There is a fine line between telling a candidate everything they need to know so that they can predict what the interviewer is going to ask them versus enabling and empowering them to know where to find information and let them do with it what they will in order to be well prepared for an interview. The former ultimately is cheating really if we resort to school terminology, since many companies still view interviews as a one sided assessment, when in reality what it should be is a chemistry session whereby both candidate and interviewer use the opportunity to find out about each other and make an assessment of whether they are right for each other. If the candidate has been literally spoon fed what they will be asked and how to answer it, then the interviewer is going to have a very difficult job working out if they are really right for the role, company and culture. It’s a bit like doing someone’s homework or their exam for them – they might ace the grade and get the certificate, but the real test will be when they have to stand on their own two feet and if they can’t do it for themselves or aren’t right for it, then you’re setting them up to fail and you’ve made the wrong hire.
The latter however can do something quite different. By empowering and enabling a candidate to know where to look for relevant information, you can send them off to do that and then make assessments based on what they do with that information and how it informs them.
So what do you tell them? The key is to give them information and see what they do with it. Do they respond with questions, are they curious, do they show initiative? Does it prompt them to ask for other information? Check in with the interviewer and let them know what information they’ve had access to and see what they’ve done with it and what they learnt. How people deal with getting ‘inside info’ is an interesting one. It can check integrity and honesty. We might have been conditioned at school to feel that having inside info is cheating, but in the real world being a step ahead and asking for information gets you places. And in the workplace, it’s crucial to success.
Another interesting aspect is how it comes across to a candidate when a recruiter enables them. In real business situations, a good colleague will assist and a strong and curious colleague will ask the right questions – the way I see it is ‘if you ask you get’, therefore respect a candidate’s questions and answer whatever you can where appropriate. This leads me onto my next point which is how important it is that the recruiter is knowledgeable and credible. It speaks volumes about a company if the recruiter is informed and passionate. Typically the recruiter is the first interaction a candidate will have with the company, and first impressions count for a lot. A strong candidate will be a high performer in their current role, and they’ll probably be talking to more than one company, so not only is the recruiter there to vet the candidate, but they are also there to be an ambassador and position the company like a great salesperson would position the product.
The recruiter told the candidate what types of questions to expect and how to prepare, including suggested websites and blogs to read before showing up. The approach actually makes so much sense. A recruiter's job is to make sure the two people fall in love — the candidate and the hiring manager.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/google-email-product-manager-2017-3