Reframe Your Interview

I'm struggling with interviews. I get in the door, but I don't get the offer. Does this sound familiar? If so, maybe I can help. Let's start by understanding the notion of "rejecting the premise." When presented with a problem statement or question, it's all too common (even out of interview settings) to simply accept the premise of the question or situation and just head straight toward what seems like a "solution."

When we reject the premise of an argument or question, we question the very question itself. Examples are:

"Why are you asking me that?"

"That's not the right way to think about it."

"Who cares?" (my favorite)

Now that we are armed with the idea of rejecting a premise, let's look at the most common premise for an interview.

Flawed premise: Interviews are confrontational events to be "won" and "lost"

This represents a fundamental misconception and is how many (Ed: I think it's almost all, but will be charitable with "many") people approach job interviews. This widespread mindset not only makes interviews more stressful than necessary but actively works against their true purpose. We herein reject this premise and establish a new premise.

New premise: Interviews are a collaboration between interviewer and candidate to jointly explore whether or not the candidate will be successful after being hired.

As an interviewer, I want to hire someone that will be successful in the role. As a candidate I want to find a role that I will love. A recent conversation I had about interview techniques showed me just how deeply this confrontational mindset runs, and how transformative it can be to reject the premise and change your mindset.

The Default Mindset

My conversation partner's (let's call him 'Claude') initial reaction to some of my interview techniques perfectly illustrated the prevailing view. When I described creating moments to observe authentic behavior - like deliberately handing a candidate paper and pen during a problem-solving question - Claude immediately interpreted this as a "gotcha" moment designed to trip up or fool the candidates. He admonished me that this approach was unfair and may disadvantage certain candidates.

This defensive interpretation wasn't surprising. Our professional culture is saturated with language that frames interviews as battles: "tough" questions, interview "tactics," "surviving" the process, "winning" the job. Even well-meaning interview advice often reinforces this adversarial framing by focusing on avoiding traps rather than engaging in genuine dialogue.

The Reality of Shared Purpose

"Entering an interview as a confrontation is the wrong approach," I explained. "An interview is a collaboration. The interviewer desperately wants to find a person that will be successful in this job. The candidate (usually) wants the job. This is a collaborative event, not a confrontation."

This simple reframing changes everything. When both parties recognize their shared goal - finding a good match - the entire dynamic shifts. Those moments I create in interviews aren't traps but opportunities for authentic interaction. The paper and pen aren't a test but an offer of support. Questions about intent aren't challenges but invitations to deeper understanding.

Practicing What We Preach

To illustrate this collaborative approach, I shared how I often respond to interview questions as a candidate with a simple "Who cares?" This response, which might seem confrontational in the traditional framework, actually creates an opportunity for genuine dialogue about what matters and why. It's an invitation to move past scripted interactions into real professional conversation.

"My most important priority as a candidate," I explained, "is to show the other person who I am so they will know if they want to work with me or not, and to learn who they are to see if I want to work with them."

In a recent interview, for example, someone asked me "how would you go about writing blah, blah, blah in python?" I simply said "Who cares? Co-pilot can write that for me. Why would I waste my time on that?" He was reluctantly forced to admit "well, that's probably the right answer." (Ed: As I like to take things to extremes to see how people will react, I followed with "it's the only answer" – not sure that won me any points lol).

This was a chance for me to show this interviewer what it would be like to work with me. This is exactly how I behave on the job. I always question the premise. I always ask challenging questions. Behaving differently in an interview than I will on the job does a disservice to us both. You need to know what it's like to work with me; I need to know how you will react to the person I am.

Creating Collaborative Moments

"So, how do we create opportunities to collaborate?" Claude asked, now intrigued by this different approach to interviews. "We use something called divergent-convergent thinking," I explained. "It's not just a technique, it's a framework for building genuine dialogue."

Divergent thinking opens the door to collaboration by creating space for shared exploration. Instead of trying to guess the "right" answer, we can explore possibilities together. When I question assumptions or suggest alternative approaches, I'm not just demonstrating creativity – I'm inviting the interviewer to join me in examining the problem from new angles.

Of course, this approach comes with risks. It will probably not shock you that I tend to rub people the wrong way from both sides of the interview table. But even these moments of tension become opportunities for collaboration. When I sense frustration, I'll say something like, "I fear I've upset you" or "I don't feel like I'm expressing myself well." By acknowledging the tension and inviting honest feedback, we transform what could be a confrontational moment into a chance to demonstrate real problem-solving together.

I often preface my questioning with, "I'm sorry, I'm a divergent thinker." This isn't just a disclaimer – it's an invitation to explore how different thinking styles can complement each other. Interviewers apprentice candidates who can articulate their approach, and this often leads to deeper discussions about problem-solving methods. "This direct questioning of assumptions and premises," I explained to Claude, "creates an opportunity for the interviewer and me to work back from ideas to a concrete solution in partnership."

From Exploration to Solution

"Once we've opened up the problem space together," I continued, "we can collaborate on finding the best path forward." This is where divergent thinking naturally flows into convergent thinking – not as a solitary process, but as a shared journey toward solutions.

The key is demonstrating that you understand the process of effective collaboration: when to explore broadly and when to focus on practical solutions. By engaging in divergent thinking together, then working collaboratively to narrow down to actionable ideas, you show that you can both generate creative possibilities and translate them into results.

Beyond the Interview Room

"I'm starting to see how this applies everywhere," Claude noted. "This isn't just about interviews, is it?"

Exactly right. The same skills that create collaborative interviews – questioning premises, exploring ideas together, working toward shared solutions – are essential for success in any role. In professional settings, we constantly move between divergent and convergent thinking, between questioning assumptions and driving to solutions. The ability to navigate these modes while maintaining collaborative relationships is invaluable.

This speaks to fundamental questions about how we approach professional relationships and organizational culture. Do we view work relationships as inherently hierarchical and confrontational, or as collaborative partnerships with shared goals? Can we maintain authentic professional dialogue across organizational boundaries? Are we able to collaborate effectively across skill levels, organizational boundaries, and even across different cultures and generations?

The same mindset that turns interviews into battles often leads to dysfunction in day-to-day operations: information hoarding, defensive communication, and missed opportunities for genuine connection. By demonstrating collaborative problem-solving during the interview process, you show that you'll be someone who enhances team dynamics rather than someone who creates unnecessary friction.

Bringing It All Home

The widespread view of interviews as confrontational events is so deeply ingrained that questioning it can feel revolutionary. Yet when we step back, it's clear that this mindset serves neither candidates nor organizations. Every person who walks into an interview room wants to find a good match - they just might not realize the other person shares the same goal.

By reframing interviews as collaborative explorations rather than tests to be passed or battles to be won, we create space for authentic interaction and better outcomes for everyone involved. The challenge lies not in the technique but in the mindset: can we set aside our defensive armor and engage in genuine professional dialogue?

This shift might make some people uncomfortable - authentic interaction often does. But for those willing to embrace it, it transforms one of professional life's most stressful rituals into an opportunity for genuine discovery and connection.