February 2008
Should Traditional Interviews Get the Boot?
The University of Michigan conducted a massive and groundbreaking study[1] on the usefulness of the interview and found that an interview increased the prediction of hiring success by less than 2%. Uh-oh! This could be a problem if your organization uses traditional interviewing as let’s say—95% of its hiring strategy. And, it means you might be committed to a process which is not doing its job.
The problem with interviewing is that it is so darned subjective. The truth is that a typical interview is filled with hidden biases and so many inconsistencies within organizations that the value of the interview is diluted or lost completely. Most companies simply “trust” that their management team uses an effective and consistent interview format. Yet candidates tell us that most interviews vary dramatically in length and style and that they often answer the same questions over and over as they travel up the food chain. Not good.
Can The Interview Be Saved?
Let’s say you want to take the effectiveness of the interview process in your firm from 2% as the study predicts to around 50%. How can you do it? For starters you will need a system for interviewing and hiring. This sounds silly but if the goal is to increase effectiveness of interviewing, then everyone involved will need to sit down and agree on a process for who does what and who asks what, and then check to see that it is being done. Then, and only then, should other components be added to increase the chances of hiring the real talent. Testing, references, writing samples and background checks all increase your chances of hiring well—but not if the interview did not do its job in the first place.
[1]John and Rhonda Hunter. The University of Michigan on the validity and utility of alternative Predictors of Job Performance.
Check out our new website: www.managementmomentum.net
Prepared exclusively for clients of Brenda Abdilla and Management Momentum — Sent Mid-Monthly
