OCD lays down the logic behind sacrificing interviews

Is it wise to withdraw from the internship search process after receiving your first desirable offer? The notion of forgoing internship interviews, rather than securing as many interviews and offers as possible, is not an intuitive one. However, over the years, we have come to believe that it is truly a good approach.

One of the many factors that have enabled Ross students to have a successful internship interview process over the years is the decision made by most students to end the interview process upon receipt of an internship offer, which the student would be willing to accept. Several members of the class of 2001 first started this approach during the winter of 2000 with some success. Each succeeding class has built on the concept with increased success.

At first glance, this approach might seem to be a purely "community-minded" behavior. Obviously, the decision made by one student to forego additional formal interviews opens up slots on the interview schedules for classmates who otherwise would not have been able to interview. However, we have learned that, if it is well managed, there can also be benefits to the student who declines interview opportunities during the internship cycle.

At the moment where a student receives the first acceptable internship offer, there are two options, assuming that the student has more interviews scheduled. The student can either (A) continue the interview process with other companies (lets say four as an example) or (B) terminate the process by canceling any future interviews. Lets analyze the first option.

The outcome of the four marginal interviews in our example is, at one extreme, four more offers. In this scenario, the individual now has five internship offers, four of which must be rejected. Companies do not look positively on having competitive offers rejected. It generally makes it harder for the student to obtain a full time employment offer with that company in the fall.

Alternatively, the outcome of those additional four interviews could potentially be four rejections. Even though the company may not view this as a final rejection (it is common for companies to hire students they have reject for summer internships), it could easily be argued that it is better not to have had a rejection. This is especially true if the benefits of achieving an introduction to the companies can be attained without the need for the rejection decision to be made. Certainly, deferring that first formal interview until the fall, gives more time for the student to obtain additional experience, which can use in during a potential interview in the fall.

We assert, then, that it is a much better alternative to use the opportunity of one's first offer (provided that first offer is with a company that you have ranked reasonably high on your list) to reach out to the four companies and express interest in them but not interview. One should acknowledge the limited number of overall internship opportunities and the investment companies make in the process. The student should convey a sincere desire to support their overall effort at Ross and request (or offer) to talk with them informally outside the schedule while they are on campus.

In this scenario, the benefit of meeting and making an impression on the companies is obtained without the need for either party to decide upon and reject the other. The opportunity to continue the candidacy without forcing an employment decision can be tremendously positive for the student, the company, and the school.

Different individuals and different companies will perceive this approach differently but the evidence shows that there is a better chance of arriving in September with more open options by opting not to interview in such a case. This should true as long as the appropriate professional outreach and network is made in lieu of the interview.

Once a person interviews, the clock starts ticking on a decision, one that is most likely to be a rejection by either the company or the student. We advise that you gracefully avoid the rejection and maintain the relationship until the fall. As you can see, the approach has merit for the individual. As to the other stakeholders who can be identified in this dilemma the benefits are much more easily discerned. The benefit to classmates is obvious.

Acknowledging that resume writing, networking, and interview skills are different than job performance skills, we believe that by giving the opportunity for other students to interview and possibly secure an internship, the companies benefit by evaluating more of our students in a summer position. That way, the companies have more students from which to select in the fall. However, a company really can't hire too many Wolverines, now can they? Obviously, to the degree the companies' investments in coming to Michigan are met with hiring success, they are better for the effort.

As to future students, the above approach results in more Ross students working at top recruitment companies. This establishes Michigan as a preferred recruitment school, and keeps the companies coming back to Ann Arbor in the fall and beyond. In the end, individuals must make their own decision in this regard. Most of us are willing to make personal sacrifices for the good of our greater group or community. The reasoning above, though, has been shown to provide a situation where acting in the interests of the greater group is also acting in one's own interests.

The approach is clearly not intuitive and we invite you to discuss it with us at the OCD.