{"id":33,"date":"2017-02-23T13:37:50","date_gmt":"2017-02-23T13:37:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.boulden.net\/blog\/?p=33"},"modified":"2023-08-30T15:54:58","modified_gmt":"2023-08-30T14:54:58","slug":"the-art-of-the-interview-how-to-find-great-people","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.boulden.net\/blog\/the-art-of-the-interview-how-to-find-great-people\/","title":{"rendered":"The art of the interview: how to find great people"},"content":{"rendered":"
You can train a turkey to climb a tree but it\u2019s easier to hire a squirrel\u201d<\/h6>\n
Anon<\/h6>\n

\"art
\nIf you want to have a successful business or lead a high performance team (and who doesn\u2019t?) then you need to be excellent at interviews. Sitting down with people and talking to them in a structured way is at the heart of (i) identifying good people and (ii) motivating them to want to join the organisation!<\/p>\n

This matters because, by and large, good people do good work and don\u2019t need excessive amounts of management time to keep them on track. So it makes sense to take the time and trouble to hire capable staff. However, research by Korn Ferry suggests that 40% of newly appointed managers don\u2019t live up to expectations and the cost of turnover, due to a poor appointment, is 2-4 times salary. Of course no approach to hiring can be perfect; we are trying to predict future behaviour and sometimes, try as we might, we are going to make the wrong choice. The question is \u2018how to minimise the number of hiring mistakes we make?\u2019 So how then is it possible to work out if someone is (most likely) the right person for the job?<\/p>\n

<\/i><\/a>Failing to plan is planning to fail<\/h2>\n

Great interviewing starts with proper preparation: it\u2019s hard to make good choices if you don\u2019t know what you want the person to do when they arrive in post, or if different hiring managers are at odds about what the ideal candidate should bring to the party. It\u2019s also not easy to attract talented people if you don\u2019t manage the obvious hygiene factors (like clear communication with the candidate, arriving on time for the interview, having a private setting for the meeting and turning your phone off etc.)<\/p>\n

But getting consistently good results also requires the use of specific interview \u2018processes\u2019… so what are some examples of effective, standardised, research-based interviewing systems…?<\/p>\n

<\/i><\/a>Looking at the numbers<\/h2>\n

The research says [Oh, I-S., Postlethwaite, B.E., Schmidt, F.L. (2013)] that the best assessment method for deciding who will do well in a new job is a General Mental Ability test (also called psychometric reasoning tests e.g. verbal reasoning, numerical reasoning, spatial awareness etc.)<\/p>\n

This is then followed by interviews, which, as you might expect, provide insights into a candidate\u2019s self-confidence, impact, relationship building skills etc.<\/p>\n

Psychometric tests (as long as they are based on the \u2018big five\u2019 personality factors) also add predictive information about success in the job; so they are worth including as well. Initially proposed by W. Fiske (1949) the \u2018big five\u2019 are broad personality traits that researchers feel most reliably describe personality: 1. extraversion 2. agreeableness 3. openness 4. conscientiousness and 5. neuroticism<\/p>\n

So it\u2019s helpful to include a General Mental Ability test and a personality inventory as part of any hiring process. Tests are usually administered after the interview \u2013 why put someone through a testing process unless you\u2019ve decided they are a good fit?<\/p>\n

<\/i><\/a>Competencies and why they matter<\/h2>\n

There are a number of structured formats that could be adopted to question the candidate, but one essential, and research-based component to the selection isprocess, is the \u201cCompetency Based Interviewing\u201d method (also called Behavioural Event Interviews -[BEI] and Criterion Based Interviews. Developed by David McClelland of Harvard University in the 1970\u2019s, BEI asks that we identify the distinctive Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes, Traits and Motives (competencies) of high performing people in a given occupation e.g. sales professionals, surgeons, technical support staff etc. and then ask questions of job candidates to see if they have those attributes associated with superior performance. So if our analysis found that (say) \u201cInitiative \u2013 taking action, that no one has requested, to avoid problems or create new opportunities\u201d, was important to success in a role, we could ask questions to explore if a candidate had those qualities…<\/p>\n

Deceptively simple but very powerful, this takes the form of asking the person to tell you, in detail, about a specific situation when they demonstrated the competency in question…<\/p>\n

\u201cTell me about a time when you… took action, without being prompted, to avoid a potential problem…\u201d<\/p>\n

Of course all candidates need to be asked the same questions and be given a similar amount of time to respond. The relative strength of the examples given can then be ranked against an agreed scale e.g. addresses current issues that will arise in the next few days Vs. is decisive in a crisis Vs. anticipates situations 2-5 years ahead etc.<\/p>\n

<\/i><\/a>Why competency interviews aren\u2019t enough<\/h2>\n

One potential problem with competency interviewing is that experienced candidates come armed with a series of anecdotes and so do well by virtue of preparation, rather than necessarily the quality of their actual experiences. This means that BEI needs to be augmented with additional interview methods to get a clear sense of the candidate\u2019s capabilities. For example, \u201cUnstructured Interviews\u201d to assess cultural fit and personal chemistry, and \u201c, Biographical Interviews\u201d to find out about drives, motivation and behaviour.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s worth noting that a structured approach that uses tests and a variety of interview techniques also helps to ensure that judgments comply with company policy and avoid legal challenge \u2013 recruitment isn\u2019t only about getting the right person for the job, but should also show the workforce that the process was unbiased.<\/p>\n

<\/i><\/a>Selling the job<\/h2>\n

The interview is a two way process – so success doesn\u2019t only mean spotting a talented person; it also means persuading them to accept the job offer. There are two aspects to this: (i) anticipate and answer the candidate\u2019s questions about the role and, (ii) provide a Realistic Job Preview (RJP).<\/p>\n

The RJP is a short \u2018sales pitch\u2019, which describes both the positive and potentially challenging aspects of the job (Premack & Wanous, 1985). It is based on the theory that there is a \u2018psychological contract\u2019 between the employee and the company that sets (informal) expectations about obligations and behaviours (Rousseau 1998). A good RJP excites the candidate about working in the company, but also means that they join with \u2018their eyes open\u2019 about any potential difficulties that they might face, so reducing any \u2018nasty surprises\u2019 for the new joiner, and by extension, minimising quick turnover.<\/p>\n

<\/i><\/a>Know the law<\/h2>\n

Most countries have legal do\u2019s and don\u2019ts that affect the hiring process, and failing to comply with them can lead to financial loss and reputational damage; so follow the letter of the law.<\/p>\n

For example, In the UK it is illegal to discriminate against anyone when making hiring decisions on the grounds of:<\/p>\n