Interview Skills Workshop - Dr. Willis - For Slideshare.ppt

Interview Skills Workshop
Researched/Facilitated
Dr. Linsey C. Willis, SPHR
L.J. CRAIG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COPYRIGHT, L.J. CRAIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. (2019) 1

Learning Objectives
Learn about:
Competency/Skill based selection
Job relatedness
The legal basis of interviewing
 Pertinent federal laws and some
court cases and the interview
process
Some recent research about the
interview process
Why behavior?
The “Deadly Rater Errors”
Implicit Bias and Non-verbal
behavior
Jupiter Medical Center Peer
Interview Process
Conducting a structured
interview to include:
Judgments, errors and note
taking
Observations v. Conclusions
How to observe, document and
evaluate candidate responses
Consensus rating; Inter-rater
reliability

Schedule
8:15: Registration and coffee
8:45: Workshop commences.
Cover background material up to the Deadly Rater Errors
10:45: Working coffee break
12:00-1:00: Lunch
1:00-4:00: Finish training on how interviews will be conducted.
Two – three interviews will be conducted.
Raters will observe, document and evaluate interviewee’s
responses.
Discussion and feedback.

Competency/Skill Based
Selection
COPYRIGHT, L.J. CRAIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. (2019)
4

+ 1
Standard
Deviation
60 %
Baseline Assessment Centers
% Superior Performance
Using Assessment Center
Methodology
HOW CAREFUL
SELECTION
ADDS VALUE
Mediocre
Performance

The Validity of Employment
Interviews
This meta-analytic review presents
findings of a project investigating
validity of the employment interview.
Analyses based on 245 coefficients
derived from 86,311 individuals.
Results show that interview validity
depends on;
 content of interview (situational,
job related, or psychological),
 how interview is conducted
(structured vs. unstructured;
board vs. individual),
 nature of criterion (job
performance, training
performance, and tenure;
research or administrative
ratings).
Situational interviews had higher
validity than did job-related
interviews, which, in turn, had higher
validity than did psychologically based
interviews.
Structured interviews were found to
have higher validity than unstructured
interviews.
(McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt &
Maurer, 1994)

Job Relatedness
Problem areas are discriminatory questions about
applicant's gender, race, age, national origin, religion, or
other non-job-related basis.
Prohibited interview questions are:
asking women applicants different questions than male
applicants
asking different questions of married female applicants than
single female applicants
Asking applicants about their ethnic background, age, disability
status, medical conditions, other
7

Legal Overview
Job-Relatedness:
Issue of job-related
necessity for asking the
question.
Intent behind question
critical.
 How information used is of
concern.
EEOC would examine to
determine if any
discrimination has occurred.
Ask only job related
questions.
Is information needed to
judge applicant's
qualifications, level of skills
and overall competence for
job in question?

RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION
OR BELIEFS
Questions about an
applicant's religious
affiliation or beliefs (unless
the religion is a bona fide
occupational qualification
(BFOQ), generally viewed as
non job-related and
problematic under federal
law.
Avoid questions about an
applicant's religious
affiliation, such as place of
worship, days of worship,
and religious holidays and do
not ask for references from
religious leaders, e.g.,
minister, rabbi, priest, imam,
or pastor.

ETHNICITY, RACE AND
NATIONAL ORIGIN

Interviewers’ Remarks Challenged
in Reverse Discrimination Case
4/18/08 2:21 PM
5th Circuit: By Steve Nakashima
In a reverse discrimination case, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined
that decision to hire a black female applicant instead of a white male applicant
arguably may have been unlawfully based on desire to have a more diverse
management team.
John Reilly had worked for TXU Corp (1989-2004) in various capacities. Worked
himself up from part-time cashier to a management position in procurement
department.
Legitimate restructuring of TXU’s procurement department began in 1999, and
in 2002 open position of Strategic Sourcing Manager was announced internally
and externally.
11

