Reflecting on my past interview experiences, I noticed distinct aspects that made some interviews effective and others ineffective. Effective interviews often had a structured approach, where standardized questions helped in fairly evaluating each candidate. This structure aligns with what the readings emphasize about enhancing interview reliability and validity by ensuring that each candidate is assessed on comparable grounds, reducing bias and enhancing decision quality(W5 Lecture 4)(W5 Lecture 3).
In less effective interviews, the lack of structure led to inconsistent assessments and occasional bias. For example, one interview I experienced seemed unstructured, with the interviewer asking only a few generic questions. This unstructured approach often lacks validity because it doesn’t consistently assess the specific skills or qualities related to job performance(Outline – Selection). Furthermore, without a scoring guide or benchmark answers, it was hard for the interviewer to make objective comparisons. This impacted the interview’s utility, as it became challenging to gauge my fit accurately for the role, which led to a prolonged hiring process and eventual turnover issues.
If I could go back and advise these employers, I would recommend structuring the interview process more rigorously. Developing clear, job-relevant questions based on a thorough job analysis would improve validity and ensure the interview covers essential knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics needed for the role(W5 Lecture 2). Additionally, using a scoring rubric could reduce subjective bias and improve reliability, helping interviewers make consistent and justifiable hiring decisions. Finally, I’d advise conducting post-interview reviews and scoring each candidate against predetermined benchmarks to enhance the interview’s utility in selecting candidates likely to succeed long-term(Outline – Recruitment).