Showing posts with label interview. Show all posts
Showing posts with label interview. Show all posts

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Deconstructing Structured Job Interviews

 (image obtained from flickr.com)

I co-authored a recently-published study using a variety of methods to examine over twenty years of research on structured employment interviews. The full article runs over 40 pages long (not including 10 pages of references), but I'll save you the trouble of reading through the article in its entirety by highlighting some of the major conclusions:

  • What is meant by a "structured interview" is inconsistent. There is general agreement that structuring an interview includes asking applicants the same questions and rating them on common rating scales, but there is less consensus on other characteristics that could be included in structured interviews, such as limiting follow-up questions from interviewers, limiting questions from job candidates, or taking notes.
  • The most common techniques for structuring interviews are conducting a job analysis as a basis for the interview questions, using the same interview questions for all applicants, using better types of questions (such as situational and past-behavioral questions), using anchored rating scales, rating each question individually (as opposed to only making general ratings at the end of the interview), using multiple interviewers (i.e. panel interviews), and providing interviewer training.
  • Smaller rating differences for legally-protected groups. Race, gender, and disability impact interviewers' ratings and decisions less in structured interviews, as compared to unstructured interviews.
  • Applicants' ability to influence interviewers' rating is reduced. While impression management by applicants (e.g. self-promotion and ingratiation) is still a common occurrence in structured interviews, the effects of such behaviors impact interviewers' judgment less in structured interviews than they do in unstructured interviews.
  • Personality may be more difficult to measure in a structured interview than in an unstructured interview, but little research has directly examined the topic of the validity of personality assessments in structured interviews.
  • Situational and past-behavioral questions should be used together to attain maximum utility from the structured interview. Situational questions tend to measure job knowledge, while past-behavioral questions measure job experience, and they both are good predictors of future performance.
The article also presents over 30 research questions and propositions that can be used to guide future research and practice, but I will not summarize the details here. You can read through the article if you are interested in that specific information. But hopefully the bullet points highlighted above provide some interesting and useful information for those who currently use structured interviews in their selection process, those considering the use of structured interviews in the future, and those interested in researching the topic.

-------------------------------------
Reference:
Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., and Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employment interview: Narrative and quantitative review of the recent literature. Personnel Psychology, 67, 241-293. doi: 10.1111/peps.12052.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Questions about Sexual Orientation: The Case of Manti Te'o

"Wait - what did you just ask me?"
(image credit: washingtonpost.com)

By now, we're all probably sick of hearing about Manti Te'o and the catfishing hoax that made national headlines for months. If you haven't been following the drama, Te'o supposedly had a girlfriend who died during the football season from leukemia. However, it was later found out that the girlfriend never existed, and that Te'o had never met this girlfriend, but that the relationship had taken place completely via internet and phone communications. It was revealed that the person behind the hoax, and acting as the non-existent girlfriend, was a male who later confessed his love for Te'o. Most believe that Te'o was a victim, fully duped by the hoax. However, others believe that he may have been in on the hoax, and some are even questioning his sexual orientation as a result.

For the most part, that news is all behind us. But with the NFL combine complete and draft day coming up, NFL teams will have the opportunity to focus on Te'o at the upcoming Pro Day at Notre Dame on March 26. This is the day that interested NFL teams can come to South Bend and watch Te'o perform (you could almost call it a type of  work sample test).

If NFL teams want to interview Te'o before draft day (in what would constitute a kind of selection interview), this article from Yahoo! raises an interesting point about questions regarding sexual orientation. Unlike race, age, gender, and religion, sexual orientation is not protected from discrimination under federal law. Some state laws have regulations that prohibit sexual orientation from influencing employment decisions, while other states do not. Therefore, some NFL franchises may have restrictions regarding the information they can gather regarding sexual orientation, while others may not. The article lists 19 NFL teams that theoretically could ask those questions, while 13 other teams could not.

Of course, whether or not questions regarding Te'o's sexual orientation are legal according to state law may be a moot point. Employment decisions should be based on job-related information - so information such as his slow time on the 40-yard-dash at the NFL combine would probably be more relevant. The only possible way that I can think of sexual orientation being job-related in the NFL is the fact that teams are all male, they travel together, shower and dress together, and room together on road trips. Could a gay football player create an uncomfortable (hostile?) work environment for the rest of the team? I'd say this logic is tenuous at best, and reasonable accommodation could certainly be examined in such a case. So I'm hoping that no teams are posing questions regarding sexual orientation. But the fact that some teams could potentially do so legally, while others may be more restricted is an interesting case of how different state statutes may affect the hiring process.