The Case for Structured Interviews
-
Upload
chris-lasse -
Category
Career
-
view
103 -
download
0
Transcript of 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
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
“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
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)
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)
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
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 .