Many executives mistakenly believe that their proven track record will ensure success in interviews; however, their ingrained leadership instincts can hinder their performance as candidates. This paradox often leaves them baffled when offers go to other applicants, as their qualifications are rarely the issue. Instead, they tend to communicate in ways that reflect their leadership style, which may not effectively translate to the interview setting.
Three common leadership instincts can negatively impact executives during interviews:
-
Attributing Success to the Team: Leaders often emphasize teamwork by using inclusive language like "we." While this cultivates loyalty and trust among team members, it can leave interviewers uncertain about the individual’s specific contributions. To convey personal impact, candidates should articulate their distinct roles in successful projects while still recognizing their team’s efforts.
-
Assuming Context is Understood: Inside their organizations, leaders possess shared background knowledge that shapes their narratives. However, interviewers do not share this context and may find statements like “I led the AI transformation effort” too vague. Candidates should provide relevant context by elucidating the stakes involved in their achievements, helping interviewers appreciate the complexity behind their successes.
- Hedging Communication: Experienced leaders are often trained to build consensus and acknowledge multiple viewpoints, which can dilute their stances in interviews. This can lead interviewers to question their decisiveness. Instead, candidates should confidently present their conclusions and rationale while remaining open to discussion, demonstrating both judgment and adaptability.
While recognizing these instincts is essential, adapting communication strategies in interviews is vital for success. Practicing with a trained professional can help candidates articulate their experiences effectively, ultimately converting leadership instincts into an advantage in securing new roles.
Why this story matters
Key takeaway
Opposing viewpoint
