Reflecting on my interview at a dairy farm service company, where I already have relevant dairy experience, I noticed both strengths and weaknesses in their selection process. The interview was informal and largely unstructured: a few general questions about my background and whether I could “handle early mornings.” While this created a relaxed atmosphere, it lacked structure, which significantly reduced reliability and validity. As discussed in this week’s materials, unstructured interviews are prone to bias, lack consistency across candidates, and rarely predict job performance well.
If I were advising the company, I’d recommend transitioning to a structured interview format. This would involve standardized, job-related questions based on a job analysis, paired with clear scoring criteria. For example, instead of asking “Can you work under pressure?” they might use a situational question like: “Tell me about a time you managed a calving emergency on your own.” That taps into actual experience and provides more predictive validity.
To increase utility, I’d also suggest incorporating work samples, for instance, having candidates perform a basic equipment check or simulate troubleshooting a milking system issue. Though more time-intensive, work samples offer high validity and directly align with job performance expectations.
Ultimately, a more systematic approach would lead to better person-job fit, more equitable evaluations, and higher long-term performance, especially in a labor-intensive, skill-based field like dairy services.
