---
esco_uri: http://data.europa.eu/esco/skill/66d47084-9437-48b2-819b-c4c8214ed650
esco_label: "interview people"
relation: optional
onet_soc: 11-3121.00
source: stackexchange
confidence: high
qa_count: 5
generator: gemma3:27b (prompt-designed and spot-checked by Claude)
generated: 2026-07-10
---

# interview people — HR Manager

As an HR Manager, 'interview people' isn’t just about asking scripted questions; it’s a core skill woven into almost *every* day. You’ll conduct behavioral interviews to assess candidates for roles (using STAR method is common), but also ‘stay interviews’ with existing employees to gauge engagement and retention risks. Expect to handle difficult conversations – performance reviews, disciplinary meetings, even exit interviews where you need to extract honest feedback while maintaining professionalism. Tools range from ATS systems for initial screening & note-taking to video conferencing platforms for remote interviews; increasingly, skills assessments are integrated too.

A big pitfall is falling into 'like-me' bias or letting first impressions overshadow thorough evaluation – remember that career paths aren’t linear (as Stack Exchange insights highlight!). Good looks like *structured* interviewing: consistent questions asked of all candidates to minimize bias and maximize comparability. It also means active listening, probing beyond surface answers ('tell me more about that'), and being able to read non-verbal cues. Crucially, it's a two-way street; you’re selling the company as much as assessing the candidate, so presenting a realistic job preview is vital.

The 'range of different circumstances' in the ESCO definition really hits home here. You might be interviewing for a highly specialized technical role requiring deep subject matter expertise (requiring technical panel members), or conducting an investigation into a workplace complaint – demanding sensitivity and legal awareness. Documenting everything accurately, especially during sensitive interviews, is paramount; not just for compliance but to protect both the company *and* the individual involved. Ethical considerations are huge - pushing too hard when someone clearly isn't a fit (or vice versa) damages your reputation.

Finally, remember that effective interviewing isn’t about ‘winning’ or proving a point. It’s about gathering information – objectively and ethically – to make informed decisions that benefit both the individual *and* the organization. A truly skilled HR Manager uses interviews not just to fill positions but to build relationships, understand employee needs, and foster a positive workplace culture.

## 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).
