When I took Organizational Psychology during college, one of our projects that fascinated me was developing a candidate selection battery – figuring out the best way to hire the ideal candidate. I thought it was an interesting exercise, and at the time I was stunned to learn that few companies put much thought into it. Most conducted unstructured or semi-structured interviews, and according to the professor that only results in about 15% of what you need to know about the candidate.
Selecting the right candidate for a job is a critical task for any organization. The traditional method of the “application and interview” process has long been the standard. Newer and more innovative methods have emerged and offer better results that lead to the selection of a candidate who is the best for the job. In this blog we’ll talk about those methods, the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and how they might be used together to provide a comprehensive picture of a candidate.
Traditional Application and Interview Method
The traditional hiring process involves submitting a resume and cover letter, a preliminary screening by HR or a recruiter and one or more rounds of interviews. The interviews are typically conducted by the hiring manager, and possibly members of the manager’s team and are either unstructured (“tell me about you and why you are qualified to do this job”) or semi-structured (“Tell me something you bring to the job and identify areas you may need to develop to successfully carry out the role.”). With this approach the interviewers are trying to determine if the candidate is a good fit for their team and the requirements for the role. This approach, while familiar and straightforward, has several drawbacks:
- Limited Scope of Evaluation: This method often focuses on past experiences and qualifications, overlooking a candidate’s future potential.
- Interview Performance: Candidates may not perform well in interviews due to nerves or unfamiliarity, which can result in overlooking highly qualified individuals. Conversely, some candidates may just be “good” at interviews, and appear confident and capable, even if they don’t have the experience or skills to be successful in the role.
- Bias: Unconscious biases can affect interviewers’ perceptions, leading to decisions influenced by subjective rather than objective criteria. One of these biases is overconfidence; the bias from the manager that they can identify the right candidate because they are the manager and know what they want.
- Inconsistent Assessment: Different interviewers may have varying evaluation criteria, leading to inconsistency in the selection process.
Innovative Methods for Selecting the Right Candidate
If traditional interviews alone are not sufficient due to the stakes of selecting the right candidate, there are other methods that can be employed to fill in the gaps. There are five methods I want to explore and while some may not be optimal for all situations, each provides greater effectiveness in certain situations.
1- Work Sample Tests and Simulations
Work sample tests involve giving candidates tasks like those they would perform in the job. Examples include writing assignments, job related problems to solve, coding challenges, presentations or sales pitches. Determining the appropriate task depends on the role, but any of these can be helpful in evaluating how a candidate will perform if hired.
Example:
A hiring team is looking for a new staff-level accountant. Assuming the applicants have all the right qualifications (education and experience), the work sample might include preparing a tax return or reading and correcting a tax return to see if they can find flaws. Their performance in completing the task is a good indicator of how successful an individual will perform in the role.
Advantages:
- Realistic Preview: Offers a realistic view of the job, helping candidates and hiring teams to assess their fit. This does require some careful consideration when designing the work sample or simulation used, but it’s well worth if it leads to the best hire.
- Objective Evaluation: By treating the assignment like a test and having grading criteria, these can provide quantifiable evidence of job-related skills, reducing bias.
Disadvantages:
- Time-Consuming: Creating and evaluating work samples can be time intensive. This is by far the biggest complaint hiring mangers have about this method. An interview can take 30 minutes and allows the manager to engage in a conversation with the candidate. Deploying and evaluating work samples will likely take more time and there is no interaction between the hiring manager and candidate. Finally, many managers don’t feel they have the time to evaluate the work product created by the candidate.
- Not Always Comprehensive: This method may not fully assess a candidate’s broader skills or fit within the company culture. This is related to the time aspect of the process; the more skills your work sample covers, the longer it takes for the candidate to complete the task, the hiring team to evaluate.
2 – Structured Interviews
Structured interviews are similar to the traditional interview but involve a consistent set of questions focused on specific job-related competencies, reducing the influence of interviewer biases. Instead of the interview being little more than a conversation, structured interviews have pre-determined questions. You can leverage a rubric with pre-determined measures of answers to help you objectively evaluate answers you receive.
Example:
A hiring team is looking for a new faculty member for the psychology department at a university. The structured interview includes a mix of questions to evaluate the candidate’s knowledge of the subject material, facilitation skills and understanding of academic administration, etc. Each answer can be graded on a numeric scale with weighting to apply greater importance for those items that are most important for the role. This method allows the interviewers to generate a score for each applicant, with documentation that outlines why that score was given.
Advantages:
- Fair and Consistent: Ensures all candidates are evaluated using the same criteria.
- Predictive Validity: More accurately predicts job performance than unstructured interviews.
Disadvantages:
- Rigidity: May not allow for exploration of unique aspects of a candidate’s background.
- Potential for Overemphasis on Specific Competencies: An interviewer might overlook other valuable skills not covered by the set questions.
3 – Behavioral and Situational Interviews
Behavioral and situational interviews are designed to be structured, to ensure all candidates are asked the same questions, thus allowing for more equitable and objective comparisons among candidates. These interviews differ from structured interviews in the following ways.
