Send this Article to a Friend!
Interviews are notoriously poor predictors of future job performance. This is not news to those of us who have been thrust into the role of a rushed, ill-prepared interviewer.
A case in point: Just after graduating from college, I took a job as a retail store manager and was given some hiring responsibility. I was asked to hire an employee who would be responsible for closing the store alone at night and would be in a position requiring substantial integrity, trust and responsibility. At the time, I had no training in interviewing. After a casual conversation and a cursory reference check, I hired a perky, high-energy candidate. Everyone liked her. Eventually, we learned that she had stolen merchandise from our store and was caught trying to return it without a receipt at another store. The interview process may not have been the only problem with that hire, but it certainly was a contributing factor.
Interviews have been considered unreliable since the 1920s, when early studies showed little agreement among managers who were asked to rank candidates following an interview. A recent review of published research showed that the relationship between interview impressions and subsequent job performance is almost twice as strong when structured approaches to interviewing are used (Guion, 1998).
When interviews are poorly planned and executed, problems range from what’s known as a “false positive” – the candidate who is adept at creating the right impression in the moment – to candidates who don’t come across well in the interview but could have done very well in the job. Biases can get in the way, as interviewers tend to favor candidates who are similar to themselves. Interviewers often talk more than they listen, and most have a difficult time refraining from rushing to judgment about the candidate just a few minutes into the interview. Some research has shown that after only four minutes, interviewers can form judgements that are very resistant to change! This can be a major problem, especially because interviewees often attempt to convey important information toward the end of the interview.
Problems with interviews stem from three sources: before, during and after the interview itself. How can we avoid these common pitfalls and arm ourselves to be effective interviewers? Research that has examined the correlation between the interview process and later job performance offers a number of pointers.
The surest path to more effective interviews is through structure and standardization. This approach requires a thorough understanding and analysis of the job requirements, including a look at employees who have succeeded in the position in the past. The most important question to ask is, “What does the successful person in this job look like?” A list of behaviors and characteristics that define strong performance can be compiled and used to develop interview questions that will draw out relevant information about the candidate. Ideally, the questions should be accompanied by rating scales that provide examples of possible answers and appropriate scoring. You should decide the following ahead of time:
This kind of preparation before the interview can dramatically help reduce or eliminate problems that result from unfocused, incomplete or inappropriate questioning.
Behavior-based interviewing is a very effective way to add structure, value and validity during the interview process. This approach can include “behavioral description” questions, which focus on past behavior and how a candidate handled critical incidents. Questions often begin with, “Tell me about a time when…” and follow up with queries about what was unusual about the candidate’s solution and how others were persuaded to accept it. Note that these are typically “open-ended” questions that invite the candidate to give complete, even expansive answers, rather than “closed-ended” questions that usually elicit very little information.
With structure, as with most things, I believe that you can have too much of a good thing. Research appears to indicate a point of diminishing returns when it comes to structure. The key is flexible use of structured interviewing by skilled, trained interviewers. Common sense should be your guide. For example, ask yourself whether an interview is so structured that you’ll gain nothing beyond what you would find out via a written test or background information form.
One of the most frequent mistakes interviewers make happens after, not during, the interview. The mistake is related to the way interview information is evaluated, and is referred to as a “halo error.” Halo errors are made when interviewers let a candidate’s answer to one or two questions determine their overall impression of the candidate – either positive or negative. For example, an interviewer might conclude, “She was very specific in describing how she keeps herself and her project organized. I really like her conscientious and structured approach… she must be a really good leader.” Most of us know that effective leadership requires more than organizational skills. So, as interviewers, we have to keep ourselves honest and make sure we are objectively thinking about candidates’ responses to each specific question, rather than generalizing from one or two answers that left a big impression on us.
In addition to an effective, structured interview, I recommend checking references, as well as making calls to verify information on the resume. The more important the hire is to the organization, the more comprehensive the selection process should be. Psychological assessment of job finalists can supplement good interviews and provide multiple snapshots of a candidate. Specific components can include personality and ability testing, as well as work simulation exercises, such as role-plays, to capture skills in action.
However, the foundation of informed hiring decisions is careful evaluation of the job you are trying to fill and investment of time and thought in structuring and preparing for the interview. In addition, use the following as a guide during every interview:
If you want to read more:
Guion, Robert M. (1998). Assessment, Measurement, and
Prediction for Personnel Decisions. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, pp. 606-628.
Jenks, James M. and Zevnik, Brian L.P. (July-August 1989) “ABCs of Job Interviewing.” Harvard Business Review, pp. 2-4.
Camp, Richard, R. (2001) Strategic Interviewing, Jossey
Bass.