Table of Contents |
The goal of the interview process is to find the “right” person for the job. What defines the “right” person can vary greatly depending on the organization. The way an organization conducts its interviews can reveal a lot about its culture and values, just as a candidate’s behavior during the interview can tell you a lot about them.
No matter the format, everyone involved in the interview process should be trained in effective interviewing techniques, such as active listening. It’s also crucial to know which questions are off-limits. To get the best results and avoid legal issues, interview questions should be relevant to the job, consistent for all candidates, and reflect the realities of the position and the business environment. Specifically, questions should focus on job duties, necessary skills and qualifications, and factors that contribute to success in the role. It’s important for interviewers to remember that they are not just discussing the job but also representing the company.
An interview is a two-way street. The candidate is also evaluating the company to see if it meets their needs and if they fit into the company culture. This is especially true in today’s labor market, which tends to favor employees.
When it comes to interviewing candidates, organizations often choose between structured and unstructured formats, each with its own advantages and challenges.
Structured interviews are highly organized and standardized. Every candidate is asked the same set of predetermined questions, which are carefully crafted to assess specific skills, qualifications, and job-related competencies. This consistency ensures that each candidate is evaluated on the same criteria, making it easier to compare responses and make objective decisions. Structured interviews are particularly useful in reducing biases and ensuring fairness, as they minimize the influence of the interviewer’s personal opinions. They also provide a clear framework for interviewers, which can be especially helpful for those who are less experienced.
Unstructured interviews are more flexible and conversational. Interviewers have the freedom to ask questions that arise naturally during the conversation, allowing them to explore topics in greater depth and follow up on interesting points. This format can help build rapport with candidates and provide a more holistic view of their personality, thought processes, and cultural fit. However, the lack of standardization can lead to inconsistencies in how candidates are evaluated, potentially introducing biases and making it harder to compare responses objectively.
Both structured and unstructured interviews have their place in the hiring process. Structured interviews are ideal for roles where specific skills and qualifications are critical, and where fairness and consistency are paramount. Unstructured interviews, meanwhile, can be valuable for assessing softer skills, such as creativity, adaptability, and interpersonal abilities, which might not be as easily measured through standardized questions.
IN CONTEXT
When creating a hiring process, an HR manager may choose to use a structured and unstructured interview. For instance, a tech company may be hiring a software engineer. Initially, they conduct a structured interview with all candidates, asking standardized questions about technical skills, past projects, and problem-solving abilities to ensure a fair comparison.
Candidates who pass this stage move on to an unstructured interview with the team lead. Here, the conversation is more relaxed, focusing on the candidate’s personality, cultural fit, and how they approach teamwork and innovation. This combination ensures both technical competence and a good team dynamic.
Behavioral interview techniques are a powerful tool in the hiring process, designed to assess a candidate’s past behavior as a predictor of future performance. This approach is grounded in the idea that how someone has handled situations in the past is likely indicative of how they will handle similar situations in the future.
In a behavioral interview, candidates are asked to provide specific examples of how they have demonstrated particular skills or handled certain situations in their previous roles. These questions often start with phrases like “Tell me about a time when…” or “Give me an example of…”. The goal is to elicit detailed responses that reveal the candidate’s thought processes, problem-solving abilities, and interpersonal skills.
One of the key advantages of behavioral interviews is that they provide concrete evidence of a candidate’s abilities, rather than relying on hypothetical scenarios or general statements. This can help interviewers make more informed decisions and reduce the risk of hiring based on gut feelings or biases. Additionally, behavioral interviews can uncover a candidate’s soft skills, such as teamwork, leadership, and adaptability.
To conduct an effective behavioral interview, interviewers should be well-prepared with a set of questions that align with the competencies required for the position. They should also be skilled in active listening and probing for more information when needed.
EXAMPLE
If a candidate’s initial response is vague, the interviewer might ask follow-up questions like, “What was your specific role in that situation?” or “How did you handle any challenges that arose?”It’s also important for interviewers to create a comfortable environment where candidates feel encouraged to share their experiences openly. This can lead to more genuine and insightful responses, providing a clearer picture of the candidate’s capabilities and fit for the role.
