The interview as a concept is prevalent in our society today — we all watch television and watch the supposed celebrities of today being interviewed and I'm sure there is a time when you wish that the interviewer would ask a particularly difficult question rather than the usual "nothing question" that would start to explore that part of their lives that they don't want to talk about but we as viewers all want to hear about in more graphic detail.
As we all know, most organisations use interviews, and the Gulf region is no exception. The majority of us will have experienced one at some stage of our career as a part of a recruitment or promotion decision-making process. Many organisations place a firm and often inappropriate emphasis on the evidence they gain from these interviews when making those decisions. Questions continue to be repeatedly and forcefully raised as to the quality of decisions that arise from interviews.
My view is that there are three key factors which need to be understood and adhered to for an interview to be truly effective: Firstly, the interview must be based on a sound, up-to-date competency or performance framework that reflects what high performers do in those jobs for which recruits are being sought. Secondly, questions should be asked that explore sound evidence of past behaviour against this framework. Thirdly, a structured format should be used to guide interviewers to collect the appropriate information during the interview process.
The majority of organisations tend not to follow all of these three crucial elements and continue to use their historical interviewing methodology which has consistently failed in the past — and the reasons for this? Interviews have become such an established part of the recruitment process that candidates and line managers would be up in arms if they were to be abolished. Let's be honest, line managers want the opportunity to meet their potential team members and "size" them up prior to any job offers being made and they would feel cheated if they were not allowed to do this. Candidates meanwhile want the opportunity to sell themselves (which many feel is easier to do in an interview than in other methods) and to find out more about the organisation so that they can make a realistic and informed decision about their desire for the job.
Structuring the interview process has proven to increase the effectiveness of recruitment decisions. Certainly over the last few years the structured interview has become much more common than its unstructured predecessor. In essence this means that each candidate is asked exactly the same questions in exactly the same order. Adopting this approach seeks to minimise the amount of variability between interviewers and ensure that all candidates experience a fair, consistent process. It is necessary, however, to go much deeper than this to ensure that the decision-making from interviews improves.
Interviewing against well-chosen competencies has been shown to facilitate the selection of an optimal performer. However, that assumes that the correct competencies have been chosen in the first place.
Training
Many organisations use a combination of HR and line managers to conduct recruitment interviews, which may be one-to-one or panel-based. Irrespective of the approach that is employed, the interviewers must be provided with rigorous training. But many ask "why?". The answer is complex but individuals should be trained to ensure that they learn objective, practical techniques to ensure they question and probe a candidate in an effective way. Lots of managers say "I've been interviewing for years so why do I need to do it?" In fact they are the population that requires the most training as they, on the whole, develop a lot of "bad habits" that have an impact on their ability to make robust and well-reasoned decisions. Experience can be both a hindrance as well of being of value — it's about developing the right balance.
The author is consulting director of Kenexa EMEA and director of Kenexa HR Institute
