Interviews

Question 1

Definition

Answer 1

A personally interactive process of one or more people asking questions orally to another person and evaluating the answers for the purpose of determining the qualifications of that person in order to make employment decisions

Question 2

Importance

Answer 2

• One of most frequently used and preferred selection tools, with possible exception of references and apps in terms of use (Saks)
• Although structured techniques are more valid, unstructured forms are still used most
• Why?
o They are perceived as the most popular with job candidates (followed by work samp.)
o Interviews rated as more practical, legal, and valid than most Furham (2008) by orgs
• In a real sense the interview is not needed, as critical KSAOs can be usually assessed by other means and often done so more accurately. Appear there’s a basic human need to want personal contact with others before placing them in a position of importance even if they have a proven track-record, a tendency from which personnel managers and others involved in organizational selection do not appear to be exempt (Huffcutt and Culbertson, 2011)

Question 3

Trends

Answer 3

• Discrimination
• Structured interview (e.g., recent meta-analysis by Levashina)
• Impression management

• Six lines of construct research (Huffcutt & Culbertson)
o rs b/w ratings and psychological measures (e.g., mental ability)
o Applicant fit (usually evaluated in interviews that are not highly structured)
o Analysis of the content of the dimensions
o Dynamics of the interview process (interviewer-interviewee exchange (impression management, social skill, self-monitoring, attractiveness, non-verbal behavior))
o Applicants’ state of mind coming into the interview (e.g., self-efficacy, motivation)
o Model-based research (construct-based models)

• Capturing constructs
o Huffcutt - “new frontier of interview research”
o In Macan, 2009 says we might be able to measure CA; in new review, they say it’s best left to ther methods

Question 4

Validity, fakeability, subgroup differences, ROI, user acceptability; Ployhart table stats

Answer 4

High criterion-related validity for structured (.44-.62, Dipboye & Macan, 2011) 
Smaller for unstructured (~.2)
Small subgroup differences
Moderate ROI
Moderate user acceptability
Moderate fakability

Question 5

Determinants of effective interviews

Answer 5

• Using structured interviews (Campion’s (1997) taxonomy)
o Better no matter the construct, but better to focus on non-cog attributes
o Training important
o Anchored rating scales
o Job analysis
o Ask same Qs to every app.

• Interviewer characteristics
o Cog ability (.4-.5); extraversion; experience in social settings (good or bad)

• Applicant factors
o Personality consistency and traits (ext, agree, consc, low self-mon.)

Question 6

Outcomes

Answer 6

• Job performance (.44-.62 for structured)
• Incremental validity?
o Mixed but Levashina M-A finds it have IV over GMA and personality

Question 7

Other interview issues

Answer 7

• Structure is a continuum w/ multiple dimensions
• Black box - what are we measuring? Consider both applicant and interviewer perspectives.
o “The dominant emphasis in the interview lit. has been on the employer’s perspective, and as a result, the research has provided an overly simplistic conception”
• Limit the amount of constructs measured in an interview

Question 8

Pros

Answer 8

good applicant and interviewer reactions
good criterion-related validity
less AI than other methods (small)
less expensive than AC
can get at past experience (behavioral) or job knowledge (situational)
can assess fit (PJ initially, PO later)
can be used for recruiting, too
incr val over CA and pers (mixed results on this) Cortina et al and Levashina say yes
versatility
structured is better than not structured

Question 9

Cons

Answer 9

don’t know why it predicts (black box)
moderate fakability
validity depends on the willingness/ability of the interviewer to maintain/follow structure
must be clear on your construct – not best to use for CA
concerns about impression management (is it ok – does it tell you something?)
a lot depends on the interviewer (does this introduce error?)
issues with interviewer cognition (implicit biases, stereotyping), beliefs, goals

Question 10

Future research - lots!

Answer 10

•	From Huffcutt and Culbertson 
o	Interviews across different countries
o	Intentional response distortion/faking
o	Cognitive demands
o	Technological advances

• Rapport building
o Does it improve validity/reliability of judgments?
o Do structured have to be cold and intimidating? Can we train on warmth/rapport? DMS suspect we can w/ out sacrificing validity

• Interviewee - Interviewer dynamics; Opening the black box
o We often ignore what happens b/w handshake to final judgment
o Start with an examination of the interviewer’s expectations and beliefs, their conduct of the session, and the processing of info
o Huffcutt and Culb. call it a new frontier in interview research

• No more situational vs. behavioral stuff - they are complementary! (Levashina et al., 2014)

• Cross cultural
o E.g., what types of Qs, training, etc is best in other cultures (behavioral, situational, etc)?
o Impression mgt in other cultures
 In asian cultures, a weak handshake/lack of eye contact may be quite acceptable; dominance and assertive tactics may be limited to individualistic cultures, but “good applicant” in collectivistic cultures may focus on group

• BARS/structured rating formats
o Why are BARS beneficial for interviews but not in performance appraisal decisions?
o Why do structured rating scales improve interview validity even though interviews tend to not distinguish b/w dimensions but rather, form general impressions
o Does statistically combining diff. interview ratings improve validity?

• Transparency
o Is more good? Small amount of research says yes

• Disability, obesity, and pregnancy can also affect interviewer evals
o Need for future research to examine subtle or implicit effects

•	Benefits to using an unstructured interview
o	Some (e.g., Van Iddekinge et al., 2006) researchers should no longer bother w/ unstructured, but DMS question this conclusion (flexbil, app. reactions, etc.) 

• Impression mgt
o Little is known about the thought behind impression mgt for applicants
 Suggestion is to use a “think out loud” or verbal protocol

• Type of research
o Move away from meta-analyses (Macan, 2009)
o We should pull from other literature bases (Huffcutt and Culb)

• Other applicant individual differences besides CA and personality (Huffcutt and Culb)