Do you think it would have been useful to add a condition in which managers were informed of the higher validity and decreased adverse impact of structured interviews? Do you think informing interviewers of the differences between SIs' and UIs' ability to predict performance on the job is enough to get them to start using SIs?
I think this is an area where we can really close the science - practitioner gap, which I think is really the root cause of HR specialists not using the structured interview technique. Can you think of some ways to help HR specialists develop structured interview themselves? Maybe have some sort of guidelines for structured interview development as to leave more room for the unique aspects of the job the HR specialist might be more interested in asking.
If the cultural norms and attitudes within the organization are the driving force behind decisions to use unstructured vs. structured interviews, how we can help organizations change these forces to support the use of structured interviews in the future?
This was I guess realistic yet astonishing in how many felt negatively towards the cost-effectiveness of structured interviews vs. unstructured. It is obvious that the scientific world needs to communicate better and consider training personnelists on the usefulness and accuracy of structured interviews. Especially for court/legal purposes. I feel that training has a big part of this. In addition, utility or ROI and even efficacy studies/measures should be considered to prove the usefulness of this method above and beyond unstructured interviews. The company executives is where this influence needs to start.
Katie, you pointed to the importance of training (re. value of structured vs unstructured interviews. I also see the possibility of teaching how to be empathic in structured interviews (something they suggested would help). But they also state that isolated training will not enough, that organizational change is necessary. This is harder - as the others of you said. I have felt the resistance in myself. I want to be personable in an interview and allow the person to ask questions. This article helped me think of how to move toward more SI. The suggestions in the book were helpful also.
According to the authors, HR managers underlying beliefs about structured interviews influenced their attitudes towards them and their use of them. They suggest that if scientists did a better job of communicating the benefits of using structured interviews then practitioners might be more willing to use them. Do you think HR managers dislike of structured interviews is primarily due to their lack of knowledge about the benefits?
I’m not surprised that they found a weak link between intentions and behavior. Just reflecting on personal experience, there have been a number of times that my behavior was “unintended” or even contrary to my intentions. Do you think there are some important contextual variables that the researchers did not take into account that would better explain the weak relationship between intentions and behavior?
Do you think it would have been useful to add a condition in which managers were informed of the higher validity and decreased adverse impact of structured interviews? Do you think informing interviewers of the differences between SIs' and UIs' ability to predict performance on the job is enough to get them to start using SIs?
ReplyDeleteI think this is an area where we can really close the science - practitioner gap, which I think is really the root cause of HR specialists not using the structured interview technique. Can you think of some ways to help HR specialists develop structured interview themselves? Maybe have some sort of guidelines for structured interview development as to leave more room for the unique aspects of the job the HR specialist might be more interested in asking.
ReplyDeleteIf the cultural norms and attitudes within the organization are the driving force behind decisions to use unstructured vs. structured interviews, how we can help organizations change these forces to support the use of structured interviews in the future?
ReplyDeleteThis was I guess realistic yet astonishing in how many felt negatively towards the cost-effectiveness of structured interviews vs. unstructured. It is obvious that the scientific world needs to communicate better and consider training personnelists on the usefulness and accuracy of structured interviews. Especially for court/legal purposes. I feel that training has a big part of this. In addition, utility or ROI and even efficacy studies/measures should be considered to prove the usefulness of this method above and beyond unstructured interviews. The company executives is where this influence needs to start.
ReplyDeleteKatie, you pointed to the importance of training (re. value of structured vs unstructured interviews. I also see the possibility of teaching how to be empathic in structured interviews (something they suggested would help).
ReplyDeleteBut they also state that isolated training will not enough, that organizational change is necessary. This is harder - as the others of you said. I have felt the resistance in myself. I want to be personable in an interview and allow the person to ask questions. This article helped me think of how to move toward more SI. The suggestions in the book were helpful also.
According to the authors, HR managers underlying beliefs about structured interviews influenced their attitudes towards them and their use of them. They suggest that if scientists did a better job of communicating the benefits of using structured interviews then practitioners might be more willing to use them. Do you think HR managers dislike of structured interviews is primarily due to their lack of knowledge about the benefits?
ReplyDeleteI’m not surprised that they found a weak link between intentions and behavior. Just reflecting on personal experience, there have been a number of times that my behavior was “unintended” or even contrary to my intentions. Do you think there are some important contextual variables that the researchers did not take into account that would better explain the weak relationship between intentions and behavior?
ReplyDelete