Looking back on the interviews I’ve been part of, I’ve come to realize how much a good interview really depends on how it’s set up. Based on what we’ve covered this week, the key factors for an effective interview are reliability, validity, and utility (Gatewood et al., 2016).
An interview that stands out was when I applied for a logistics coordinator role at a company I was already working for. Since it was internal interview, the questions were super broad, questions like “Tell me about yourself” and “What are your strengths?” Sure, they let me talk, but they didn’t really get at whether I was the right fit for the specific responsibilities. That’s where validity was missing, it didn’t really measure what it needed to.
But when I had a phone interview for an entry level financial analyst role it was a different experience. It was well organized, focused, and full of behavioral questions like “Tell me about a time you had to analyze financial data under pressure.” and that happened on the first out of the three interviews I was going to have for that role. That kind of question made a lot more sense for the job. It felt like the interviewer would use the same questions for all candidates, which helped boost both validity and reliability.
Still, I’ve been in a lot of interviews that just dragged on or felt pointless because they stuck too closely to a company driven script. That’s where utility takes a hit, there’s not much value in asking the same vague questions for completely different roles. If I could give employers advice, it’d be to build structured interviews that match the role and allow room for real conversation not just to checkboxes.