Case (cont’d)
After each interview, each panel member gave applicant a score.
Dennis considered input of other panel members, but ultimate decision
was hers.
Plaintiff’s average score of 39.875 was highest of all applicants, and
Dennis gave plaintiff a 38.
Ayanna Clunis was external applicant interviewed by panel. Dennis
gave Clunis a score of 36 following her interview.
Nevertheless, Clunis was selected for position of Strategic Sourcing
Manager and Reilly was promoted to Strategic Sourcing Representative
Senior.
Reilly sued, contending he had been passed over for position because
of his race.
12

Case (cont’d)
All top applicants interviewed with
a 7 member panel that included
other managers within
procurement department as well as
head of department, Debbie
Dennis, VP of procurement.
Trial court granted summary
judgment to TXU.
5th Circuit agreed that Reilly had
not presented direct evidence of
discrimination, but court ruled that
there was sufficient circumstantial
evidence that race was a
motivating factor in choosing
Clunis over Reilly.
Primary evidence - comments by a
member of interview panel to Reilly
that although his interview went
well, panel member thought that
Dennis “had a diversity issue.”
5th Circuit ruled that there was
sufficient evidence that race may
have been a motivating factor such
that summary judgment for TXU
was not appropriate.
Reilly v. TXU Corp.,
5th Cir., No. 06-11119 (March 17,
2008) (unpublished).

Cultural Barriers
Research conducted by Manroop, Boekhorst and Harrision
(2013) showed that cultural differences between interviewers
and interviewees can lead to misunderstandings and,
subsequently, poor applicant ratings.
Onus is on interviewees to overcome cultural barriers in order to
become more competitive with those born in host country.
Organizations have an equally important responsibility to
provide cross-cultural training to their interviewers regarding how
to appropriately manage interactions with foreign-born job
candidates.

ADEA Court Case
In Chapman v. AI Transport,
the plaintiff, John Chapman,
applied for open position in
company as "Casualty Claims
Manager".
Chapman, 61 years old at
time.
 Denied job and subsequently
filed lawsuit under the Age
Discrimination in Employment
Act.
One explanation offered by AI
Transport for rejecting Chapman
was his poor interview
performance.
One official who interviewed
Chapman stated that he did not
"get a real feeling of confidence"
from him.
That official thought another
candidate (who was younger)
"made a better presentation of
himself and his skills".

ADEA Court Case
Other official who interviewed
Chapman stated:
 he was not very concise
with answers,
 did not take aggressive
approach in asking
questions about position,
 and did not provide
"sharp" answers.
Court made clear that while
subjective reasons can justify
adverse employment decisions,
employer must articulate clear
and reasonably specific
factual basis upon which it
based its decision.
In other words, employer
must provide objective
evidence supporting its
subjective assessment of the
candidate.

17
ADEA Court Case
Court offered as an example of an insufficient
explanation "poor appearance".
A sufficient explanation would be:
"his hair was uncombed and he had dandruff all over
his shoulders",
or "he came to the interview wearing short pants and
a T-shirt".

Another ADEA
Court Case
Other court decisions provide
additional guidance re: can
subjective criteria justify hiring
and promotion decisions?
In Aka vs. Washington
Hospital Center, plaintiff
claimed Washington Hospital
Center's decision not to hire him
for pharmacy technician job
violated ADEA and the ADA.
Aka had worked at hospital for 19
years.
Had earned two degrees while on
job.
 After bypass surgery, unable to
perform job and applied for other
positions.
Person selected for Pharmacy
Technician job had worked at
hospital for less than 1 year as
laundry-folder.

Another ADEA
Court Case
Hospital offered mixture of objective and subjective
explanations for hiring decision.
Objective explanations that selectee had greater
experience in pharmacy services and knowledge of
medical terminology found not to be true.
Thus, case rested on whether its subjective
explanation - plaintiffs lack of enthusiasm was
legitimate.
19

DISABILITIES AND THE ADA
Places restrictions on employers
when it comes to asking job
applicants to answer medical
questions, take a medical exam, or
identify a disability.
An employer may not:
ask a job applicant, for example, if
he or she has a disability (or about
the nature of an obvious disability).
ask a job applicant to answer
medical questions or take a medical
exam before making a job offer.
The law allows an employer to
condition a job offer on the
applicant answering certain medical
questions or successfully passing a
medical exam, but only if all new
employees in the same job have to
answer the questions or take the
exam.

