17

While reading the question Does interviewee demand influence employment attractiveness?, I was wondering what could be a good response to:

Do you have other scheduled interviews?

(if asked during an interview).

I have been asked this once but at that point I had no other opportunities. So I answered a basic

No, not at this time.

I assume that if I currently have other scheduled interviews, I shouldn't show too many interest in the others as it could show that I am not really interested in the current one. But denigrating the others could show a bad side of me.

Or I could just lie that I have no other interview scheduled?

In the linked question's case, in the extreme case with two people:

Candidate A: Tells you this is the first interview they've had for a while and have no others booked. Candidate B: You hear from your source that this person is receiving lots of interest, but they don't mention it themselves.

I accepted Patricia's answer but the one with no other interview would also scare me a bit as

Why is no one interested in him?

How should I answer this question? Does admitting that I have no other interviews harm my chances?

Edit: I never thought of lying, but it is still a potential answer so I included that option here.

Community
  • 1
MickMRCX
  • 327
  • 2
  • 9

5 Answers5

61

Always tell the truth as the world is smaller than you think.

Answering the question honestly won't hurt you, lying will. You never know the purpose of the question, so trying to guess what the "right" answer is can be counter productive.

When I'm interviewing a person, the question I am asking is never the question I am really asking. This is true for most interviewers.

Now, here's why for this specific question:

You don't know if they are asking to see if you are in demand. If you answer "yes", that doesn't mean that it's a good thing if you are. They could be impressed and want to snap you up, or figure that they can't afford you or just don't want to get involved in a bidding war.

A "no" can break both ways as well. They could wonder if you're not pounding the pavement enough, or wonder if you're simply not a hot commodity. By the same token, they may snap you up because they figure they can get you at a bargain price or that if you're qualified and don't have anything on the table, they can get you in the door with the least amount of pain.

Unless you know WHY they are asking the question, then it can only hurt you to try to guess at the answer they want to hear.

Tell the truth, it's less stressful.

