Behavioral Interviewing, Done Right

If you're a regular reader, you may have noticed a trend in recent issues of this newsletter toward somewhat technical discussions of personality testing. You've had plenty of facts, quite a few numbers, and at least one multi-step processes. However, if you've been outdoors at all you've also noticed that it's summer. And in the summertime, an opposing trend often prevails - toward a lighter, more carefree approach to life's concerns.

In that spirit, we'll take a bit of a vacation from the most quantitative, rigorous aspects of pre-employment screening. Instead we'll look at behavioral interviews, a way of gauging a candidate's potential performance that is more intuitive, more interactive, and just plain easier.

Or is it? Properly done, behavioral interviews are actually highly structured, demanding to execute, and dependent on solid preparation (and yes, data). In fact, much of the debate about the value of behavioral interviews boils down to misunderstandings about how assessment science combines with the element of personal interaction to make these tools work. So as it turns out, behavioral interviews are less like a vacation from scientific assessment, and more like a low-key summer session. See you in class.

Interviews Are Tests
Let's begin by making a point: interviews are verbal tests. Accuracy depends on having a clear objective, using proper questions, and having standardized answer keys. They're not just a smooth questioning technique. Whether the interview style is backward- looking (behavioral), forward-looking (situational), or casual, the intent is the same: determine whether the applicant what it takes to do the job. The more accurate the interview data, the better the hiring decision.

Perfect World
In a perfect behavioral interviewing world, an applicant would give detailed descriptions of things that happened to him or her in exactly the same job, doing exactly the same thing, working under exactly the same circumstances, dealing with exactly the same kind of people. This isn't likely. It's also precisely the reason interviewers work from a list of job-related, abstract competencies that help them translate past experiences to future job requirements. That translation is a critical bridge between past and future.

Behavioral-Style Interviewing Basics
Here are three interview questions:

1. "If you were going to be a tree in the forest. . ."

Yes, this is psychobabble. The question is unrelated to the job, or any job, and it probably has more to do with an interviewer's ambition to act like a psychologist (without the years of graduate school).

2. "Give me an example of a time when you developed a strategic action plan."

This is better. At least it has more structure and sounds more job-related. Unfortunately, it is still not specific enough to deliver the accuracy we need to make a good hire.

3. "Tell me about a particular event when you had to confront a subordinate about a performance problem. What caused the event? What specifically did you do? What was the result?"

Question 3, folks, in spite of what you hear to the contrary, is the only way behavioral interviewing can deliver a high level of accuracy and effectiveness.

Of course, armed with the response to this question, the interviewer should then probe for accuracy, translate several examples into one or two behavioral competencies, compare the past-event competencies to a list of future-requirement competencies, rate the quality of the competencies based on relevance and recency (see below), and integrate this information by meeting with other independent interviewers. And you thought this would be a vacation?

Understanding the Future Job
Here's a reality check. Who knows more about what it takes each day in your job: you or your manager? Most people would say jobholders know more about day-to-day competencies. Managers know more about overall performance. So, why would a professional only question managers and HR about job requirements?

This is why job analysis is so important. It involves gathering data from jobholders, direct managers, and managers who are able to anticipate future job changes. However, these folks don't usually speak in competency language. So the analyst must translate everyday job language into something that can be accurately measured. That is, the product of all three conversations must be a comprehensive list of behavioral competencies that can be accurately evaluated in a few minutes.

So what's the bottom line? Complete job knowledge and clear goals lead to more and better hiring and placement decisions. In this case, do your homework before doing any interviews.

Understanding Applicants' Past Jobs
It is often said, "Past performance predicts future performance." Well, maybe. Behavioral predictability depends on many factors, such as recency, job-relatedness, reporting accuracy, interviewer and interviewee bias, applicant recall, and questioning skills.

Recency tells us whether the applicant's skills are current or rusty. Job-relatedness tells us whether the past example closely parallels future job requirements. Accurate reporting avoids false conclusions. Interviewer bias distorts information. And good questioning skills make information hard to fake.

Putting It All Together
Despite the interviewer's best efforts, interviews are still self-reports. Behavioral interviews still erroneously screen out applicants who lack good examples, cannot think of job-related stories, or just don't have experience. That's why a good hiring process adds tests and simulations to provide additional real-time skills data. And to minimize interpersonal bias between interviewer and interviewee, multiple interviewers meet afterward to integrate their individual data.

Going Forward
Like most worthwhile things, considerable work is required to do behavioral interviews well. Of course, no one wants to do more work than necessary to recruit, hire, and promote good people. But the internal HR clients with whom I work have to be concerned about quality. They face hiring managers every day and are often on pins and needles trying to justify their continued employment.

On the other hand, some professional recruiters have proudly told me, "We measure success by each candidate who survives the guarantee period." Professionals who only do enough to get by? That doesn't sound at all professional to me.

Behavioral interviewing has a long history of effectiveness that few of us are capable of improving upon. Sure, we can turn the clock backward and potentially screw up everything by taking the easy way out and relying in homegrown assessment solutions. But any recruiter who wants to move the profession forward should use the most professional tools available.

   Join Email List

Copyright ^©2002-2007 ScientificSelection.com LLC • Dr. Wendell Williams, Managing Director • Telephone: 770.792.6857
Media Contact: Donna Lehman, MarketUP, LLC • dlehman@market-up.com • 770.565.7275
Web Design by Iconix.biz