---
esco_uri: http://data.europa.eu/esco/skill/66d47084-9437-48b2-819b-c4c8214ed650
esco_label: "interview people"
relation: essential
onet_soc: 13-1071.00
source: stackexchange
confidence: high
qa_count: 5
generator: gemma3:27b (prompt-designed and spot-checked by Claude)
generated: 2026-07-10
---

# interview people — Recruiter

As a Recruiter, 'interviewing people' isn’t just *conducting* interviews – it’s the core skill underpinning everything we do. Daily, this means structured behavioral interviews (STAR method is your friend!), phone screens to quickly assess basic fit, and increasingly, video calls for initial interactions. We aren’t simply verifying resume details; we’re digging into motivations, problem-solving approaches, cultural add, and realistically previewing the job – what a good day *and* a challenging one look like. Tools range from ATS systems (Applicant Tracking Systems) to note-taking apps, but your active listening & questioning technique is paramount.

A big pitfall is falling into 'resume reading' instead of truly *hearing* the candidate. It’s easy to get caught up in checking boxes against a job description, but remember that career paths aren’t linear (as Stack Exchange points out!). Good interviewing means probing beyond surface answers – asking ‘why’ repeatedly to understand underlying reasoning. Equally important is recognizing when an interview isn't a fit for *either* party; respectfully ending it sooner rather than later saves everyone time and maintains professional courtesy.

Beyond skills, we also assess 'fit' which includes ethical considerations (as highlighted by the Stack Exchange insights about company culture). This means subtly probing values and observing how candidates discuss past challenges. Documenting interactions is crucial – not just for legal reasons but to support informed hiring decisions. A great recruiter doesn’t just fill roles; they build relationships, representing both the candidate *and* the company with integrity.

What 'good' looks like? Consistently identifying strong candidates who thrive in their new roles (low turnover!), receiving positive feedback from both hiring managers and interviewees about a smooth & respectful process, and building a pipeline of talent for future needs. It’s about being a skilled evaluator *and* an ambassador for the organization.

## Praxiswissen (Stack Exchange, CC-BY-SA 4.0)

**An interviewee had their return flight cancelled by an employer after a poor interview performance, leaving them stranded and financially unable to secure alternative transportation home.**

While legal options may exist depending on location, this situation highlights the importance of evaluating a company's ethical standards beyond just job fit. Though rare, unprofessional behavior like this *can* occur, making it worthwhile to document interactions and consider public feedback (after attempting direct resolution). This experience underscores that how a company treats candidates—even unsuccessful ones—reveals crucial information about its culture.

*Source: [Potential employer flew me out for interview, cancels return flight](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/126565) — answer by Philip Kendall, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker’s friend realized during a lengthy interview that the company culture wasn’t a good fit and decided to leave mid-interview, causing a negative reaction from the interviewers.**

Interviews are a two-way assessment; it's equally disrespectful to continue an interview when you know it won't be a match as it is to abruptly end it. While initial impressions matter, it’s important to give the process enough time to form a considered opinion before making a decision. Prolonging the interaction after recognizing incompatibility wastes everyone’s time and signals a lack of respect for their efforts.

*Source: [Is it rude to leave an interview early if you have already made your decision?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/3492) — answer by Karl Bielefeldt, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The interviewer is concerned that a candidate's long tenure (15+ years) in the same role signals stagnation or lack of ambition, creating bias before even meeting them.**

Preconceived notions about career progression can be misleading; people have diverse motivations and priorities. Staying in a role for an extended period doesn’t automatically indicate inadequacy – it could reflect contentment, suitability to their skills/interests, or personal circumstances prioritizing stability. Focus on evaluating the candidate's current abilities and fit rather than judging their career trajectory based on traditional expectations.

*Source: [Why is working on the same position for more than 15 years not a red flag?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/130330) — answer by DigitalBlade969, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner submitted a pull request to a company's open-source project while interviewing, hoping to demonstrate initiative, but received negative feedback and didn’t get the job. They are questioning if this action was truly inappropriate.**

While not inherently wrong, proactively contributing code during an interview process requires careful consideration of company culture and perceived power dynamics. Demonstrating genuine interest and technical skill *can* be a positive signal, but it's crucial to present contributions humbly and ensure high quality work. Prioritize tact and avoid appearing presumptuous or critical of existing solutions; focus on showcasing collaborative spirit rather than asserting superiority.

*Source: [Was it really inappropriate to write a pull request for the company I interviewe](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/130931) — answer by unknown, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner experienced a highly unusual job interview filled with irrelevant and bizarre questions, then received a job offer with significantly higher pay despite the strange process, leaving them unsure whether to accept.**

Unconventional interview tactics, like abstract 'puzzle' questions, are surprisingly common in tech but often lack real value in assessing candidate skills. Companies frequently fail to provide proper interviewer training, leading to poorly structured interviews that prioritize quirky approaches over effective evaluation. Don’t let a flawed interview process entirely disqualify an otherwise attractive opportunity; consider it as one piece of information alongside other factors.

*Source: [What to make of bizarre off-topic questions during job interview](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/120059) — answer by Joe Strazzere, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

## Weitere Anreicherung

Stage-2 source for future practitioner grounding: CORE / DOAB (open-access HR & organisational research).
