Interviewing – The Most Common Selection Method

Source: Arkansas Construction Education Foundation, Arizona, United States

Introduction

As Rebecca (2002) defined an interview is an essentially structured face to face conversation where one party asks questions and other party answers, also in general parlance, it can be one to one or many to one conversation where it can be with the physical presence or through the internet.

In the context of recruitment and selection, as discussed by Rob (2008) a job interview should have 3 main objectives;

1.    To asses and identify the candidate accurately and fairly who will add the most value into the job.

2.    To treat candidates in a professional and well-mannered way so that they attract to work for your organizations

3.    To assist candidates to understand the full picture of the job so they can decide whether they want to work for your organization.

Lynn (2012) has mentioned, a job interview is there to discover the following factors about the candidate;

1.    Essential and desirable skills, knowledge and abilities.

2.    Personal characteristics

3.    The enthusiasm and commitment

4.    Industry achievements

5.    Career development

6.    Consistency and stability of the employment within the industry, including previous employees.

7.    General employment stability including an average period in any job

8.    Remuneration expectation

Unconscious Bias In Interviews

The good or bad characteristic must not creep into judgement on the other characteristic (Adrian, 2002).

Halo Effect

When evaluating a candidate the results are unwittingly allowing stronger ratings on one characteristic to affect judgement on other characteristics which is called “halo effect”(Thomas, 2013). If a weighted rating system used, the interviewer must be careful of the halo effect whereby if the firm ratings are favourable on one criterion, although it may not be the best in the other criteria, it is still hit high ratings because it excels in one of the criteria (Craig et al, 2015).

For example, in a software engineering interview when a candidate is very fluent in communication and the technical knowledge is average, with the halo effect while high ratings hit for communication unintentionally technical knowledge criteria also get the best ratings.

In the context of selections, the halo effect is the most common “error” although often working indirectly (Tom, 2002).

Horn Or Devil Effect

This is opposite to Halo effect, which poor performance or evaluation on one characteristic can affect the other characteristics, this is called “horn” or “devil” effect (Thomas, 2013). The candidate evaluated on a range of criteria, despite being weak in one criterion, undoubtedly some judgements are reaching into lower ratings (Tom, 2002).

For example, in a sale executive interview, when the candidate gets low ratings in accounting knowledge and his rating for negotiation, communication and other skills are high, the interviewer unwittingly rate him low in overall.

Similar To Me  Bias

This bias will develop an affinity with the candidate, because of interviewer and interviewee are sharing the same personal characteristics, instead of focusing on the skills and qualifications for the job (Brian et al, 2013)

For examples, both were graduated from the same university or played for the same sports team or attend to the same school or worked for the same company in past.

Confirmation Bias

This bias will force the candidate to accept a subject that interviewer is very interested in and because of this will lead to inconsistency of questions or irrelevant conversation which deviates from the actual jobs the scope (Lynn, 2012). 

For example, the interviewer is a golf player and talk about the golfing or interested in modelling or interested in automobiles industry.

Overconfident Bias

When the interviewer’s confidence level is high than the given characteristics and objectives of the interview will lead the misjudge or the miscalibration of the skills and abilities of the candidate which will end up the wrong selection (Rob, 2008).

For example, when an interviewer thinks that he or she can read the people from external appearance or behaviour or the way communicating without going through the job-related skills set and abilities of the candidate.

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev0begDFc20

Source: Stanford Graduate School of Business, California, United States

Conclusion

The structured and well-prepared interview plan will avoid these above mentioned biased situations and also a multiple-member interview panel supports to keep the track of the interview and follow the flow chart with assertive interruptions if needed (Sandra, 2005). Researches were done by top business schools and universities show that a technique called competency-based interviewing is much more effective and productive than the unstructured way of interviewing (Rob, 2008). The importance of selection criteria involves that each panel member adheres to the interview plan and responsible to ensures that all the aspects of the criteria have been fully discussed and tested in the interview (Sandra, 2005).

Reference

1.    Bensoussan, B. and Fleisher, C., 2015. BUSINESS AND COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS: EFFECTIVE APPLICATION OF NEW AND CLASSIC METHODS. 3rd ed. New Jersey, United States: FT Press

2.    Bunting, S., 2005. THE INTERVIEWER'S HANDBOOK: SUCCESSFUL INTERVIEWING TECHNIQUES FOR THE WORKPLACE. 1st ed. London, United Kingdom: Kogan Page Limited.

3.    Corfield, R., 2002. SUCCESSFUL INTERVIEW SKILLS. 5th ed. London, United Kingdom: Kogan Page Limited.

4.    Diamante, T., 2013. EFFECTIVE INTERVIEWING AND INFORMATION GATHERING. 1st ed. New York, United States: Business Expert Press LLC.

5.    McIvor, B. and Hanson, M., 2013. THE INTERVIEWER'S BOOK: HIRING THE RIGHT PERSON. 1st ed. Dublin, Ireland: Orpen Press.

6.    Wilkinson, A. and Redman, T., 2002. THE INFORMED STUDENT GUIDE TO HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. 1st ed. London, United Kingdom: Thomas Learning.

7.    Williams, L., 2012. ULTIMATE INTERVIEW: 100S OF GREAT INTERVIEW ANSWERS TAILORED TO SPECIFIC JOBS. 3rd ed. London, United Kingdom: Kogan Page Limited.

8.    Yeung, R., 2008. SUCCESSFUL INTERVIEWING AND RECRUITMENT. 1st ed. London, United Kingdom: Kogan Page Limited.