave a brief overview of myself which included all relevant information that the interview required i.e. age, education qualification, and skills, and abilities. I was sufficiently prepared and well informed on the issues that should be addressed in this question. Conversely, I did not give other information that could be relevant that pertains to this question. Also, the rejoin was quite effective since I focused mainly on explaining the current capabilities rather than long winding past that is not relevant to the position. Indeed, the response highlights the character and abilities that correlate with the position being advertised. The weakness highlighted is very damaging to the prospects of getting the job offer; therefore, to improve this in the future, I will need to state a weakness that does little or no damage to my commitments or abilities. Therefore this was a very inappropriate answer to the question. Never the less I was able to portray to the interviewer how I can handle and deal with my limitation.
Importantly, I gave convincing and well-balanced answers to my motivation and how I manage stress in the workplace. Moreover, in response to how I evaluate success, I was able to indicate that I valued the attainment of the organization’s goals plus other colleagues, which are an effective and a winning response. Finally, I outlined the skills and knowledge that I acquired while doing my dissertation topic.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
In the future, I need to give prompt answers to questions that interviewers will place. Moreover, there is a need for cohesion and flow in the response that is required. Importantly, most questions asked are related to one another, hence, keenness is essential to give the right responses. Generally, the answer given to the questioning about one’s weakness should not be damaging one.
As an observer, I was able to identify and analyze the interview process, the applicant, and the interviewee. However, since the interview had a timeframe, there was a tendency of both the applicant and the interviewer to rush over the question without sufficiently addressing them. Moreover, the interviewer did not raise questions arising from the responses the interviewee was giving i.e. explain more, or how are u able to achieve that. The applicants gave their responses to the question regarding their strengths by highlighting attributes that would facilitate them to perform the duties of the job they were interviewing for, as a means to increase their chances of selection. The interviewer should be in the position to question the candidate if they feel that a response given is not sufficient enough. Besides, the interviewee should raise queries or seek an explanation if a matter is not comprehensive to them.
The interviewer was composed and relayed his questions eloquently to the candidate. Also, the interviewer was keen and observed the applicant’s non-verbal communication skills by keeping eye contact. Further, the applicants were given sufficient duration to give responses to questions. Moreover, the questions asked were clear and straightforward to the candidates. Importantly, the interviewer portrayed active listening through active listening behavior i.e. nodding. Generally, the interviewer did not exhibit signs of being impressed or displeasure during the interview which is important. The interviewer did seem to be flexible to adjust his structure question to evaluate the matters arising during the interview (Cummings & Worley, 2009, p.127). The questions used in the interview were closed-ended that required brief answers, open-ended and hypothetical questions that entailed the applicant to explain.
Also noted is the intonation used by the interviewee, it was apparent that the candidate used different voice tones when he was certain and confident about the answer to the question. At the same time, the candidates could indicate a lack of prompt responses by their tones and volume of their voices. Moreover, such information could be deduced from the nonverbal communication expressions of the interviewee. One candidate did not appear to concentrate but was rather distracted which was indicated in his responses. However, the participants were dressed professionally which indicated their seriousness of the interview.
The interviewees showed much confidence in how they used space, facial expressions, and mannerisms. The interviewers managed to keep ease during the interview and created a rapport with the candidate. Also, they had the necessary material to record the proceedings of the interview for later analysis and inference. In the future, the candidate should improve their eye contact with the interviewer. Moreover, the interviewer should encourage the candidate to express himself freely.
The interview was led through a set of structured questions that all the applicants were required to respond to (Lussier, 2008, p.240). The structured approach is essential so as each dimension of the interview is evaluated separately then the overall score is determined. Additionally, it helps to compare the performance of each candidate against each other. The questions that are achievement-anchored were meant to gauge the individual applicant’s knowledge and achievement. However, the probe questions did not include other follow up questions. Moreover, the interview was conducted in a quiet and conducive atmosphere to promote concentration and avoid external disturbance. The applicant was required to enter the interview room and introduce themselves and later I questioned them.
The approach was essential to ensure that I was able to inquire most of the required information regarding the applicants with only a few questions. Therefore the questions encompassed all spheres of the candidates i.e. motivations and strengths and weaknesses. However, some respondents gave very brief responses that did not give sufficient information regarding the applicant. Additionally, the clarity of some answers was not good while others did not give supporting examples for their claims. None of the structured questions asked gave me a clear picture of the candidate’s knowledge of the company or the sector. Moreover, by inquiring about the candidates’ dissertation topic I was able to comprehend the suitability of the interviewee to apply their skills in the real world. In asking the strength of the applicant I sort to analyze the strengths that could match with the requirement of the jobs advertised.
