Interviews in My Experience

I’ve had three different jobs in three different fields. In this post, I’ll discuss my experience throughout the interview process, as well as my perspective of the process effectiveness after having the job.

My first job was as a soccer coach for kids. The first interview was over the phone and it was a brief screening. The second interview was a group one, where each potential employee was given written instructions for a game, and then we had to lead the rest of the group in the soccer activity. This was a really good interview process because it perfectly reflected what the job would look like on the field. My boss was screening for enthusiasm and the ability to give instructions. This turned out to be an extremely reliable way to see how potential employees would behave on the job. This method had really high construct validity because it perfectly reflected what the job would primarily consist of. Because of its high validity and reliability, this form of interviewing has high utility. Additionally, because the interview is conducted in a group, it’s less time intensive for the interviewer.

My second job was as a barista at a bakery. Here, I started as a cashier and dishwasher, then moved my way to like cook and barista. The primary thing my boss was screening for in the singular interview was my potential customer service skills. She later shared with me that she hired me solely based on my large smile throughout the interview process. While she claimed that this secret hint delivered her the best employees, I wish she would have had some sort of screener for competency, because while I had quite a few smiley coworkers, not all of them were quick to learn new skills or efficient with their time. A single verbal interview is the bare minimum for any interview process so I suppose it’s worth its utility, however another measure such as performing a task may be worth adding to the bakery’s hiring process. Because of my high rate of unhelpful coworkers at the job, I’d say my boss’ “smile test” is lacking in validity and reliability.

My most recent job is as a skills trainer in a mental health facility consisted of a three part interview process. Being a skills trainer is an incredibly difficult job to hire for because it requires so many abilities; physical strength, empathy, competency, emotional intelligence, creativity, good decision making, and bravery. The first interview was over the phone. Here, I was asked questions about life/job experiences and given hypothetical scenarios and asked what my response would be. This is basic for any interview process, so I think it’s worth its utility. However, its reliability for what would make a good skills trainer is questionable. I don’t have any data on the success of employees based off of their interview responses, but I would guess that this interview has a low correlation with predictive validity. Next was a group interview with a campus tour. Here, we were encouraged to ask lots of questions about the job and discuss what we feel comfortable/uncomfortable about. I think this part of the process was very much so with it’s utility because it gave the interviewer a better insight into what our experience on the floor would actually look like. Additionally, the intimate, tour based interview gave us the time and space to be honest about our concerns as we visualized ourselves on the job. I think this part had a high predictive validity and reliability. The last part of the interview process was a shadow shift. This was the most essential part of the interview process because it reflected exactly what the job would be. This costs the interviewer nothing, and is the best possible test. It has extremely high utility, reliability, and construct validity. While the third and final step is the most reliable, the first two interviews were essential to make sure the interviewee is ready to experience the job on the floor.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *