Looking for an advantage...

October 9, 2006 5:03 PM

Does your placement during the job inverview process make a difference?

If you have a choice as to when you will schedule your interview, is it better to go first, so the interviewer is comparing all those who follow to you...or is it better to go toward the end, so you can leave the most recent impression when the individual goes to make a decision?

Do you think there is a strategy to this, providing that all other things are equal? Could going first or last help/hurt you just because of where you fall in the interviews?

Is there a best time of the day to interview or a better day of the week?

posted by Mrs. Smith to work & money (13 comments total)

If an employer sees five people, typically they'll pick one. So, six would be too late generally. I would tend to prefer later since their standards may have been reduced by that point. I'm not sure that it makes a huge difference though, and the way your personality clicks with the interviewer will be a lot more important. Still, given a choice, I'd say the 3rd or 4th interview spot would be best.
posted by willnot at 5:06 PM on October 9, 2006

In many cases, all things are not equal, and the interview will evolve as the interviewers go along. That means you'll have the chance to react to a more accurate description of their needs if you're in a later slot.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 5:17 PM on October 9, 2006

is it better to go first, so the interviewer is comparing all those who follow to you

I learned in social psychology that this is the case. But being last can be good, too, according to the primacy/recency effect. There may have been another reason that it's better to go first, but I don't recall at the moment.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:28 PM on October 9, 2006

It depends on the job. When the company I work for interviews software developers, people who do well in the interviews are rare enough that we generally make an offer right away without waiting to interview anyone else.
posted by magicbus at 5:46 PM on October 9, 2006

Wandi Bruine de Bruin says the order makes a difference. You want to go last.
posted by Packy_1962 at 6:54 PM on October 9, 2006

From my experience interviewing many applicants for clinical psychology positions, the order makes no difference. the best candidate will out.
posted by madstop1 at 7:04 PM on October 9, 2006

Either first or last would be best, with last being the best of all. This depends to some extent on how structured the interview process is, though - if formal scoring of each candidate is carried out at the conclusion of each interview, the placement will be less improtant than if the grading is less formal. If the process is fairly informal, i would take the last interview now matter what, because you stand a much better chance of leaving a good impression that will remain until crunch time. Of course, you also have a better chance of leaving a lasting bad impression if things don't go well.
posted by dg at 7:10 PM on October 9, 2006

I did my undergrad at a school with a big co-op program. Employers would post jobs, then come to campus and interview students. The program is huge - thousands of students constantly heading out for work terms and coming back in, and each term is only 4 months long. So all of us have sat through our fair share of interviews.

My friend worked as a co-op student for a very small company and actually got to conduct interviews, with his boss, for the next round of students. I asked him the same question when he was done out of curiosity. His response:

If I have a choice, I will never schedule an interview right before lunch or right before the end of the day.

Interviews are physically draining - it's like being in an all-day meeting. Don't underestimate the effect of fatigue on the interviewers. He said by the end of it they just wanted them to be over, and they did their best to be fair and professional, but the last few students were definitely rushed.
posted by PercussivePaul at 7:17 PM on October 9, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

It only makes sense to go last in a system where you know they're going to continue interviewing until they've talked to everybody. In a place where they make a job offer once they find a suitable candidate (without waiting to wade through everybody else), it's a terrible plan.
posted by joannemerriam at 8:44 PM on October 9, 2006

I used to think that last was best. When I interviewed for my current job, I accidentally scheduled myself to go first.

Later, the two people who interviewed me told me I nailed it so hard, they ruled out the other 5 candidates very quickly, and half an hour after the last interview started, I was offered the job.

So, I don't know any more. I have gotten every job when I carried a library book to the interview, though, so maybe try that?
posted by QIbHom at 9:00 PM on October 9, 2006

I'm also not convinced that it really makes a huge difference one way or the other. This is one of those essentially unanswerable questions because it depends so heavily on the personality type of the particular interviewer.

My company conducted interviews not all that long ago for an open outside sales position. I tend to be in the "everyone who follows must fight to compare favorably to the person who went first" category, while my business partner is the type who tends to to only remember the person who interviewed most recently. We have more or less equal power in determining who we hire. So -- it's a total crapshoot.
posted by The Gooch at 11:58 PM on October 9, 2006

Go with the best time of day for you. Given the choice, I'd go for between morning tea and lunch, as it avoids the early morning windup and the after lunch lull. I also wouldn't want to be in the late afternoon if they've been interviewing all day, as they'll be fairly sick of it by then.
posted by kjs4 at 4:09 AM on October 10, 2006

All things are not equal. Forget the interview and treat this as a first meeting for how you're going to do the job you already have.
posted by Caviar at 7:56 AM on October 10, 2006