HEIGHT AND WEIGHT
REQUIREMENTS
Height and weight requirements (e.g., previously police and airline
stewards) tend to disproportionately limit the employment
opportunities of some protected groups.
A number of states and localities have laws specifically prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of height and weight unless based on actual
job requirements.
Therefore, unless job-related, inquiries about height and weight should
be avoided.

GENDER
provisions for child care,
abortions, birth control,
ability to reproduce,
and name or address of
spouse problematic under
Title VII.
expressing or implying
limitations or special
treatment because of sex
(unless BFOQ) or any inquiry
made of members of one
sex and not other,
troublesome.
Questions about an:
applicant's sex,
marital status,
pregnancy,
medical history of
pregnancy,
future child bearing plans,
number and/or ages of
children or dependents,

MARITAL STATUS
The following pre-employment inquiries may be regarded as
evidence of intent to discriminate:
 Whether applicant is pregnant.
 Number and age of children or future child bearing plans.
 Child care arrangements.
 Employment status of spouse.
 Name of spouse.

PRESS RELEASE
8-30-11 Crime Scene Cleaners Sued For Sex
Bias
OAKLAND, Calif. — Oakland-based Crime
Scene Cleaners, a trauma scene cleaning
company specializing in homicide, suicide
and accidental death scene cleanup
operations, violated federal law by refusing
to hire a qualified female applicant
because of her gender
Although clearly qualified for
position, Nunez was asked series of
questions during job interview that
indicated she was not viewed as an
appropriate candidate for job because she
is female, said EEOC.
Nunez was not hired, and company hired a
man for position instead.
EEOC’s lawsuit also charges company with
failure to keep records as required by law,
so that equal opportunity hiring records
can be checked.
“At the interview, I was hoping to talk
about my educational background in
chemistry and my experience with crime
scenes from volunteering with the
Richmond police department, but all the
interviewer wanted to talk about was if I
was married, if I had a jealous husband,
and if I could work with all men,” said
Nunez. “I expected questions about my
qualifications for the job, not about my
personal life.”
Gender Discrimination Case

Gender Discrimination Case
Discrimination based on gender violates Title VII of Civil Rights Act of
1964.
Pre-litigation settlement through conciliation failed.
Then EEOC filed lawsuit (EEOC v. Crime Scene Cleaners, Inc.) in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, and sought monetary damages
on behalf of Nunez, training on anti-discrimination laws, posting of anti-
discrimination notices at the work site, and other steps to prevent future
discrimination.
EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo
said, “Stereotyping jobs as ‘women’s work’ or ‘men’s work’ is illegal and
simply wrong in a modern workplace. Employers must look at an
applicant’s qualifications, not gender.”
EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado added, “Failing to
keep records will not deter the EEOC from investigating discrimination.

MILITARY RECORD, LANGUAGE,
WORK EXPERIENCE
Unacceptable Questions
What type of discharge did you
receive?
What is your native language?
Inquiry into use of how applicant
acquired ability to read, write or
speak a foreign language.
Acceptable Questions
What type of education, training,
work experience
Did you receive while in the
military?
Inquiry into language applicant
speaks and writes
fluently (If the job requires
additional languages).

GINA
Title II of the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA),
prohibits employment discrimination
based on genetic information about an
applicant, employee, or former
employee.

CREDIT RECORD / FINANCIAL
"Financial information" includes current or past assets, liabilities, or
credit rating, bankruptcy or garnishment, refusal or cancellation of
bonding, car ownership, rental or ownership of a house, length of
residence at an address, charge accounts, furniture ownership, or bank
accounts.
Federal law does not prevent employers from asking about financial
information.
Federal EEO laws do prohibit employers from illegally discriminating
when using financial information to make employment decisions.
Employers also must follow Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which is
not enforced by EEOC.
Enforced by U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Law requires employers to
tell you in writing if they will do a background check.

