Business Word

Technical Writer Wanted
Consider How You Are Perceived, Not Just What You Say

by Peter Zvalo

The interviewee entered her prospective manager’s office, eager to answer the questions that she knew would soon be fired at her. Shelley had been through this process a dozen times in the past few months as part of her quest for a technical writing position, and could anticipate the line of questioning. Far from being nervous, she was calm and confident.

Phil, the manager, was also well versed in the interview process. Having hired many people during his career, he knew the type of person he was looking to hire. During an interview, his mind would usually be made up within the first few minutes about whether the candidate would get a second interview or would end up having to continue his or her search.

After Shelley and Phil were seated, Phil began:

Phil: "So, how are you today?"

Shelley: "Oh, pretty good. I’d be even better if the weather wasn’t so miserable again today."

Phil: "Indeed. But at least it’s better than last week’s snow. So, what attracted you to our job ad?"

Shelley: "You know, I’ve been out of work for awhile now, so at this point I just need to work. The requirements in the ad sounded like the type of work I’d be good at, and besides, I figure the more resumés I send out the more likely it is that I’ll land a decent job."

Phil: "Kind of like a lottery, I guess."

Shelley: "Right. You know exactly what I’m talking about."

Phil: "How would you describe the difference between technical writing and technical editing?"

Shelley: "The difference? Well obviously, with writing you’re creating new text while with editing you’re fixing up text that’s already been written."

Phil: "What about your own aptitude? Are you a better writer than editor or vice versa?"

Shelley: "Geez. I don’t know. I’m comfortable with both, so I don’t have a strong preference one way or another."

That was about all Phil needed to make up his mind during this exchange. Further questions and answers would only serve to confirm his initial impressions. For Shelley, the outcome of this visit would not be good.

The interview is a necessary and important part of landing a job, but in reality, it’s a misnomer. That’s because it’s really a meeting — an exchange of information between two individuals — each seeking to meet their own needs by tapping into what the other might have to offer. This requires diplomacy, not necessarily blatant revelations.

The questions posed to the candidate are often aimed at not only obtaining specific information about the person’s skills, but at finding out about the person’s attitude. Shelley’s responses might have been suitable if she were talking casually with a friend over a latte, but they were too blunt in an interview setting where first impressions are everything.

The interview might have been a success had Shelley considered how the person trying to get to know her skills would interpret her responses. In other words, she should have considered how what she was saying would be perceived by her prospective employer, not just what she was actually saying. There is nothing wrong with casual banter, like talking about the weather, but try to keep it positive. Complaining about the weather, as innocuous as it may seem, could potentially make you sound like a chronic complainer, which no employer wants to have.

Shelley said that she sent her resumé to many employers. This may be true, but she should have omitted this information from the conversation. Instead, she should have focused on the requirements for this particular position and elaborated on her qualifications. Phil was left feeling that she was desperate for a job — any job — and that she would probably accept almost anything that came along. Not a good long-term prospect.

Her response to the question about writing versus editing forced Phil to ask her point-blank about her aptitude with respect to writing and editing. It was also preceded by the remark "well, obviously," which implies that the answer was self-evident and that the question was in some way unnecessary or even silly. Indeed, for an experienced technical writer, the question might have been rudimentary, but that wasn’t the point. However, the objective of the question was to gauge Shelley’s understanding of writing and editing principles, give her the opportunity to offer her own experiences related to these activities, and to observe her ability to answer the question or get clarification about it in a professional manner. Shelley’s handling of the question can easily be transferred to a potential client meeting or interview situation — a situation in which Phil would be reluctant to place her.

Shelley’s answer to the final question was essentially non-responsive. Phil knows that most people in this field are either good writers or good editors, and that rarely can the same person be equally proficient at both. Shelley couldn’t, or wouldn’t, evaluate her aptitude in this area, which presents a problem for Phil in that he would only find out the answer after he had hired her (which seems unlikely at this point in the interview).

Because technical writing is about communicating effectively with the information needs of your audience at the forefront, your performance at a job interview may be perceived as a good indicator of your performance as a technical writer. If you are negative and make your interviewer feel uncomfortable, or force him or her to fish for answers, it’s unlikely that you would perform any better at a client meeting or when interviewing subject-matter experts to fill in missing content for a user manual. Your prospect for landing a job is reduced to only a glimmer.

Conversely, if you respond diplomatically with specific answers, focus on the positive, and ask relevant questions during the interview, the lines of communication will open up and you will have a realistic chance of success.

Peter Zvalo is a Contributing Editor for Writer’s Block.