EXAMPLE
A HR manager for a manufacturer is working on filling the role of production supervisor. They want to utilize behavioral interviewing so that they are able to assess the manager’s leadership skills. In preparing they have developed the following questions. “Describe a time when you had to meet a tight production deadline. How did you ensure your team met the goal?” and “Can you give an example of how you handled a conflict between team members on the production floor?” These questions help assess a candidate’s problem-solving, leadership, and communication skills, ensuring they can effectively manage a team and maintain a safe, productive work environment.Situational interview techniques are another effective method used to evaluate a candidate’s potential performance by presenting them with hypothetical scenarios related to the job. Unlike behavioral interviews, which focus on past experiences, situational interviews ask candidates to imagine how they would handle specific situations they might encounter in the role.
In a situational interview, the interviewer poses questions that start with phrases like “What would you do if…” or “How would you handle…”. These questions are designed to assess a candidate’s problem-solving skills, decision-making abilities, and how they apply their knowledge and experience to new challenges.
EXAMPLE
A situational question might be, “How would you handle a conflict between two team members?” or “What steps would you take if you were given a tight deadline for a project?”One of the main advantages of situational interviews is that they allow interviewers to gauge a candidate’s critical thinking and creativity. By presenting a variety of scenarios, interviewers can see how candidates approach different types of problems and whether their solutions align with the company’s values and expectations. This technique can be particularly useful for roles that require quick thinking, adaptability, and strong interpersonal skills. One downside of situational interviews is that they can sometimes lead to unrealistic or overly idealized responses, as candidates might describe what they think the interviewer wants to hear rather than how they would genuinely act.
To conduct an effective situational interview, interviewers should prepare a range of scenarios that reflect the key challenges and responsibilities of the position. It’s important to listen carefully to the candidate’s responses and ask follow-up questions to understand their thought process and reasoning. For instance, if a candidate outlines a plan for handling a difficult customer, the interviewer might ask, “Why did you choose that approach?” or “What would you do if your initial strategy didn’t work?”
As with behavioral interviewing, creating a supportive and open environment is crucial in situational interviews. Candidates should feel comfortable thinking aloud and sharing their ideas without fear of judgment. This strategy can uncover more honest and detailed answers, providing a better sense of the candidate’s likely performance in the job.
Panel interviews are a common method used by organizations to evaluate candidates from multiple perspectives simultaneously. In a panel interview, a candidate is interviewed by a group of interviewers, typically representing different departments or areas of expertise within the organization. This format allows for a more comprehensive assessment of the candidate’s qualifications, skills, and fit for the role.
One of the primary advantages of panel interviews is the diversity of viewpoints they bring to the evaluation process. Each panel member can focus on different aspects of the candidate’s background and abilities, ensuring a well-rounded assessment. For example, a hiring manager might concentrate on technical skills and job-specific knowledge, while a human resources representative might evaluate cultural fit and interpersonal skills. This collaborative approach helps to minimize individual biases and provides a more balanced view of the candidate.
Panel interviews also offer the candidate a unique opportunity to interact with multiple stakeholders at once. This can give them a better understanding of the team dynamics and the organizational culture. It also allows candidates to showcase their ability to communicate effectively with different types of people, which is often a critical skill in many roles. One disadvantage of panel interviews is that they can be intimidating for candidates, potentially affecting their performance and not accurately reflecting their true abilities.
To conduct an effective panel interview, it’s important for the interviewers to be well-prepared and coordinated. They should agree on the key competencies and questions to be covered, ensuring that each panel member has a clear role in the interview process. This helps to avoid redundancy and ensures that all relevant areas are addressed. Additionally, panel members should be trained in effective interviewing techniques and aware of any legal considerations, such as avoiding discriminatory questions.
When interviewing candidates, it’s crucial to be aware of potential perception errors that can be made during the process. Interviewers often make decisions about candidates rapidly, within the first 30 seconds to 2 ½ minutes (Headhunters). Unfortunately, we tend to overrate our ability to evaluate others. A common mistake is judging candidates based on first impressions or “likeability.” It’s easy to assume that a firm handshake and good eye contact mean someone is competent across the board.
Another common error is interviewer bias, where information reviewed prior to the interview, such as resumes, test scores, or social media activity, shapes the perception of the candidate. To counter this and related judgment errors, interviewers should cultivate active listening skills and focus on evaluating each candidate relative to the same standards. Training around bias within the process should be conducted with all those involved in the interviewing process to help reduce bias within the process.
Unconscious bias is another source of evaluation error. This is a prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way that’s considered unfair. Research has shown that if you’re human, you have bias, and it impacts almost every variation of human identity: race, gender, sexual orientation, body size, religion, accent, height, hand dominance, etc. The question is not “Do we have bias?” but rather, “Which are ours?”
IN CONTEXT
The classic example of how to design around unconscious bias is that of major orchestras attempting to overcome systemic hiring bias and achieve relative gender equity. Although there were a number of factors that contributed to bias—for example, issuing private invitations rather than advertising auditions—the critical modification was implementing blind auditions, where raters did not see the musicians.
Although this is where most people end the story, the curtain wasn’t the final bias hack. As University of Tromso professor Curt Rice reported in the Guardian, the curtain did make it 50% more likely that a woman would advance to the finals; however, the sound of a woman’s heels on the stage still triggered unconscious bias. The final modification was to have musicians remove their shoes before entering the audition area (Rice). Rice observes that while gender blind evaluations may seem impractical, orchestras prove it can be done. His challenge: “If we trust the research and accept that women are being judged more fairly because of the screen, perhaps we should ask if there’s any way to replicate the musicians’ success. What kind of screen would be needed at your workplace?”
Interviewing candidates can be challenging, and common errors can lead to poor hiring decisions. Understanding these pitfalls and how to avoid them is crucial for effective recruitment. The table below outlines typical interviewing mistakes, their implications, and strategies to mitigate them, ensuring a fair and thorough evaluation process.
| Interviewing Error | Description | How to Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Halo Effect | This occurs when an interviewer allows one positive trait to overshadow other aspects of the candidate's qualifications. For example, if a candidate is very personable, the interviewer might overlook their lack of experience. | To avoid this, focus on a structured interview process with specific criteria for each role. Evaluate each candidate based on these criteria rather than personal impressions. |
| Horn Effect | The opposite of the halo effect, happens when one negative trait unduly influences the interviewer’s perception of the candidate. For instance, if a candidate is nervous, the interviewer might assume they are not competent. | Use a balanced approach by considering all aspects of the candidate’s qualifications. Take notes and review them to ensure a fair assessment. |
| Confirmation Bias | This is when an interviewer looks for information that confirms their preconceptions about a candidate, ignoring evidence to the contrary. | To counter this, interviewers should be aware of their biases and actively seek out information that challenges their initial impressions. Training on unconscious bias can also be helpful. |
| Similarity Bias | This error occurs when interviewers favor candidates who are similar to themselves in terms of background, interests, or personality. | Encourage diversity by focusing on the skills and experiences required for the job rather than personal similarities. Diverse interview panels can also help mitigate this bias. |
| First Impression Error | Making a snap judgment about a candidate based on the first few minutes of the interview. This can lead to overlooking important information that comes up later. | Structure the interview to ensure that all candidates are given the same opportunities to present their qualifications. Take time to review the entire interview before making a decision. |
| Nonverbal Bias | Placing too much emphasis on a candidate’s body language, appearance, or other nonverbal cues, which can be misleading. | Focus on the content of the candidate’s responses rather than their nonverbal behavior. Training on effective interviewing techniques can help reduce this bias. |
| Cultural Noise | When candidates provide socially acceptable answers rather than truthful ones, leading to inaccurate assessments. | Use behavioral and situational questions that require candidates to provide specific examples from their past experiences. This can help reveal their true qualifications and fit for the role. |
When conducting interviews, all questions should be directly related to the job. If a candidate shares information that isn’t recommended to ask about, it’s important not to probe further into that topic. Any unsolicited information should not influence hiring decisions.
If a candidate mentions needing accommodation for a disability, promptly provide them with Human Resources’ contact details. And it is critical that questions do not violate any Federal or state law. Below you will find a table outlining illegal vs legal questions:
| Subject | Acceptable | Unlawful/Illegal |
|---|---|---|
| Name |
|
|
| Age |
|
|
| Address |
|
|
| National Origin/Citizenship |
|
|
| Race/Color |
|
|
| Sexual, Orientation, or Gender Identity |
|
|
| Religion |
|
|
| Marital/Family Status |
|
|
| Education |
|
|
| Personal |
|
|
| Disabilities |
|
|
| Arrest Record |
|
|
| Military |
|
|
Chart from Human Resources - Interviewing Best Practices. (n.d.). Tntech.edu. www.tntech.edu/hr/toolkit/interview-bp.php
Source: This Tutorial has been adapted from "Human Resources Management" by Lumen Learning. Access for free at courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-humanresourcesmgmt/. License: CC BY: Attribution.
REFERENCES
"Employment Tests and Selection Procedures." The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Rice, Curt. "How Blind Auditions Help Orchestras to Eliminate Gender Bias." The Guardian.
Human Resources - Interviewing Best Practices. (n.d.). Tntech.edu. www.tntech.edu/hr/toolkit/interview-bp.php