ARREST AND
CONVICTION RECORDS
Arrest & Conviction Records: Questions related to the latter
improper but questions about convictions okay.
EEOC and many states prohibit use of arrest records for
employment decisions – due to bias against protected classes;
e.g., blacks arrested more often than whites.
EEOC issued revised policy statement covering use of
conviction records by employers in making employment
decisions.
29

Employer must establish business necessity for
use of applicant’s conviction record in employment
decision (Gregory v. Litton Industries, 472 F.2d 631 (9th Cir., 1972).
Must consider 3 factors to justify use of conviction
record:
1) Nature and gravity of offense for which convicted;
2) Amount of time elapsed since applicant’s conviction and or completion of
sentence; and
3) Nature of job in question as relates to nature of offense committed
(Nail, & Scharinger, 2001).
30
ARREST AND
CONVICTION RECORDS

Behavior predicts behavior.
Observable factual performance (behavior) is a more accurate
indicator of performance than is conjecture or subjective
conclusions.
Conjecture or subjective conclusions are often based on
inadequate facts.
Behavior is anything a person,
 Says or does
 Behavior is,
 Factual
 Specific
Everyone should agree what happened even if they do not agree
on what it means.
Why Behavior?

Basis and Importance
of Behavior
Use of behavior rests upon the doctrine of behaviorism, which holds
that “observed behavior is the only valid data (of psychology).”
The “Behavioral Consistency Model” holds that:
Behavior predicts behavior.
Behavior is a specific response to a stimulation.
One can either observe the response (behavior) or infer the behavior
from some other observed response.
Behavior gives observer a reasonably good idea of exactly what
transpired.
Behavior is nothing more than an organism’s response to stimulation.

Why Behavior?
Observable factual performance
(behavior) is a more accurate
indicator of performance than
conjecture or subjective
conclusions.
Conjecture or subjective
conclusions are often based on
inadequate facts.
By comparing the differences in
responses to terms such as
“often,” “frequent,” and so on
have imprecise meanings.
Behavior is not a judgment or
inference.
It is a description of what
transpired that serves as the
basis for formulating or passing a
judgment or inference.
Behavior is anything a person
says or does.
Anything a person doesn’t say
or do in expected response to
stimulation.

Describing Behavior and
Your Role
Record exactly what was done
or said without using adjectives
such as “good,” “bad,”
“sufficiently,” “favorably,” etc.
Avoid such terms as
“leadership,” “helpful,” etc.
Instead, specifically state how
the person was the leader or
how he was helpful, or what he
did that made him a good
listener or speaker.
Your role is not to tell the other
assessors how well you think
the participant performed.
 Your role is to tell them what
the participant said or did, and
the context in which the
behavior occurred.
Each assessor will make
his/her own judgment on how
well or poorly the participant
performed, based upon your
recorded behavior.

Will be evaluated on same
information.
Relevant topic areas will
have been covered.
Higher agreement among
interviewers because they
are considering same
information at same time.
Use of sample response
standards provides
framework which enables
interviewers to assess
responses to each
question in light of
position requirements.
35
Describing Behavior and
Your Role

Other Examples
Jones always has good interpersonal relations with his peers.
 This is not a behavior. There is nothing to indicate what Jones does or has done to
explain why he has good interpersonal relations.
 This constitutes a judgment on somebody’s part, but we don’t know the basis for that
judgment.
 Jones made good decisions in the in-basket.
 This is not a behavior.
 We have, again, someone’s judgment about Jones’ ability to make good decisions,
without any supporting evidence.
In response to a suggestion by another group member, Jones asked, “Is
this really going to be that effective?”
 This is a behavior.
 We know what Jones did (or said) and under what circumstances.
 It might help to know what the other suggestion was, but at least there is no doubt about
what transpired and under what circumstances.

