Lying. Sleeping. Yawning. Stretching. Antagonizing. Talking on the phone. Talking and talking and talking and talking — and not listening. Asking illegal questions. Coming and going. Interviewers have a lot to learn.

Throughout my nearly 30-year career in higher education, I've had my share of interviews. I've also witnessed open fora in which others were interviewed, and colleagues have shared with me their interview stories.

Job candidates are given a surfeit of advice for how to be their best during an interview. But what about interviewers? I wonder how many interviewers have ever been trained to fill the roles for which they are tapped.

No doubt interviewers believe they are competent. However, from my experiences and those shared with me, I have found that all interviewers — some far more than others — would benefit from significant practical training.

Interviewers should keep in mind that candidates are evaluating you, and your program or institution just as you are evaluating the candidates. Here, then, are insights and advice for how to — and how not to — conduct the interview process.

Do not break the law

When the ESL program for which I was working was searching for a new center director, one of the program administrators asked a candidate — in an open forum — how the candidate planned to maintain work-life balance given that she had a young child.

The administrator should never have asked the question. The law is clear.

"Ask only job-related questions," advises Leslie Cobb, a human resource employee at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Cobb observes that it is illegal to ask questions that could "elicit" information relating to marital/family status, among others.

Do not lie

When I was negotiating salary for an ESL position, I asked for the top — and quite meager — amount. I noted that I had 25 years of experience, multiple publications, a long list of national and international conference presentations, and a doctorate, among other credentials.

The committee chair laughed and said, "I can't give you that. Only God gets that."

Her response was unprofessional at best. I later learned that a colleague whose credentials do not match (or surpass) mine was given top dollar. I also learned that years before she had worked with some of those on the interview committee.

Likewise, the committee members for this same position told me how excited they were that I have American Sign Language (ASL) skills because I would be working with d/Deaf students. In fact, they told me one of the reasons I was such an attractive candidate was that I had ASL skills. In the 29 months that I was employed with the university, I never once worked with a d/Deaf student.

Be transparent, forthcoming, and honest

When I was interviewing for an ESL instructor position, no one on the committee offered the profoundly troubling history and astounding dysfunction of the program. Much to the dismay and resistance of those in the program and to many at the university at large, the university struck a decades-long deal with a private corporation that was intended to increase the student body and, therefore, university revenue.

Program administrators had little to no background in administration, having been plucked from their existing part-time teaching roles to run the program. The remarkable deficiencies in their backgrounds and experience quickly became apparent as they made a mess of things.

Further, no sooner had I spent $15,000 in moving costs and moved 1,800 miles away from friends and family for the job, than the committee chair (tapped to be my mentor) quit. Her retirement had been planned coincident with the public-private "partnership" agreement.

She knew the depth and breadth of the problems created by the partnership, and she knew it was best to leave. Her decision to leave was not a surprise to anyone who had predated me in the program, but it certainly was surprising — and disturbing — to me that she had not been forthcoming, indeed had not been honest, about the program and her plans during our interview.

Do not fall asleep

While this may seem an obvious piece of advice, apparently it was not for a university English department chair with whom I interviewed. I listened as he talked and talked and talked and talked. He talked nonstop for at least 15 minutes.

When he finally asked me a question, I was but a few words into my reply when his head fell on to his chest, and he was out. Out cold. It was one of several reasons that, when he offered me the position, I did not accept it even though it was for a professorship.

I know — we all know — what he would have thought had I fallen asleep during the interview.

Do not take phone calls

This may also seem an obvious tip, but again, it is not. Recently, in an interview with an administrator serving as vice provost and dean, the interviewer twice took phone calls that were clearly nothing urgent. She never excused herself when doing so, nor did she advise me that she might need to take calls.

While there may be (the rare) exigent circumstance during which an interviewer must take a call, generally interviewers should clear their schedules and focus on the candidate. Again, we all know what interviewers would think if candidates took calls during interviews.

Do not come and go from the interview

A few years ago, I spent a long day interviewing with a number of people, giving a teaching demonstration and taking a tour. When it came time for the interview with the committee, only one member of the committee attended.

It wasn't long after the interview began when another faculty member drifted in, sat for a few moments and left. Not much later, a third committee member wandered in, sat, asked a question and left. This occurred a couple more times. Never did the entire committee attend the interview. And never did anyone advise me that the behavior was the protocol.

Administrators and committee members did not make arrangements for all committee members to attend the interview simultaneously. For this and many other reasons, I did not accept the position, even though it was for a professorship and even when the dean increased the salary offer by thousands of dollars.

Shut up and listen

Whose interview is it? Authentic deep listening requires practice. No doubt, interviewers believe they are listening when, in fact, they are not.

Time and time again I have been in interviews in which the "interviewer" did nothing but talk and talk and talk and talk. They name-dropped. They talked about their accomplishments. They told me why those I identified as significant influences in forming my teaching philosophy were flawed choices.

Recently, a colleague told me about an interview he had: He knew something was amiss when the interviewer did nothing but "talk at" him for nearly an hour. John Dooney observes that interviewers "should talk only about 30 percent of the time." Forbes contributing writer Shel Israel implores interviewers to "listen, really listen."