Old_Lamplighter
  • 159,693
  • 108
  • 436
  • 585
  • 35
    +1 for that last line. Interviewing is stressful enough without adding a lie into the mix. – senschen Jul 18 '16 at 17:26
  • 14
    "the question I am asking is never the question I am really asking." Can you please just stop trying to trick people and simply ask what you want to know? – njzk2 Jul 18 '16 at 17:49
  • 2
    @njzk2 First rule of the universe: People lie. If people would answer truthfully, then I would ask the actual question. As that is almost never the case, I ask the question that will give me a truthful answer. When I am interviewing, my duty is to the company, not to the applicant who may or may not wind up with some butthurt because my questions were too tough. – Old_Lamplighter Jul 18 '16 at 17:58
  • 8
    It's not a trick, anyway. You ask questions to see the kind of person they are. If I ask you "what kind of a person are you?" you wouldn't know how to answer and I wouldn't really know what I wanted anyway. But if I ask a bunch of open ended questions I can get a sense. This applies to virtually every question which isn't a technical test. – Richard Rast Jul 18 '16 at 18:54
  • 2
    @njzk2 That's why to be great in business you need to learn to match and lead. Interviewer: Do you have other interviews scheduled? Interviewee: "I am certainly exploring employment opportunities right now, but I sense that you are asking for a reason. Do you have a concern relating to this?" .. that is, if you feel uncomfortable just answering. – USER_8675309 Jul 18 '16 at 19:03
  • 4
    So according to the first rule of the universe, you just lied in your answer which means it's best to lie in an interview and to some degree even admitted that you do it yourself all the time by not asking for what your actually asking (if that would be considered lying). This is a chicken vs egg thing: people give biased answers, which is why you ask biased questions, which is why people think about giving biased answers, ... I'm not blaming anybody, just sayin' that this is quite a f**ed up system, especially when considering the goal of finding each other to work together. – I'm not paid to think Jul 18 '16 at 19:25
  • 1
    @I'mnotpaidtothink Cute, inaccurate, but cute. It's not a chicken-egg thing. People lie all the time. The guilty lie because they are guilty, The innocent because they don't want to be accused. They lie about little and big things. This is human nature and no amount of indignation on your part will ever change that. – Old_Lamplighter Jul 18 '16 at 20:21
  • 2
    So how was I inaccurate then? I +1'd your answer, because "answer truthfully" is the right thing to do (imo), but given that the "real" answer given is "answer truthfully to my untruthful interview questions", I can see what motivated the question in the first place. This still looks like a chicken-egg- style cyclic dependency to me. There's got to be a balance and asking the other side to speak truthfully while claiming the right to ask biased questions for oneself doesn't look that balanced. After all, who'd trust the guy who's telling everybody not to trust anybody? – I'm not paid to think Jul 18 '16 at 21:01
  • 2
    If I ever ask this question, I'm actually trying to figure out turnaround time. If I hear "yes, and I have an offer I have to say yes/no to by the end of the week" then I have a really wonderfully clear deadline on when I have to give an answer back. Yes - it would be lovely to give all candidates a fast answer, but the speed of my answer may not necessarily be in a candidate's favor. "No, I think I can do better" is actually the safest answer. – bethlakshmi Jul 18 '16 at 21:20
  • 2
    So apparently you think that being straightforward would just be dumb (at least for you, as an interviewer) but applicants should not be second-guessing or strategizing and just take your (indirect - by your own admission) questions at face value and answer them naively? And yet, you also tell us you will assume they are lying anyway. That does not make any sense! – Relaxed Jul 18 '16 at 22:27
  • 1
    @Relaxed, No, as an interviewer, my job is to get the truth from the candidate. Any questions he may have of me will be answered truthfully, and he's allowed to ask indirect questions too, such as "How long have you worked here" (is there high turnover) or "What do you like most about working here" (is it a bad environment) or "How long has the average employee worked here" (Do people want to work here, or get out as soon as they can). And, yes, there are plenty of people like me out there, so be honest, or we will catch you in your lies – Old_Lamplighter Jul 19 '16 at 00:12
  • @I'mnotpaidtothink: taking "people lie" as an axiom means you assume people are lying to you. So yes, if your first rule is to be cynical, you should assume RIchardU is somehow lying in this answer. For example maybe he says the reason you should tell the truth is he'll catch you out, but actually there's a good chance he won't catch you out, but he wants you to think there is so you'll tell the truth. Naturally he'll say you're wrong: liars don't give up that easy. But equally just because the safest assumption is that he lies, doesn't mean he actually is lying on this occasion. – Steve Jessop Jul 19 '16 at 09:11
  • And this is why he has no problem with the interviewees asking him similarly tricky questions, because he's happy for them to assume the same thing he's assuming. Namely, that the person they're speaking to would lie to them given half a chance. He says as much, "my duty is to the company, not to the applicant", his only reason not to lie is if lying harms the company. So of course he accepts they'll use the same tricks to force honesty from him as he uses to force honesty from them. Namely, when asking a question, don't let the person you're asking know what lie would serve their interests. – Steve Jessop Jul 19 '16 at 09:14
  • @SteveJessop Did Diogenes ever find that honest man? Everybody lies, myself included. That's different from saying that every word from someone is a lie. In an interview, the goal of an applicant is to secure the position, and make sure i's a good fit for them. The goal of the interviewer is to find a good fit for the company. If you don't think people lie, go down to the local used car lot or military recruitment center and take everything they say as word of God. – Old_Lamplighter Jul 19 '16 at 12:11
  • Sure, as I said, just because "people lie" applies to you, doesn't mean you really are lying on this occasion. It just means that if there is some benefit to you in lying in this answer, we should assume you've taken it ;-) If we knew all the circumstances (which of course we don't) we could reproduce your cost-benefit analysis and figure out what situations you lie in and what situations you don't. And we know that when you say you answer interviewees questions honestly, that you mean under normal circumstances. – Steve Jessop Jul 19 '16 at 13:50
  • @SteveJessop I'd say that's another universal truth. Unless there is some mental illness involved, people rarely lie to their disadvantage. Oh, and of course you're right about normal circumstances. I'm not going to answer truthfully or completely, a question that could get me or the company sued. I would advise taking the third option in that case: Don't respond, or give an evasive reply (All answers are replies, but not all replies are answers) – Old_Lamplighter Jul 19 '16 at 14:14
12

What I want to hear from candidates is that they picked the company I work for on purpose. If someone says he has two dozen other interviews lined up, then this means I am a random find in his or her job search. I want our company to be one of the top priorities of this person.

Obviously, if somebody is currently out of a job, then having more applications out there is perfectly normal compared to somebody who applies to a better job out of a current job he or she is holding. But even when currently unemployed, I want to know the person has a priority list and my company is with the top.

A good answer might be:

I have looked at all opportunities, made a list and applied to the #X companies I liked best. So yes, I have a few other interviews scheduled, but not many.

What a good #X is is subjective. Personally, I would prefer somewhere between 2 and 6, simply because I think 6 is more than enough to handle at once and I tend to not believe people that say that my company is the greatest thing since sliced bread and they only want to work here. It's just a company, it's not Google or NASA.

However, the rule #1 applies: don't lie. If you cannot honestly say this, you may want to check why before you do anything else.

nvoigt
  • 138,739
  • 73
  • 318
  • 416
  • 1
    You can only guess what motivation an interviewer has for asking a given question. +1 for using the question to promote what interests you in the company, position, etc. – blaughw Jul 18 '16 at 20:31
  • +1, but I don't think you need a number. – Phil Jul 18 '16 at 22:32
  • 11
    How does the candidate truly know that he wants to work for your company before the interview? Why should the candidate be penalised for performing a comprehensive job search? – Coxy Jul 19 '16 at 02:03
  • @Coxy: nvoigt does not suggest here that the candidate be penalised for performing a comprehensive job search. He (rightly or wrongly) suggests the candidate be penalised for applying to too many results of that search. Or strictly speaking, he suggests penalising the candidate for accepting and scheduling too many interviews: the question doesn't actually ask how many companies you're interested in, only how many interviews in your diary, but nvoigt would prefer you to give the former information rather than the latter, even though the latter was requested :-) – Steve Jessop Jul 19 '16 at 02:43
  • @Coxy A comprehensive job search to me is somebody looking at all available jobs, checking them out, prioritizing where he'd like to work and then apply to those. I don't like people that apply to every single open position with a copy/paste template CV because they need a job, any job. Those guys can go take any other job. I obviously don't interview people in retail or pizza delivery. Minimum wage jobs may work differently from what I do. – nvoigt Jul 19 '16 at 08:22
  • @SteveJessop Where I live, people don't ask for "scheduled", because "scheduled" can change the very second the applicant is out of the room and checks his or her emails. We ask "did you apply elsewhere, too?". So my answer might be more suited to that question. – nvoigt Jul 19 '16 at 08:57
8

I would always advocate being truthful. I don't think answering "No" hurts you, but lying definitely could.

In my (personal) experience, this question is actually more for setting the expectations of the hiring manager/team than evaluating the candidate. I only ask the question if I actually like the candidate. I've already formed my opinion and know that I plan to either move the candidate to the next step in the process or make an offer.

I am asking because I want to know how competitive the hiring process is going to be. Do I need to make sure our process moves swiftly enough to present an offer in time? Do I need to rethink where in the salary range I need to come in to get an accepted offer? Do I need to sell my company/offered position more strongly?

I may have follow-up questions about the kinds of roles, the seriousness of those interviews (phone vs in-person or initial feelers vs serious contender), etc.

Chris G
  • 11,595
  • 3
  • 32
  • 52
  • +1 especially for "make sure our process moves swiftly". Everywhere I've ever worked, the process is very slow, but can be made to go a little faster if I put extra effort in it. This both costs my time and burns clout/credibility with HR and everyone else involved. I'll do it for a candidate I really want, but if I don't need to move quickly, it's nice to know. – mattdm Jul 18 '16 at 17:27
1

No isn't really that great an answer. It hints at other employers aren't interested in you, whether you're at the beginning of a job search or have been in the market a lot. Rather than answer No, answer something like:

"I'm working with a ton of other recruiters on potential opportunities, but I don't have anything scheduled at present".

This kind of answer says No, but avoids the potential negative view by stating that other people are interested in you.

Interestingly enough, thinking back, it's always the smaller shadier outfits that ask this kind of question, or the recruiters themselves (because they want to get paid). Frankly, until I have an employment contract in front of me and have to make a decision, my business is my own in regards to who I'm interviewing for :)

RandomUs1r
  • 1,043
  • 5
  • 9
1

I am going to answer because of the reference to my answer to a rather different question. That question asked us to assume the two candidates had equally attractive resumes etc. In that case, I would assume the difference in number of interviews relates to how selective the candidates are being in applying for jobs.

In the real world, in most cases, there will be differences in the resumes. Maybe the candidate with few interviews is applying for jobs that are not a good match for their skills and qualifications. Maybe they have specialized skills that few employers want, but that are just right for my job.

With differences in the resumes, my choices would be driven by which candidate is the better fit. That does not always mean the one with the highest qualifications. Sometimes one wants a junior programmer who will grow into a job.

As far as the question is concerned, lying would be stupid, even if your ethics permit it. It's a small world, and being known to lie in interviews would not help future job hunting. The options, with shading between them, are to answer completely and truthfully or to deflect the question without giving a precise answer.

Patricia Shanahan
  • 30,795
  • 8
  • 68
  • 101