Is your selection interview a reliable predictor or a ritual dance?

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 versus unstructured interviews: which works better?

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.

“Unstructured interviews often rely on personal impressions and can lead to inconsistent results.”

The pitfalls of unstructured interviews in recruitment

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.

Elements of a structured interview for successful selection.

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.

Predefined interview criteria: These are clear criteria established before the interview begins. This ensures that each candidate is assessed in the same way. Campion, Palmer, and Campion (1997) emphasize the importance of predetermined criteria to ensure objectivity and consistency in interviews.
Use of structured interview techniques: Are techniques such as the STAR method (Situation, Task, Action, Result), C-STAR, or Critical Incident Interview method used? These methods help interviewers ask targeted questions and obtain relevant information. Lievens and De Paepe (2004) show that structured interview techniques significantly increase the validity of the interview process.

Reference frames and behavior anchors: Have reference frames, standards, or behavior anchors been established for the predetermined criteria? This ensures objectivity and makes it easier to compare candidates. This principle is crucial for minimizing subjective interpretations and increasing validity.
Standardized selection process: Is the entire selection process standardized, and does the interview have a fixed place in it? This increases the consistency and reliability of the interviews. Schmidt and Hunter (1998) point out the benefits of a standardized process in increasing reliability.

“A structured selection interview significantly increases the reliability and predictive value of the selection process.”

When not all characteristics of a structured selection interview are met.

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.

Literature on structured selection interviews.

Schmidt, F.L., Hunter, J.E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.
Hunter, J.E., Schmidt, F.L. (2004). Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Sage Publications.
Huffcutt, A.I., Arthur, W. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 184-190.
Bock, L. (2013). The New York Times Interview.
Huffcutt, A.I., Arthur, W. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 184-190.
Campion, M.A., Palmer, D.K., Campion, J.E. (1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 655-702.
Lievens, F., De Paepe, A. (2004). An examination of the relationship between the frame-of-reference training and the accuracy of the situational judgment ratings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(4), 417-428.
Pulakos, E.D., Schmitt, N. (1995). Experience-based and situational interview questions: Studies of validity. Personnel Psychology, 48(2), 289-308.

Do you have any questions?

If you would like to know more, please feel free to contact us.

Contact

Is your selection interview a reliable predictor or a ritual dance?

Structured versus unstructured interviews: which works better?

“Unstructured interviews often rely on personal impressions and can lead to inconsistent results.”

The pitfalls of unstructured interviews in recruitment

Elements of a structured interview for successful selection.

“A structured selection interview significantly increases the reliability and predictive value of the selection process.”

When not all characteristics of a structured selection interview are met.

Literature on structured selection interviews.

Do you have any questions?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Subscribe to new comments

Contact

Assessments

Services

Assessment diensten

Starcheck

Assessments

Downloads

Actueel

Contact

Assessment service

Starcheck

Assessments

Downloads

News

Contact

Request Assessment