Other Examples
Jones was absent for 26 days this year.
 This is a behavior.
 We have a good idea of what happened and when it
happened.
 We may argue over the meaning of the behavior, and it
might be helpful to know more about the circumstances
surrounding the absences in order to use the behavior
in making a judgment.
 But we do have a behavior that clearly states what has
happened.

The Deadly
Rater Errors
First Impression
Central Tendency
Halo/Horn Effect
Preconceived
roles
Stereotyping

The Deadly
Rater Errors
Rater Bias
Leniency Effect
Contrast Effect
Similar to Me
Negative or Positive
Skew

Important Study
Findings – Implicit Bias
Implicit bias also contaminates
selection interviews.
When white college students
watch recorded excerpts of
interviews of black and white
candidates with similarly
ambiguous credentials for a job,
they are more likely to choose the
white candidate.
Interviewers' unconscious bias
also affects interviews indirectly by
making interactions awkward and
leading the interviewee to
discriminate in resume review and
selection interviews leads to other.

Requirements for
Stereotyping
McGarty (2002) posits that there are three requirements for
stereotyping:
application of a group label,
perceived similarities among members of the group and,,
an accumulation of knowledge about the group.
Before an interviewer can express any manifestations of stereotype-
driven discrimination, s/he must first form stereotypes through
personal interactions
and s/he must build personal experience with the context to fully
understand the cues that imply job gender differences.

Non-Verbal
Behavior Study
Hollandsworth et al. (1979)
collected information from
73 different recruiters
involved in 338 on campus
interviews.
Found seven independent
variables that influenced
whether interviewers stated
that they would hire
applicant, regardless of
position being considered.
Variables are:
appropriateness of verbal
content,
fluency of speech,
composure,
body posture,
eye contact,
voice level,
and personal appearance

LUNCH
12:00 – 1:00 PM

Mock Panel
Interviews
3-4 volunteers from
audience will be official
raters on practice panel.
Everyone else will rate on
their own.
Need three volunteers to
be candidates.
Conduct interviews and
ask all candidates same 6
questions.
Individually rate each
candidate’s responses and
reach consensus.
We will discuss process,
read some notes and
share scores.
We will give each of
them specific feedback.

Content Dimensions of This
Structured Interview Process
Base questions on a job
analysis.
Ask the same questions of
each applicant.
Limit prompting, follow-up,
and elaboration on
questions.
Use better types of
questions (e.g., scenario and
behaviorally based).
Use longer interviews or
larger number of questions.
Control ancillary
information.
Not allow questions from
applicant until after the
interview.

Evaluation Dimensions of This
Structured Interview Process
Rate each answer or using multiple scales.
 Use anchored rating scales.
Take notes (Observation v. Conclusion exercise).
Use multiple interviewers.
Use the same interviewer(s) across all applicants.
Not discuss applicants/answers between interviews.
Use statistical, rather than clinical, prediction.

Instructions for Conducting a
Structured Interview
Five Stages
Preparation
Conducting the interview
Documentation
Evaluation
Interviewers' consensus rating
47

Judgments, Errors and
Note Taking
Minimizing errors also rest with
you, the interviewer.
Reserve all judgments until end
of interview.
Difficult to listen well and reach
conclusions at same time.
Remember, your job is to
listen and learn.
Take brief notes in space
provided during interview.
Your rating should be
substantiated by combination
of notes and checkmarks.
48

Observations v. Conclusions
Led the group to accomplish its
goal, e.g., "We have a lot to
complete and are running short on
time. I suggest we summarize as
soon as possible.”
 When the arguments became
heated, he broke down under
pressure.
Her in-basket items were very
disorganized.
 Suggested that they not invest all
of their money during the initial
trial period.
Demonstrated very poor people
skills when working with the
group.
 Decided to immediately call for
additional manpower for
assistance.
Reacted to Bill's argument by
trying to change the subject to a
neutral topic; i.e., department
budget cuts.
 Prepared a well-written memo
with correct spelling and syntax as
well as organization of content.
 Recommended that both
employees be sent to a
supervisory training course.