Beware: You're being watched

I've done a number of online interviews. First and foremost, make sure your technology works. At the start of one interview, the technology was misbehaving: It meant that I could not clearly see the interviewers, but they could clearly see me.

"Can you see us?" the committee chair asked me.

"You’re quite blurry," I said.

"It doesn't matter if she can’t see us. It's important that we see her," a committee member said.

The committee member's message was clear: We do not respect or value the candidate enough to be sure the technology works for her as well as for us. Not only did she speak about me as though I weren't there, but she also demonstrated she had no interest or concern for me. And no one fixed the technology.

During another online interview, the committee chair, who was also the dean, yawned. And not long ago, during an in-person interview, a committee member stretched as though he were awakening from three months of hibernation. I know what they would have thought had I acted in kind.

Leave plenty of time for candidate questions

Prepared candidates will have questions. It is inequitable and unfair not to allow sufficient time for candidates to both ask their questions and for interviewers to provide thorough answers. It also shrieks the message that you do not value the candidate who could become your colleague.

Allowing 10 minutes for Q&A at the conclusion of an hour-long interview may not be sufficient.

Do what you promise

Job candidates may ask to email questions they have following the interview. I certainly have because I have had questions that came up upon reflection and distance from the interview.

While interviewers have eagerly agreed to respond to post-interview questions, too many have not kept their promises. Long after the interviews — and even after the positions have been filled — I am still awaiting responses from interviewers at multiple schools.

Recently, during an interview with close to 10 members of the search committee, the committee chair identified a surrogate — also a search committee member — who would respond to any follow up questions I might have because the chair would be out of the country. I sent my questions, and her stand-in never responded.

Such behavior sends candidates many deleterious messages about the faculty, the program and the college or university at large. It declares you do not care. It shouts you are irresponsible. It screams that the candidate isn't worth your time and attention.

Respond promptly

Whatever your decision — especially if you are not going to hire the candidate promptly inform the candidate. I applied for a summer teaching position, and, months after the position was due to begin, I am still waiting to hear anything at all from the interviewer and program.

Do not pretend to be students

It is customary for candidates to make a teaching presentation. Typically, the presentation is limited to 10 minutes, during which the candidate must make a presentation on a topic that requires many class sessions in real time. It is a thoroughly artificial construct.

Committee members too often pretend to be students, and they play the role with an astonishing paucity of acting skills. One committee member who was "in character" was nasty, belligerent and argumentative. Perhaps he was attempting to channel what he believed to be a typical college student. Or perhaps he really is nasty, belligerent, and argumentative.

In either case, he sent me the loud and clear message: I disrespect you. Further, his behavior precipitated my troubling concerns: Is he an accurate representation of the student body?

The best approach to a teaching demonstration is to have the candidate make a presentation to a class of students. I had this opportunity only once over the years, and it was invaluable. The committee, the students and I learned a tremendous amount about each other during the hour-long class.

Do not put a barrier between you and the candidate

Candidates should not be kept at physical distance. Remember: This is an interview, not an inquisition or a prosecution. And if, as an interviewer, you think it is, then you shouldn't hold the job you have.

Configure the interview furniture in a horseshoe or circle formation, and have a conversation with the candidate. For those who conduct one-on-one interviews (typically administrators), do not sit behind your desk: It conveys you embrace the power differential, clearly identifying the candidate as a subordinate.

Believe it: You are not nearly as important as you fancy yourself.

Provide name tents

Imagine a candidate who is introduced to five, six, even 10 interviewers at once: The interviewers go around the room, rapidly introducing themselves. The interviewers have all the candidate's materials: her CV or resume, which reveals plenty of information; her cover letter, which reveals even more; perhaps writing samples, which reveal still more.

Yet the candidate has no information about interviewers. It is unlikely she will remember all interviewers' names. Again, this sends the message that interviewers prefer to keep candidates in an inequitable position.

Prior to the interview, provide the candidate with detailed materials

In advance of one interview, I was impressed with the detailed materials I received via email from the secretary coordinating candidate interviews. She sent an itinerary with the day's commitments organized by time and location. The itinerary listed the names and titles of everyone with whom I'd be meeting.

It may have demonstrated the secretary's high level of competence, it may have demonstrated the interviewers' (and program's) regard for candidates, or it may have been both. The information allowed me to find the webpage for each interviewer in order to become familiar with the names, faces and professional backgrounds and interests of those with whom I'd be interviewing.

The information certainly helped to level the playing field, given that interviewers had a compendium of my materials, and, importantly, it allowed me to send thank-you notes to everyone with whom I met.

Provide water

Too often, candidates are left dry-mouthed while interviewers enjoy water or sodas. Candidates' appreciation for a cup or bottle of water will far outmatch interviewers' or programs' nominal expenditure for the helpful libation. Monster.com refers to it as one of several "professional courtesies."

Do not eat

Certainly, professional candidates would never think of eating during an interview. If interviewers are to demonstrate their professionalism, they should not eat during interviews.

The best advice is the oldest advice: Treat others as you want to be treated. If interviewers keep that in mind and apply the points outlined above, candidates will both respect and appreciate you, and that will speak volumes about you, your program and perhaps even your school or organization at large.

If you want to attract the best, be the best. Are you?

For additional insight and expert advice, see: