The Case for Structured Interviews

HR’s Powerful

Influence

EMPLOYEE SELECTION:HOW TO TALK YOUR HIRING MANAGER OUT OF DISMISSING

A CANDIDATE FOR HAVING MUSTARD ON HIS TIE

Setting Expectations

Responding to Objections

Guiding Post -Interview Analysis

OVERVIEW

SETTING EXPECTATIONS

Early 1900s : “Studies…did not appear to agree in their

results.” (Schmidt & Hunter 264)

1970s: “Most of the dif ferences across studies were due

to…the use of small samples in the studies.”

1970s-1980s: “Studies based on meta -analysis provided

more accurate estimates.”

1980s-1990s : “________ interviews had mean validity

coefficients twice those of _________ interviews.” ( Wiesner &

Cronshaw)

HISTORY OF ACADEMIC STUDY ON

ASSESSMENT TESTS FOR EMPLOYMENT

“The reduction in procedural variability across applicants.”

Reduction in interviewer discretion

Standardization of:

Interviewer questions

Response scoring

STRUCTURE DEFINITION

Huffcutt & Arthur p 186

1. Validity: Job analysis, core competencies, targeted

questions.

2. Reliability: Ask the same questions of each candidate.

3. Create rater agreement (BARS, calibration).

EEOC Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection

Procedures.

HSI OVERVIEW

STRUCTURE DEFINITION

Huffcutt & Arthur p 187

“Evidence for criterion -related validity typically consists of a

demonstration of a relationship…between the results of a

selection procedure (predictor) and one or more measures of

work-relevant behavior or work outcomes (criteria).”

Is there a correlation between interview “scores” and on the

job performance “scores?”

CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITY IN

SELECTION TESTING

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

Inc. p 13

Is there really any evidence to support using a structured

approach?

MAKING THE CASE FOR THE (H)SI

Conduct your own validation study internally

Correlation between criterion and predictors

Same process as validating a pre -employment test (e.g.

cognitive abilities test)

MAKING THE CASE (CONTINUED)

RESPONDING TO

OBJECTIONS

One study found just 29% of large organizations use

structured interviews.

That same study found that only 24% of organizations

performed validation studies.

“The dominant class of explanations for not using structured,

standardized interviews was beliefs concerning the usefulness

of the staffing practice.”

Terpstra & Rozell p 483, 487

EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT…

What reasons have hiring managers given to support their

reticence to using a structured interviews?

WHAT OBJECTIONS HAVE YOU HEARD?

Structured interviews aren’t ef fective

Structure restricts HM satisfaction (sterile, impersonal, don’t

allow for connections)

Structure restricts interviewer discretion and flexibility

(boring, beneath skillset of interviewer)

Formality of structure is socially unpleasant

Lievens & De Paepe

HM OBJECTIONS FROM STUDIES

Structure requires preparation

Structure restricts an “experienced” HM from using their

expertise

Complex jobs (e.g. Sales Mgr) aren’t conducive to structure

HM RESISTANCE (CONTINUED)

GUIDING THE

POST-INTERVIEW

ANALYSIS DISCUSSION

Complete the structured guide in its entirety before discussion

begins (including scoring)

Then frame discussion by talking through the interview guide

sections

Start with scores, and ask HMs to support their answers

YOU SET THE AGENDA

Start with the score

Weight the predictors in the event of a tie

Take legitimate “X -Factors” into consideration (carefully)

Interviewing is one part of the overall assessment picture

COMPARISONS

“Fit”

Halo/Horns

Common network/connection

Common school, club, or other affiliation (e.g. sports)

Dress/appearance

Buzzwords

Pet peeves

Wrong answer (to one question)

HM memory limitations

Personality conflict

MUSTARD

Three Brave Volunteers

THREE CANDIDATE EXERCISE

REFERENCES

Equal Employment Oppor tun i t y Commiss ion , C iv i l Ser v ice Commiss ion , Depar tment of Labor, Depar tment of Just ice . (1978) . Uni form Guidel ines on Employee Select ion Procedures . Federal Register. 43. 38290 -3 831 5.

Huf fcut t , A l len I . , & Ar thur, J r. , Winfred . “Hunter and Hunter (1984) Rev is i ted: Inter v iew Val id i t y for Ent r y -Leve l Jobs . ” Journa l o f Appl ied Psychology . 1994. V79 N2.

Lievens , F i l ip & De Paepe , Anneleen . “An empir ical invest igat ion of inter v iewer - re la ted factors that d iscourage the use of h igh s t ructure inter v iews .” Journa l o f Organizat ional Behavior. V25. 2004.

Murphy, Joseph P. , et . a l . Pract ica l R igor : Ev idence -Based Management to Improve Hi r ing in H igh Populat ion Jobs. Cree lman Research , Inc . 2013 .

Pulakos , E la ine . “Se lect ion Assessment Methods .” SHRM Foundat ion ’s Ef fect ive Pract ice Guidel ines . Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) . 2005.

Schmidt , Frank L . , & Hunter, John E . “ The Val id i ty and Ut i l i t y of Se lect ion Methods in Personne l Psychology : Pract ical and Theoret ical Impl icat ions of 85 Years of Research Findings . ” Psycho log ica l Bul let in . 1998. V 124 N2.

Society for Indust r ia l and Organizat iona l Psychology, Inc . Princ ip les for the Val idat ion and Use of Personne l Select ion Procedures . Four th Edi t ion . 2003.

Terpst ra , Dav id E . and Roze l l , E l i zabeth J . “ Why Some Potent ia l l y Ef fec t i ve Staf f ing Pract ices are Se ldom Used.” Publ ic Personne l Management . V26 N4. Winter 1997.

Wiesner, Wi l l i H . , & Cronshaw , S teven F. “A meta -analy t ic invest igat ion of the impact of inter v iew format and degree of s t ructure on the val id i ty of the employment inter v iew.” Journal of Occupat iona l Psychology. 1988. V61 .