Interviewing Principles and Practices

by Charles Stewart and William Cash, Jr.

The eighth edition of Interviewing Principles and Practices is a good book and I would want to see its later editions also, and perhaps own a copy as a reference. I did not read every word of the book, but I looked through all of it. This book would be very useful for interviewing employees, being interviewed, or any endeavor involving interviews of any kind.

A unique quality of Interviewing Principles and Practices covers all kinds of interviews, and it analyzes them from the perspective of interviewer and interviewee (and discusses interviews in which neither party takes the leading role). In the last chapter, on medical interviews, one learns how little health care professionals listen to their patients, and how poorly diagnoses and instructions are conveyed.

Here are excerpts, which will focus a lot on the journalism interview.

Even though we often listen throughout half or more of the interview, few of us listen well. Surveys of hundreds of major corporations in the United States revealed that poor listening skills is a major barrier in nearly all positions from accountants to supervisors and are considered critical to entry level positions, effective preformance, high productivity, managerial competency, and promotion within most organizations.(Page 19.)

Listening for Comprehension

[. . .]

Listen attentively and insightfully before phrasing your next question.
Be patient, particularly when information seems irrelevant or uninteresting.
Listen for critical content and main ideas, no matter how difficult the are to understand.
Take notes to both retain information accurately and to show that you are listening.
Clarify information through repititions and reflective questions. [. . .]
Probe for additional information that will clarify a situation.
What do you know about . . . ?
Tell me more about . . . [. . .]
Ask for specific information when a message is vague or unclear. [. . .]
Identify beliefs, attitudes, and feelings.
Why do you feel that way? [. . .]

Listening for Empathy

[. . .]

Let the other party know you are listening and interested.
Do not interrupt the other party.
Do not react too quickly to controversial or antagonistic comments and questions.
Let a person talk out apparent hostilities toward yourself and others.
Do not become defensive without first listening to everything said and implied.
Strive to be comfortable with strong displays of emotion.
If a person cries, remain silent and give the person time to become composed.
Avoid unhelpful comments such as “I know” or “It’ll be okay.”
If a person launches into a morbid account, hear it out without showing discomfort or impatience.
Try to remain nonevaluative unless you have no choice. [. . .]
Listen with an eye toward giving options and directions. [. . .]
Respond with candor. [. . .]

Listening for Evaluation

[. . .]

Listen carefully to an entire question or answer before making judgements.
Pay close attention to both words and how they are communicated nonverbally.
Listen to the content, including reasoning, evidence, and rank ordering of points.
If you are unsure or what is being said or asked, ask for clarification before evaluating.
Do not become defensive, and refuse to be “baited” into overreacting because of leading questions or emotion-laden words.
Often it is wise to withhold final evaluations until an interview is completed an you have time to understand and judge appropriately.

Pages 20-22.

[The Interview Situation: ]Time of Day, Week, and Year

Each of us tends to communicate best at different times of the day, week, and year. [. . .] It is usually unwise to attempt to handle difficult issues or exchange important and extensive information just before lunch when parties are hungry and late in the day or work shift when they are tired mentally and physically. Monday mornings and Friday afternoons [are bad.] Page 24.

Common Opening Techniques

[. . .]

State the purpose. This technique makes it clear why you are conducting the interview. [. . .]
Summarize the problem. This technique is useful when an interviewee is unaware of a problem, vaguely aware of it, or unaware of important details. [. . .]
Explain how the problem was discovered. This technique explains how you discovered the problem. Be honest and specific in revealing sources of information. [. . .]
Mention an incentive or reward for taking part. This technique can be effective if the incentive is appealing to the interviewee. Be careful of using this opening in informational interviews because many salespersons use a gift to motivate people to listen to their pitches. It may become difficult to convince the respondent that you only want to get or give information after using this technique.
Good evening. I’m Terry Keck from the Washington County Planning Commission. We are conducting a study of current zoning laws and how they are affecting our older housing areas such as this one. We hope the study will result in zoning changes that will protect and enhance the value of older homes in these neighborhoods.
Request advice or assistance. This is a common interview opening because assistance is often what an interviewer needs. Be sure your need is clear, precise, sincere, and one your selected interviewee can meet. [. . .]
Refer to the known position of the interviewee. This technique refers to the interviewee’s position on an issue or problem. Be cautious because a tactless or seemingly hostile reference to a known position may create a defensive attitude or antagonize the interviewee. [. . .]
Refer to the person who sent you to the interviewee. Be sure the person you name did send you and that the interviewee knows and likes this person. It could be embarrassing or disastrous to discover, only after using the name, that the interviewee does not recall or intensely dislikes this person. [. . .]
Refer to the organization you represent. [. . .] Hopefully this reference will orient and motivate, not antagonize, the interviewee. [. . .]
Request a specific amount of time. State a realistic time and, by the end of this time, either complete your task or begin to close the interview. Give the interviewee an opportunity to continue the interview or to terminate it, perhaps arranging for another meeting. [. . .]
Ask a question. Open-ended, easy to answer questions may enhance trust and begin to orient the interviewee. Common opening questions include: “What can I do for you?” “How may I be of assistance?” “What is your schedule for this afternoon?” [. . .] Be careful of closed questions that can be answered with a quick no: “Can I help you?” “Do you need assistance?” Many interviewees find questions with a single, obvious answer insulting: “Do you want your children to have a good education?” [. . .]

Pages 36-38.

