Looking back at the interviews I’ve had from part-time high school jobs to more recent ones in college, it’s clear that not all interviews are created equal. Some were structured and made me feel confident in what the employer was looking for, while others left me wondering if the decision was based on anything meaningful at all.
One of the least effective interviews I had was for a retail job. The interviewer barely looked at my resume and asked vague questions like “Tell me about yourself” or “What’s your biggest weakness?” There was no real structure, and no notes were taken. At the time, I thought I had done well, but reflecting now, the process lacked both reliability and validity. There was no way that interviewer could have consistently or fairly compared me to other candidates. It felt more like a conversation than a proper assessment.
In contrast, a later interview for a business internship was much more structured. The interviewer had a clear set of questions tied to the job description, took notes, and even scored each answer. That interview had stronger utility, it was worth the time and effort because the process actually helped them predict job performance, just like we discussed in Lecture 3 on selection methods and in Bohnet’s article about structured interviews reducing bias.
If I could go back and advise those early employers, I’d suggest adopting structured interviews with job-related questions, standardizing the process, and scoring responses immediately afterward (Bohnet, 2016). Not only would it make things more fair for candidates, but it would also help them hire better people.
The more interviews I go through, the more I realize that structure isn’t boring, it’s essential.