The interview plays a crucial role in recruitment and selection. But the question remains: Is the selection interview a reliable predictor of success, or is it nothing more than a ritual dance? The answer is actually quite simple: it depends on the degree of structure.
Structured interviews are a powerful selection tool. Research overwhelmingly shows that structured interviews have high reliability and validity. Reliability refers to the stability of the results: a reliable interview conducted by different interviewers should produce the same results with the same candidate. Validity refers to the extent to which the interview predicts what it should predict, namely success in the job. Research by Schmidt and Hunter shows that structured interviews are one of the most reliable and valid selection methods, with a correlation of 0.51 with job performance, and they even reported a predictive validity of structured interviews of 0.63 in a study from (1998).
In addition, meta-analyses show that structured interviews produce consistent and predictable results regardless of the interviewer or the specific context of the interview. Hunter and Schmidt (2004) emphasize that structured interviews, alongside cognitive ability tests, have the highest predictive validity for future job performance. These findings are supported by Huffcutt and Arthur (1994), who showed that structured interviews are more reliable than unstructured interviews and have a higher mean correlation with job performance.
In contrast, unstructured interviews are much less predictive of success. Laszlo Bock, former head of People Operations at Google, stated in a 2013 interview with the New York Times that unstructured interviews add little value to the selection process. Bock argued that these interviews have limited predictive value and often depend on the interviewer’s personal impressions and biases.
The main problem with unstructured interviews is their low reliability. Because there is no set structure or criteria, the results can vary depending on the interviewer, the time of day, or even the candidate’s mood. Research by Huffcutt and Arthur (1994) confirms that unstructured interviews have lower reliability, with a resulting mean correlation of only 0.38 with job performance. The lack of consistency leads to reduced validity because the unpredictability of the results means that the interview cannot robustly predict who will be successful in the job.
To determine whether your organization uses structured interviews, look at the following four elements. You can speak of a structured interview only when you meet all four of these characteristics. If not, you are basically performing a ritual dance.
Suppose you can’t answer “yes” to all these questions. Does this mean then that things will always go wrong? Not necessarily. However, it does mean that you are very dependent on the quality of your recruitment funnel. The selection interview then adds little to the quality of the selection and can even be a waste of time. The interview is nothing more than a ritual dance that adds little value to the selection process. However, by investing in a well-structured interview process, your organization can significantly increase the predictive value and effectiveness of the selection process.
Or call: +31 88 – 277 377 6
To call directly: +31 88 277 377 6