In situational interviews, candidates are asked to respond to hypothetical scenarios they might encounter in the job. The questions are designed to assess how applicants would handle specific work-related situations. The aim is to gauge their problem-solving abilities, decision-making skills, and ability to think on their feet. For example, an interviewer might ask, “How would you handle a situation where you have multiple high-priority tasks due at the same time?”
Behavioral interviews, on the other hand, focus on past experiences and behaviors. Candidates are asked to provide examples of how they handled situations in the past, under the assumption that past behavior is a good predictor of future performance. The questions typically start with phrases like “Tell me about a time when…” or “Give an example of how you…”
Comparison:
- Situational interviews are forward-looking and hypothetical, while behavioral interviews are retrospective and based on actual past experiences.
- Both types of interviews aim to predict job performance, but they do so by assessing different aspects of a candidate’s potential and behavior.
Advantages:
- Insight into Past and Potential Behavior: Helps predict how candidates might handle real job situations.
- Reveals Soft Skills: Can uncover interpersonal skills and decision-making processes.
Disadvantages:
- Memory and Hypothetical Bias: Candidates could remember past events incorrectly or provide idealized responses to hypothetical situations.
- Limited to Specific Scenarios: May not cover the full range of challenges a candidate might face in the role.
- Open to bias: The interviewers may have “favorite” responses they are looking for and add more weight to than they should.
4 – Assessment Centers
An assessment center is a comprehensive evaluation method used in the selection and development of employees, typically for managerial or high-level positions. It involves a series of exercises and simulations designed to assess various competencies, such as leadership, communication, problem-solving, and interpersonal skills. Participants engage in activities like group discussions, role-playing, in-basket exercises, and case studies, often observed by trained assessors. The purpose of an assessment center is to provide a well-rounded and accurate evaluation of a candidate’s abilities and potential.
Advantages:
- Comprehensive Evaluation: Provides a detailed and well-rounded view of a candidate’s abilities and potential related to the position.
- Observation of Team Dynamics: Allows employers to see how candidates interact in group settings in realistic conditions.
Disadvantages:
- Resource-Intensive: Can be costly and time-consuming to organize and evaluate.
- Stressful for Candidates: The intensity and variety of activities may be overwhelming, potentially impacting performance.
5 – Personality and Psychometric Testing
These tests assess traits like emotional intelligence, motivation, and cognitive abilities which provide insight into how candidates might fit into the company’s culture. As an assessment junkie, this approach appeals to me on many levels. There are some advantages to using them, but there are also some significant factors that must be considered.
Key considerations include:
- Relevance and Validity: The psychometric test must be relevant to the job and a valid predictor of job performance. Employers need to demonstrate that the test measures skills or traits essential for the job, and that the results correlate with job success.
- Non-Discrimination: The use of psychometric tests must comply with anti-discrimination laws. In the United States, for example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Similar principles apply in other districts, with variations depending on local legislation.
- Reasonable Accommodations: Employers must provide reasonable accommodation for candidates with disabilities, ensuring that the testing process is accessible and fair. This may include providing alternative formats or additional time for candidates based on needs.
- Privacy and Data Protection: Employers must handle candidates’ personal data responsibly, respecting privacy laws. This includes informing candidates about the purpose of data collection, how the data will be used and ensuring secure data storage.
- Transparency and Consent: It is important for employers to be transparent with candidates about the use of psychometric tests in the hiring process. Candidates should be informed about what the tests measure, how the results will be used and any implications it will have on decision making.
While testing provides a comprehensive approach to selection, there are advantages and disadvantages of using them.
Advantages:
- Objective Data: Offers quantifiable data on a candidate’s personality and cognitive abilities.
- Cultural Fit Assessment: Helps determine alignment with company values and work environment.
Disadvantages:
- Validity and Reliability Concerns: The accuracy of these tests in predicting job performance can vary.
- Potential for Misuse: May lead to pigeonholing candidates or overemphasizing certain traits.
Final Thoughts
The traditional application and interview method has its merits, but it’s clear that alternative approaches can provide more comprehensive and objective information about the candidates vying for a position. By combining these methods organizations will build greater validity in their selection process.
For example, assuming an application received meets all the stated criteria, you might use the following methods to get a clear picture of the applicant:
- A psychometric personality assessment to determine alignment between the candidate’s traits within your culture and the job for which they are applying.
- A work-sample problem to solve that demonstrates the extent to which they can perform the job. Incorporating a rubric that evaluates the work-sample will provide an objective view of their skills.
- A structured interview with a variety of behavioral and situational questions.
These elements can be weighted and combined to give you a comprehensive evaluation of the potential candidates. Maybe the psychometric assessment is 15% of the weight, the work-sample is 60%, and the structured interview is 25%. This method will place greater emphasis on the candidate’s ability to do the work, with the personality assessment and the interview making up the rest.
You may be asking yourself if the additional effort is worth it. The answer is quite simple, if the process secures the best talent for the role and because there is greater cultural fit that leads to retention of that candidate, the answer is yes. When you think about the cost to organizations when you fail to select the right talent for a role or the talent you choose is not a cultural fit and exits the organization prematurely, the business case for conducting a comprehensive selection process is clear.
