Forums

Hello all.  I'm interviewing soon for a management position in my company.  I purchased the interviewing series a few weeks ago, and I'm just soaking up the wealth of knowledge provided.  Thanks to Mark and Mike for sharing their help.

 

I wondered if there was a strategic advantage to being the first or last interviewee for a position.  I know the Primary and Recency theory of psychology says that we remember the first and the last in a series of events/object/etc. better than those in the middle.  From an interviewing standpoint, I would assume the same to be true.  Is one better than the other, though, if one were given a choice as to what time slot they wanted?

 

Thanks,

Jeremy

ashdenver's picture

I'd be inclined to say: "does one really remember if they saw the Magnificence of the Second Coming in the 2pm timeslot or the 4pm?  Usually they just remember the glorious experience which overshadows everything else."  Heh. 

That said, I'm a believer of the "set the bar high and let the others try to match your stellar attributes" but my husband is a definite proponent of the Recency theory, that you always want to go last.  I would say that the only thing you can really control is what you say, how you say it and what you do during whatever timeslot you end up having with these folks.  The rest is up to them and completely out of your control.  One interviewer may subsrcibe to the Primary theory and the other interviewer may be a Recency person, with the others mixed along the way.  You have no control over them; only yourself.

wendii's picture

It doesn't matter. I've seen the best candidate at every hour from 8am to 6pm and all the hours in between.

A great candidate who blows the competition of the water is unforgettable. In fact, I could tell you about a guy I interviewed 5 years ago, and I've interviewed thousands of people since.

My one caveat - if you can, don't choose 5pm on a Friday night. Interviewers are rarely at their most receptive then.

Wendii