Comments on: Improving Interviews: Educating Managers and Assessing Alternative Competencies (Part 4 of 4) http://www.ere.net/2007/03/19/improving-interviews-educating-managers-and-assessing-alternative-competencies-part-4-of-4/ Recruiting News, Recruiting Events, Recruiting Community, Social Recruiting Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:03:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Ronald Katz http://www.ere.net/2007/03/19/improving-interviews-educating-managers-and-assessing-alternative-competencies-part-4-of-4/comment-page-1/#comment-2635 Ronald Katz Fri, 23 Mar 2007 03:32:00 +0000 http://www.ere.net/2007/03/19/improving-interviews-educating-managers-and-assessing-alternative-competencies-part-4-of-4/#comment-2635 I don't agree with everything John says but overall this was a terrific series on interviewing. He speaks openly about what many recruiters know or feel but rarely admit. A lot of what John says is a great reminder about how interviews can be useful tools to bring in the talent. But only if we make the process a structured one that keeps the goals of the interview aligned with the goals of the organization. To bring in people who can acheive the results the organization needs to grow and remain profitable. I don’t agree with everything John says but overall this was a terrific series on interviewing. He speaks openly about what many recruiters know or feel but rarely admit. A lot of what John says is a great reminder about how interviews can be useful tools to bring in the talent. But only if we make the process a structured one that keeps the goals of the interview aligned with the goals of the organization. To bring in people who can acheive the results the organization needs to grow and remain profitable.

]]> By: Bill Kelly http://www.ere.net/2007/03/19/improving-interviews-educating-managers-and-assessing-alternative-competencies-part-4-of-4/comment-page-1/#comment-2622 Bill Kelly Wed, 21 Mar 2007 01:11:00 +0000 http://www.ere.net/2007/03/19/improving-interviews-educating-managers-and-assessing-alternative-competencies-part-4-of-4/#comment-2622 Some years back I read in some HR journal or other that it is not always the best person who gets hired for a position. It is the person who interviews the best. There was a really good book I read many years back called 'The Neglected Art of Being Interviewed'. I forget who the author was or if it is still in print. One of the weaknesses in the interview process was what he called the 'Halo Effect' where something the candidate does or says stikes a positive chord with the interviewer and hence any weakness in the candidate is overlooked because of the perceived 'Halo'. I don't know if there will ever be a perfect method of candidate selection that be a balance of convenience for the candidate and rigourous assessment for the corporation. Bill Kelly Crestwood HR, Inc. Some years back I read in some HR journal or other that it is not always the best person who gets hired for a position. It is the person who interviews the best. There was a really good book I read many years back called ‘The Neglected Art of Being Interviewed’. I forget who the author was or if it is still in print.

One of the weaknesses in the interview process was what he called the ‘Halo Effect’ where something the candidate does or says stikes a positive chord with the interviewer and hence any weakness in the candidate is overlooked because of the perceived ‘Halo’.

I don’t know if there will ever be a perfect method of candidate selection that be a balance of convenience for the candidate and rigourous assessment for the corporation.

Bill Kelly
Crestwood HR, Inc.

]]> By: Dr. Tom Janz http://www.ere.net/2007/03/19/improving-interviews-educating-managers-and-assessing-alternative-competencies-part-4-of-4/comment-page-1/#comment-2620 Dr. Tom Janz Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:55:00 +0000 http://www.ere.net/2007/03/19/improving-interviews-educating-managers-and-assessing-alternative-competencies-part-4-of-4/#comment-2620 At the start of this series on the interview, John asserts that: 'Managers don't like (interviews), candidates literally hate them, and as a predictive indicator of performance, they stink!' In the section on Common Interview Process Errors, John asserts that 'Behavioral interviews have inherent weaknesses'. In his concluding remarks at the end of this series, he adds:'If you're still not a believer in the weaknesses of interviews, look at the various studies (generally in psychology)that provide hard statistical data on the accuracy of the many different selection devices. If you do, you may become a cynic when it comes to having faith in interviewing.' Sizzlers no doubt, but do they refelect science? Not so much. Fortunately, following John's advice to 'look at the various studies' isn't really necessary. Its already been done by Frank Schmidt and John Hunter. Their article title lacks sizzle (The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings), but makes up for it with distilled knowledge culled from hundreds of studies. It's available for free at this link: www.owlnet.rice.edu/~psyc231/Readings/schmidt.htm Science confirms John's sizzling disdain for traditional unstructured interviews, but also reveals that structured interviews based on a formal job analysis deliver among the most accurate predictors of job performance, right up there with cognitive ability tests. In the followup articles, John does recommend best practices along these lines. Other research confirms that interviews focusing on past behavior outperform interviews that explore candidate future intentions or goals. Still other research on candidate reactions to selection methods finds behavioral interviews to be among the most preferred types of selection tool, where admissions-based tests of integrity and personality are least preferred. There are indeed considerable gaps between best behavioral interviewing practices proven through research and what happens when the doors close at the start of many decision making interviews, but that is a topic for another time. I am true fan of John's many valuable insights into the world of recuiting, and his suggestions for improving interviews line up with what we know from science for the most part. I just wanted to avoid the tendency to throw out babies with bath water and give encouragement to those who labor to realize the full potential of behavior description interviews to highlight the best talent for the job from those that apply. At the start of this series on the interview, John asserts that: ‘Managers don’t like (interviews), candidates literally hate them, and as a predictive indicator of performance, they stink!’ In the section on Common Interview Process Errors, John asserts that ‘Behavioral interviews have inherent weaknesses’. In his concluding remarks at the end of this series, he adds:’If you’re still not a believer in the weaknesses of interviews, look at the various studies (generally in psychology)that provide hard statistical data on the accuracy of the many different selection devices. If you do, you may become a cynic when it comes to having faith in interviewing.’ Sizzlers no doubt, but do they refelect science? Not so much.

Fortunately, following John’s advice to ‘look at the various studies’ isn’t really necessary. Its already been done by Frank Schmidt and John Hunter. Their article title lacks sizzle (The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings), but makes up for it with distilled knowledge culled from hundreds of studies. It’s available for free at this link: http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~psyc231/Readings/schmidt.htm

Science confirms John’s sizzling disdain for traditional unstructured interviews, but also reveals that structured interviews based on a formal job analysis deliver among the most accurate predictors of job performance, right up there with cognitive ability tests. In the followup articles, John does recommend best practices along these lines. Other research confirms that interviews focusing on past behavior outperform interviews that explore candidate future intentions or goals. Still other research on candidate reactions to selection methods finds behavioral interviews to be among the most preferred types of selection tool, where admissions-based tests of integrity and personality are least preferred.

There are indeed considerable gaps between best behavioral interviewing practices proven through research and what happens when the doors close at the start of many decision making interviews, but that is a topic for another time.

I am true fan of John’s many valuable insights into the world of recuiting, and his suggestions for improving interviews line up with what we know from science for the most part. I just wanted to avoid the tendency to throw out babies with bath water and give encouragement to those who labor to realize the full potential of behavior description interviews to highlight the best talent for the job from those that apply.

]]>