The Interview Aftermath – From the Perspective of an Interviewee

What? When? How? Why? Why? Why? Why???????

At the end of the interview, the candidate comes out of the conference hall, stomach as queasy as it had been when she went in to face the panel. Did she succeed in convincing the panel? How did they find her proposal? Will she be able to get the funds? How did the other candidates fare? What are the chances of success?

Even though I am a veteran at the interview process, these were the questions that kept hovering in my mind after I attended an interview recently for a highly competitive scholarship. On an average around sixty proposals are submitted annually, out of which only four - one of which was mine - are considered for the next round. The interview went fairly well, the atmosphere was friendly, but friendliness does not preclude inscrutability on part of the interviewers. I did all the necessary homework, talked to people who had already been through the process, studied the organizational history and goals, and went through several mock interviews. My survey told me that the interview would be focused on judging an individual’s leadership skills and sense of societal responsibility; however, contrary to my expectations, questions started flying from right out of the ballpark concentrating mostly on the technical aspects of my proposal. I was thorough with all aspects of my proposal and could defend my methodology strongly.

Nevertheless, the questions kept hovering. It is said that hindsight is always a better teacher than 20/20. I met one of my mentors a couple of days later and related my experience. He said to me, ”Why don’t you turn the tables on the panel and ask a question instead? You don’t always have to be in a defensive position.” And that statement, in my opinion, is eminently sensible. To give you an example, one of the panel members posed a question – what is the novelty of your work? Now, I am an applied technologist and proposed to build a product for cancer theranostics in a span of two years, using cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches. The technologies have been around for some time, but never been explored in the biomedical sector. I planned to use these principles to build a theranostic device, and estimated the success rate to be around 90%. The product has a good chance of actualizing in the market unlike many others which are confined to research papers. I explained my theory to the interviewer, but again the inscrutability factor came into play. Was he convinced or not?

Taking a page from my mentor’s book, I could have asked politely which process would have been better – a methodology that uses an interdisciplinary approach and has a high rate of success, or building a product from the scratch. By scratch, I mean developing the material, study its functional properties, designing a fabrication process, assess its applicability for implants etc. This sort of answering wrapped in a question would have been a better approach. It brings to fore one’s assertiveness; such assertive strategies would highlight your strong points and your confidence in your work. Most people would tend to agree with you and appreciate your unexpected tack. It would demonstrate your ability to remain clear headed in a pressure cooker situation.

So that’s a lesson I learnt and wanted to pass along. Happy interviewing, folks! Hope the assertive strategy works for you.

As for me, I am still awaiting the results of the interview. Let the hunger games continue…