I just read through Seidman's article dealing with the keys to a successful interview. The principles applied in this article remind me very much to a book I am reading at the moment. I am halfway through Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. The common theme throughout is to show genuine interest in people. One way to do that is to be a good listener, as is mentioned several times in Seidman's article as well. Most people are mainly interested in theirself and that's it. So if you are willing to understand that fact, listen to someone, and be genuinely interested, the person will then feel more comfortable and enjoy your company. This will lead to more productive interviews.
The article by Theberge had some very interesting segments. I'd say the parts that I felt most interesting were the personal accounts from the athletes that were studied. We always hear athletes say, "I'm in the best shape of my life." However, being in that shape doesn't necessarily equate to being healthy. The argument is that in order to be a top-tier athlete, you must push the body beyond healthy limits. The comment is made by one athlete in the article that someone doing yoga and running a few times a week is probably healthier than an NFL athlete. I had never thought about this situation in such a light, but it really makes sense. It is well documented that professional athletes have troubled retirement years because their bodies are so worn down, but we don't think of them as unhealthy while they are competing at such a high level. If they end up that way when they are older, though, they are probably doing unhealthy things during their careers. Also, this reasoning might be an explanation as to why we experienced the steroid era. Athletes felt using these steroids would help protect their bodies from later deterioration (even though I'm sure most were interested in the short-term benefits).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Steven,
ReplyDeleteInteresting comparison between Dale Carnegie's book and the chapter by Seidman on the keys to successful interviewing. I took a course during my graduate program on the importance of listening, and we were challenged to listen in such a way that we did not try to formulate our own ideas while someone else was talking. Many of us discovered that was a lot more difficult than we realized, especially in the context of interviewing.
One thing I usually like to discuss when it comes to interviewing is whether you can think of someone who does a good job of interviewing. By contrast, can you think of someone who does a poor job of interviewing? I can think of examples of each, but wondered if you can think of some (and perhaps post links to Youtube).
I also found it interesting that you liked the personal accounts from the athletes who were studied. That is one of the benefits of doing interviews (qualitative research), in my opinion, in that you can hear the words of those being studied. That is often much more interesting to read than an article or book that contains very thick theoretical jargon.
Good observations and insights.
Dr. Spencer
The first thing I did when I thought about your question was think about interviews that have been conducted poorly. Where have I seen bad interviews take place? Why did this interview erupt into something poor? The first example I thought of was Jim Gray interviewing Pete Rose.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4fmEbgKeh0
After rewatching this, it does seem to me that Jim Gray made a few mistakes. He basically attacked Pete Rose from the beginning by asking him if he was willing to admit that he bet on baseball. The way to get people to open up isn't by attack. The way to get answers is to start a conversation with a question that will get a positive response. Gray's approach instantly made Rose put his guard up. I know that reporters have to ask tough questions, but in my opinion, the tough questions need to come after you have developed a trust and positive rapport with the subject.
The other one that we have talked about before is Jim Rome's interview with Jim Everett in which Rome calls him Chris.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uczUKTwgqeY&NR=1
This was the first comment he makes, setting up failure and unresponsiveness (and is this case, an assault!). The most underrated part of this segment on YouTube is that Jim Rome doesn't have his goatee. I would have never known it was him except for the voice.
One person that I believe is a great interviewer is Bob Costas. I can't think of any specific interview, but from my memory, I think he has some great qualities. The biggest thing is he is relatively soft spoken and does not try to steal the show himself. He asks questions of the interviewees that allow them to talk about themselves. Rome wants to hear himself talk. Costas has a genuine interest in what his subject has to say. This genuine tone and demeanor is important. It shows politeness and tact, and it will allow people to feel comfortable enough to open up and talk about important topics.
I was thinking about this issue recently when I saw an interview conducted by Chris Matthews (on Hardball). He has got to be the most irritating interviewer since he NEVER allows his interviewees to finish their sentences. It is so annoying! I agree with you that Bob Costas is a good interviewer, in part because he adheres to the adage that "less is more." He keeps his observations and questions to a minimum, and allows the person he is interviewing to speak in greater depth. I once saw an interview that he conducted with Ichiro, where Ichiro had an interpreter, and he really opened up in a way that I had never before seen.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the example of Jim Gray interviewing Pete Rose was a good illustration of poor interviewing technique, because Gray obviously came to the interview with an agenda. In that case, it created a contentious environment, and that was definitely inappropriate under the circumstances.
Great examples!