According to Dr. Ken Lahti, in today’s webcast, “[i]nterviews are an integral component of selection, yet they remain highly subjective & inconsistent, creating potential exposure to legal challenges.”  

What is a “good” interview?  Simply speaking, a good interview does what it says it will do:  actually predicts amongst candidates who will be successful in the job and who won’t.  Designing a good interview, however, is not so simple, but it should always be scientific, and hinges upon a couple of key components.

Job Analysis: What are the requirements necessary for the job and how is the work performed?  It is such a basic statement, yet it is shocking how few companies have current and accurate job analyses.  This process is work intensive, but is so critical for a majority of other human capital management practices.  The challenge exists to workforce scientists to invent a way to make this process take less time.

Interview Structure: Poor interviews lack consistency, and are unable to reproduce similar results from one session to the next.  Not surprisingly, this leads to an inability to fairly assess a group candidates.   Inconsistent interviews also leave mortar-sized craters of legal and compliance fears and true risks.

Interviewer Ability:  I used to begin every hiring manager interview debrief with this rhetorical question:  Is it a fact or is it a feeling?  It is woeful how inadequate most interviewers are at assessing talent quality- especially when coupled with how good they think they are.  As a profession, we really need a group or organization to design and offer a certification process for interviewers.  Any takers?  Training can easily address such deficiencies as interviewer bias, lack of skill, and proper preparation.

Let’s not forget the endgame of interviewing:  hiring the right person.