Observations v. Conclusions
Facilitated the meeting by calling on all group
members to contribute their particular expertise.
 Began the interview by silently handing Fred the
notice of Tom's promotion.
 List of recommendations to be used in the future;
e.g., "We need to reduce the size of this operating
department and will be able to if we eliminate
some of the duplication".
 He shuffled papers and tapped his pencil.

Some Tips
Maintain awareness of your own non-verbal
behavior.
Attempt to maintain a friendly atmosphere so
applicant will not be overly anxious or intimidated.
Remember that one of objectives is to make
candidate feel that interview was a fair opportunity
to compete.
51

More Tips
Do not discuss candidate
with other interviewers until
after you have rated that
person.
Nor should you listen to
comments from the other
raters.
Compare people after
rating, not before; this will
reduce Contrast effect.
Different ratings may not be
related.
For example, a candidate may
possess outstanding
interpersonal skills but be
unable to think through a
problem to reach a logical
conclusion about some
situation.
52

Consensus Ratings
Each Assessor reads over
notes, checks off behaviors
and circles 1,2,3,4 or 5.
Dr. Willis will administer the
process.
You will record final scores
and calculate candidates'
final ratings
Independently determine
each rating; no discussion
with other assessors.
Each team reaches
consensus within one (1)
point, unless consensus
cannot be reached.

Consensus Ratings (cont’d)
Inter-rater reliability is an important issue.
Rater, or interviewer, bias results in judgment errors or,
more precisely, errors in predicting a candidate's job
performance.
Multiple interviewers counteracts many of effects of rater
bias.
But important to be aware of potential bias to minimize
judgment errors in predicting future job performance.

References
HAUSMAN, D. How Congress Could Reduce Job Discrimination by Promoting Anonymous
Hiring. Stanford Law Review, [s. l.], v. 64, n. 5, p. 1343–1369, 2012.
<http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=
77709765&site=ehost-live>.
HESS, K. P. Investigation of nonverbal discrimination against women in simulated initial job
interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, [s. l.], v. 43, n. 3, p. 544–555, 2013.
<http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=
86171245&site=ehost-live>.
Levashina J, Hartwell CJ, Morgeson FP, Campion MA. The Structured Employment Interview: Narrative
and Quantitative Review of the Research Literature. Personnel Psychology. 2014;67(1):241-293.
doi:10.1111/peps.12052.
MANROOP, L.; BOEKHORST, J. A.; HARRISON, J. A. The influence of cross-cultural differences on job
interview selection decisions. International Journal of Human Resource Management, [s. l.], v. 24, n.
18, p. 3512–3533, 2013.
<http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,c
ookie,url,uid&db=buh&AN=89552125&site=eds-live&scope=site>.

References
MCDANIEL; WHETZEL; SCHMIDT ; MAURER S. D. ; (1) Univ. Akron, dep. psychology, Akron OH 44325-4301, ETATS-UNIS.
Journal of applied psychology ISSN 0021-9010. 1994, vol. 79, no4, pp. 599-616 (2 p.1/4)
https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/financial_information.cfm
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_religious.cfm
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_gender.cfm
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_medical.cfm
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-30-11d.cfm
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_height_weight.cfm
https://www.slideshare.net/FlorenceLewis01/illegal-interview-questions?qid=6eb9ce66-8cf3-4c2c-bccb-
70bd17a8f5a2&v=&b=&from_search=6
https://www.slideshare.net/workingsolutions/10-questions-you-should-never-ask-in-an-interview?qid=08afbd38-26e5-
4332-a8df-0311690a2a63&v=&b=&from_search=10
https://www.slideshare.net/vilord/9-common-interview-questions-that-are-actually-illegal?next_slideshow=1

Interview Skills Workshop - Dr. Willis - For Slideshare.ppt

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Interview Skills Workshop - Dr. Willis - For Slideshare.ppt

Similar to Interview Skills Workshop - Dr. Willis - For Slideshare.ppt (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (10)

Interview Skills Workshop - Dr. Willis - For Slideshare.ppt