As the interviewer, I dealt way with any presumptions and biases regarding the applicant to sufficiently interview him for proper selection. Besides, the questions I used were all clear and not ambiguous to the applicants to ensure that there was clear communication between the parties. Further, the questions were brief to ensure clarity to the candidate being interviewed. The open-ended questions facilitated the candidate to give and elaborate on the issues raised in the interview room. Moreover, I lay more emphasis on recognizing what the interviewers did to attain success rather than their ideas on how to attain success. Also, candidates were given sufficient duration to answer their questions. I observed that the interviewee was prepared with answers to some questions but unprepared to tackle some others.
I was successful in obtaining the required information by also observing the candidates get more information from their non-verbal communication behaviors. This included body gestures and posture. Gladly, I was able to maintain a rapport with the interviewee throughout the interview. Importantly, as the interviewer, I was able to conceal any signs of displeasure or impression from the candidates.
In the future, I will incorporate sufficient analysis of candidates by questioning not only matters that are set out in the interviewing lists of questions, but also other queries that can give more information. Additionally, sufficient duration to conduct the interview must be incorporated to avoid rushing and omitting crucial information. For a successful interview, the interviewer should be aware of all the information said as well as how the information is said (Nankervis, et al., p.104).
As an interviewee, I was able to prepare for most of the questions asked in the interview. However, I gave a relatively poor response to a question on how my strength would help me in the job. Further, the weakness I mentioned is too damaging to my prospects of selection. Generally, I managed to answer all the questions posed with enough supporting examples.
During the interview, I observed that the interview had good listening skills and he could create a rapport with the interviewee. Moreover, the applicant showed confidence in their body language. The applicant did not indicate that there were properly informed of the roles entailed in the job. More importantly, the questions I used were well structured and facilitate proper analysis of the candidate. Further, the questions were brief to ensure clarity to the candidate being interviewed.
Feedback sheet from Mock Interviews
Notes for Job Candidates
|Candidate Name and ID:|
|Job Applied For:||HR Administrator|
|Date:||Time:||Tutorial Room:||Cohort / Tutor Group:|
Please tick box (5 = Excellent; 4 = Good; 3 = Average/Fair; 2 = needs improvement; 1 = poor).
|General appearance, punctuality & presentation||Comments |
The applicant was presentable and punctual for the interview. They appeared composed and confident. The overall presentation was fairly good.
|Listening and answering skills (how much evidence provided and preparedness to address questions adequately)||The applicant was keen and showed signs of active listening. From the answers given it is clear that the applicant was adequately prepared to respond to some of the questions. The voice intonation and body gesture showed what question they were adequately prepared to tackle.||X|
|Understanding of job role (interpretation of the job description and tasks required)||The understanding of the job description was not clearly expressed since the candidate did not provide adequate information to indicate their suitability in the positions.||X|
|Suitability to job role (ability to link previous/existing experience to the job role)||The applicants are fairly flexible as they have diverse training and experience in other fields that the organization may require in the future. Also, they have vast knowledge and skills that they acquired during the dissertation while in college.||X|
|Level of competency-based answers (ability to understand the question, give clear structured examples)||The applicant was fairly competent as they gave clear answers to the questions. Besides they could easily understand the question as they did not require constant repetition. The examples given were fairly relevant.||X|
|Level of responding to abstract questions (e.g. strengths, weaknesses, why should we recruit you? etc.)||The applicant outlined their strength and weakness clearly which indicate that they are self-aware. Importantly with regards to their weakness, the applicant explained how they can deal with them to avoid the destruction of their performance.||X|
|Awareness of and evidence of research on company culture and sector||The applicant illustrated their awareness of the company culture. Examples used clearly, dressing demonstrated that the applicant had done reasonable research on the organization culture.||X|
|Gestures, non-verbal signs, and actions showing suitable attitude (e.g. avoiding irritating noises and movements)||The tone and volume of voice demonstrated the confidence level of the applicant. Besides, the posture and use of space illustrated they were at ease with what they saying.||X|
|Clarity of answers (tone, level, clarity)||The answers given were clear and understandable to the panel. The applicant was fairly audible with a variation of tone. However, the applicant tone and structure of some answers showed they were not prepared for the questions.||X|
|Closing of the interview: the final question by the interviewee|
Cummings, T. G. & Worley, C. G., 2009. Organization Development and Change. OH: Cengage Learning.
Lussier, R. N., 2008. Management Fundamentals: Concepts, Application, Skills Development. OH: Cengage Learning.
100% original paper
written from scratch
specifically for you?
Nankervis, A. et al. 2009. Effective Recruitment and Selection Practices 5e. Sydney: CCH Australia Limited.