From chapter two, “Structuring the Interview”:

Closing Techniques

Offer to answer any questions.
Use clearinghouse questions, such as ‘Anything else before I leave?’ or ‘Are there any questions I have not asked that you would like to answer?
Declare the completion of your purpose: ‘Well, that’s all the questions I have.’
Make personal inquiries (about the subjects family, vacation plans etc., stuff unrelated to the interview.
Make professional inquiries, also not related to the interview.
Signal that time is up, especially if a time limit had been agreed to earlier.
Explain the reason for the closing— honestly. (‘I have an appointment . . .’)
Express appreciation or satisfaction, e.g. ‘I’ve really enjoyed meeting you.’
Arrange for the next meeting.
Summarize the interview.

Pages 48-49.

I would use multiple

From chapter three, “Questions and Their Uses”:

Relevance

If there is a possibility that a respondent might not see the relevance of a question[. . .], be sure to explain its relation to your purpose and needs to motivate the person to respond freely and accurately. Phrase your questions carefully to avoid obtrusive language. The order or placing of questions may affect perceived relevance. for example, ask for demographic data such as age, salary, educational level, geographic location, political party, or religious preference at the [. . .] end of the interview [. . .] because by then you should have established trust and have asked a number of clearly relevant questions. [. . .]

Information Level

Respondents must have a store of knowledge that enables them to respond comfortably and intelligently. Questions beyond the respondent’s information may cause embarrassment or resentment because none of us wants to appear uninformed[. . .]. Ask for information in common categories or frames of reference, such as pounds rather than ounces of sugar, [. . .] electric bills in dollars rather than kilowatts, or a number of hours of television viewing per day rather than month or year. Beware that respondents may fake answers or give vague, ambiguous responses rather than admit ignorance. [. . .]

Questions beneath respondents’ information levels may insult their intelligence, wisdom, or experiences. [. . .]

Complexity

Questions should be simple, clear requests for a limited amounts of information. [One piece of information per query, not two.] Avoid complex questions that challenge respondents to figure out what you want or that contain no obvious parameters.

Pages 69-71.

From chapter six, “The Persuasive Interview”:

The first step in handling objections is to anticipate them and plan how you might respond. Planning eliminates the surprise and reduces the danger of being put on the spot, resulting in no answer or a poor answer. The second step is to listen carefully, completely, and objectively. Do not assume you understand the other person’s point or concer until you have heard it. The third step is to clarify the objection, making sure you understand what it is and its importance before you understand. Did the interviewee raise the objection merely out of curiosity or because it is crucial to agreement? And the fourth step is to respond appropriately, diplomatically, tactfully, and professionally. Do not become defensive or hostile. And do not treat an objection as if it is too frivolous for serious reply; it is serious to the interviewee.

Page 173.

Specious Logic Tactics

[. . .] the bifurcation tactic attempts to polarize situations, issues, or persons into only two possibilities or sides. “You’re either with us or against us” is a common bifurcation tactic. We hear persuaders lump us into one of two camps nearly every day as we are allegedly either liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, progun or antigun, prodevelopment or antidevelopment, proenvironment or antienvironment. Other options and degrees are ignored. [. . .]

The post hoc or scrambling cause effect tactic argues simplistically that since B followed A, A must have caused B. [. . .]

The hasty generalization tactic generalizes to a whole group of people, places, or things from only one or two examples. [. . .]

The comparison tactic points out a few similarities between two people, places, or things and drows conclusions about one or the other from this superficial comparison. [. . .]

When using the thin entering wedge tactic, sometimes referred to as the domino effect or the slippery slope, an interviewer argues that one decision, action, or law after another is leading toward some type of disaster. [Or that one action will lead to a bad action. . .]

Identification Tactics

[. . .]

Interviewers use association to establish a connection between their proposals and an object, person, organization, cause, or idea that interviewees revere. A proposal may be supported by a church or professional organization to which you belong or is endorsed by a high credibility source [. . .]. Be certain that the connection is real and not merely claimed and that it signifies a major endorsement and not simply no opposition. [. . .] Many persuaders join all sorts of organizations merely so they can cite these associations, sort of like college students who join organizations merely so they can cite these associations, sort of like college students who join organizations and honoraries only for “resume hits.” [. . .]

The bandwagon tactic urges an interviewee to follow the crowd [or the intelligent, or cool, or whatever, people]. [. . .]

Attack Tactics

Some persuaders prefer to attack competing proposals, ideas, or persons rather than defend or develop their own positions on issues. In an ad hominem tactic, the interviewer attempts to dodge the issue, question, or objection by attacking the source[. . .]. Thus you are evil or wrong for raising a question or objection. Both remain unaddressed as the interviewer attempts to discredit you, an organization, a publication, or a research report. Insist that the interviewer address the issue or point, not the source. And do not be bullied by name-calling, counter-charges, or efforts to make you become defensive.

Sometimes interviewers will associate a proposal, idea, or person with what tends to repel the interviewee. This is guilt by association. Nothing is proven or disproven by this tactic, but the interviewer hopes you will dismiss a proposal, idea, or person because of its real or alleged association with “liberals” or “conservatives,” “radicals” or “reactionaries,” or simply “them.” [. . .]

Pages 180 to 182.

Stewart, Charles J. and William B. Cash, Jr. Interviewing Principles and Practices, Eighth Edition. Boston, Massachusetts: McGraw·Hill, 1997.