Why the structured interview is better
September 18, 2008
If like me you’re carrying out a lot of recruitment and selection at the moment, then you may be involved in interviewing candidates, as this is probably still the most popular selection method in most organisations. We’re all well aware of the financial turmoil the UK (and other countries) are experiencing at the moment, so in organisations that are still recruiting rather than laying off staff, it’s even more critical to avoid a poor recruitment decision as this can turn out to be a very costly mistake.
Some interviews I have been involved in have turned out to be quite an informal discussion based around the CV or information the candidate has submitted, and I can see why some hiring managers wish to make the discussion more like a business related ‘chat’ than an interrogation, as this can often put the candidate at ease and make for a more open and honest discussion. However there are several reasons why this method fails to help interviewers make a good decision about the candidate:
- Talking about the candidate from the point of view of their history, i.e. around their CV, leaves the risk of discussing a lot of irrelevant information that may appear to be impressive, but bears little importance in relation to the job in hand.
- Of course, even parts of a candidate’s history that are not directly linked to the available role can still be relevant in terms of transferrable skills and situational experience, but it is possibly only the skilled interviewer that is able to make these connections without a direct linking question. And how many organisations out there can honestly say that it’s only staff that are trained and experienced in interviewing that carry out the process?
- Failing to work from a structure that is based on the job needs means that all the candidates that interview for the same role may not be assessed against the same criteria. How can you make a sound judgement about a group of people’s ability to negotiate if you have only covered this subject with half of them? A lack of structure means that your decisions could be made on areas that aren’t the most critical
It really makes sense that candidate selection should follow a clear, flowing process: analysis of the role that needs to be filled; creation of a comprehensive job description and person specification or set of competencies; then the building of the interview questions or other selection methods from these requirements. Clearly this is the ‘process’ that many hiring managers will follow almost subconsciously; they know the job and they ask questions to find out if the candidate can do it. But there’s no reason not to prepare for this process, and really think about it so that every aspect of the job and the role requirements are covered comprehensively. As for the actual style of the interview, it is possible to make the candidate feel relaxed and make the interview chatty or informal without having to sacrifice the structure that will help you make an informed choice. This is more of a skill for the interviewer to learn than a technique or process, and often comes with experience and confidence in conducting interviews.
Comments
Got something to say?