This is the deck I used to present to a great group of HR professionals from the Valley Human Resources Association in Geneva, IL!

1. HR’s Powerful
Influence
EMPLOYEE SELECTION:
HOW TO TALK YOUR HIRING MANAGER OUT OF DISMISSING
A CANDIDATE FOR HAVING MUSTARD ON HIS TIE

2. Setting
Expectations
Responding
to Objections
Guiding Post-
Interview
Analysis
OVERVIEW

3. SETTING EXPECTATIONS

4.  Early 1900s: “Studies…did not appear to agree in their
results.” (Schmidt & Hunter 264)
 1970s: “Most of the differences across studies were due
to…the use of small samples in the studies.”
 1970s-1980s: “Studies based on meta-analysis provided
more accurate estimates.”
 1980s-1990s: “________ interviews had mean validity
coefficients twice those of _________ interviews.” (Wiesner &
Cronshaw)
HISTORY OF ACADEMIC STUDY ON
ASSESSMENT TESTS FOR EMPLOYMENT

5.  “The reduction in procedural variability across applicants.”
 Reduction in interviewer discretion
 Standardization of:
 Interviewer questions
 Response scoring
STRUCTURE DEFINITION
Huffcutt & Arthur p 186

6. 1. Validity: Job analysis, core competencies, targeted
questions.
2. Reliability: Ask the same questions of each candidate.
3. Create rater agreement (BARS, calibration).
EEOC Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures.
HSI OVERVIEW

7. STRUCTURE DEFINITION
Huffcutt & Arthur p 187

8.  “Evidence for criterion-related validity typically consists of a
demonstration of a relationship…between the results of a
selection procedure (predictor) and one or more measures of
work-relevant behavior or work outcomes (criteria).”
 Is there a correlation between interview “scores” and on the
job performance “scores?”
CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITY IN
SELECTION TESTING
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Inc. p 13

9.  Is there really any evidence to support using a structured
approach?
MAKING THE CASE FOR THE (H)SI

10.  Conduct your own validation study internally
 Correlation between criterion and predictors
 Same process as validating a pre-employment test (e.g.
cognitive abilities test)
MAKING THE CASE (CONTINUED)

11. RESPONDING TO
OBJECTIONS

12.  One study found just 29% of large organizations use
structured interviews.
 That same study found that only 24% of organizations
performed validation studies.
 “The dominant class of explanations for not using structured,
standardized interviews was beliefs concerning the usefulness
of the staffing practice.”
Terpstra & Rozell p 483, 487
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT…

13.  What reasons have hiring managers given to support their
reticence to using a structured interviews?
WHAT OBJECTIONS HAVE YOU HEARD?

14.  Structured interviews aren’t effective
 Structure restricts HM satisfaction (sterile, impersonal, don’t
allow for connections)
 Structure restricts interviewer discretion and flexibility
(boring, beneath skillset of interviewer)
 Formality of structure is socially unpleasant
Lievens & De Paepe
HM OBJECTIONS FROM STUDIES

15.  Structure requires preparation
 Structure restricts an “experienced” HM from using their
expertise
 Complex jobs (e.g. Sales Mgr) aren’t conducive to structure
HM RESISTANCE (CONTINUED)

16. GUIDING THE
POST-INTERVIEW
ANALYSIS DISCUSSION

17.  Complete the structured guide in its entirety before discussion
begins (including scoring)
 Then frame discussion by talking through the interview guide
sections
 Start with scores, and ask HMs to support their answers
YOU SET THE AGENDA

18.  Start with the score
 Weight the predictors in the event of a tie
 Take legitimate “X-Factors” into consideration (carefully)
 Interviewing is one part of the overall assessment picture
COMPARISONS

19.  “Fit”
 Halo/Horns
 Common network/connection
 Common school, club, or other affiliation (e.g. sports)
 Dress/appearance
 Buzzwords
 Pet peeves
 Wrong answer (to one question)
 HM memory limitations
 Personality conflict
MUSTARD

20.  Three Brave Volunteers
THREE CANDIDATE EXERCISE

21. REFERENCES
 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of
Labor, Department of Justice. (1978). Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures. Federal Register. 43. 38290-38315.
 Huffcutt, Allen I., & Arthur, Jr., Winfred. “Hunter and Hunter (1984) Revisited: Interview
Validity for Entry -Level Jobs.” Journal of Applied Psychology. 1994. V79 N2.
 Lievens, Filip & De Paepe, Anneleen. “An empirical investigation of interviewer -related
factors that discourage the use of high structure interviews.” Journal of Organizational
Behavior. V25. 2004.
 Murphy, Joseph P., et. al. Practical Rigor: Evidence-Based Management to Improve Hiring
in High Population Jobs. Creelman Research, Inc. 2013.
 Pulakos, Elaine. “Selection Assessment Methods.” SHRM Foundation’s Effective
Practice Guidelines. Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). 2005.
 Schmidt, Frank L., & Hunter, John E. “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in
Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research
Findings.” Psychological Bulletin. 1998. V 124 N2.
 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. Principles for the Validation
and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures. Fourth Edition. 2003.
 Terpstra, David E. and Rozell, Elizabeth J. “Why Some Potentially Effective Staffing
Practices are Seldom Used.” Public Personnel Management. V26 N4. Winter 1997.
 Wiesner, Willi H., & Cronshaw, Steven F. “A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of
interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview.”
Journal of Occupational Psychology. 1988. V61.