Reflecting on my past interviews, I can see how they were effective in some ways—but also lacking when viewed through the lens of reliability, validity, and utility from this week’s readings. One experience that really stands out is when I worked for a company that was growing but didn’t have their org chart formalized or positions fully defined. As new roles and responsibilities emerged, my boss relied heavily on the “Big Five” Personality Dimensions to place people in positions and assign duties that aligned with their natural tendencies. At the time, I didn’t fully understand why she used personality assessments, but in hind sight, she was trying to gather consistent indicators of who might excel in leadership versus support roles. In that sense, the process had some reliability and predictive validity because the assessment offered structured, standardized data.
However, the actual interview process told a different story. I was hired after a single 30-minute video interview, just me and my boss. Later, my boss admitted she selected me largely because of my attitude, mindset and more or less of a gut decision. While it was flattering, it also highlighted the lack of structure in the process. What stands out most is that there was evidently no job analysis driving clear criteria for the role. The role I was hired for and the tasks I took on didn’t necessarily match my job description.
If I could go back and advise this employer, I would recommend three things:
- Start with a thorough job analysis.
- Use structured interviews tied to job-related competencies.
- Use assessments as a supplement, not the driver of hiring decisions.
Overall, the experience working in a small business was valuable. It also reinforces why structure matters, because consistency in evaluation tools leads to better outcomes.
Leave a Reply